You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #12: Has anyone dug out Gladney's full background yet? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
12. Has anyone dug out Gladney's full background yet?
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 01:18 AM by starroute
Using Google's timeline option provides links to a few older stories -- but the links themselves appear to be pay-only. However, the snippets Google provides are intriguing.

One snippet, apparently from four years ago, is headlined "FROM THE POLICE ACADEMY TO A LESS-THAN-PERFECT WORLD" and reads "So when Kenneth Gladney, a 34-year-old recruit who had served in the US Army, finished his final qualification run three seconds behind the qualifying time of 12 minutes, 38 seconds, it appeared as if another cadet was washing out for failure to run fast enough."

Another reads, "Mar 17, 2006 - LOUIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, PO KENNETH GLADNEY, PO CLAUDE CROCKER AND METRO DUTY SERGEANT, DEFENDANTS. ... The remaining claim of plaintiff's complaint is that defendant St. Louis police officer Kenneth Gladney violated plaintiff's constitutional rights when on February 28, ... "

So it seems like Gladney got into the police despite not being able to run fast enough. But does anyone know what this claim of violating somebody constitutional rights was about?


On edit: I found the court case. It looks like the plaintiff lost because his claims of chronic neck pain, headaches, and difficulty sleeping after Gladney hit him were felt by the jury not to be credible. But nobody seems to be denying the Gladney did hit the guy hard enough to knock him out of his chair. Odd that Gladney is now putting himself in the same situation.


http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/...

July 14, 2006

TERRY LYNN KIMBALL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, P.O. KENNETH GLADNEY, P.O. CLAUDE CROCKER AND METRO DUTY SERGEANT, DEFENDANTS.

Remaining for trial in this action is plaintiff Terry Lynn Kimball's claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Police Officer Kenneth Gladney, alleging that on February 28, 2002, in a booking area within the police department's Central Patrol Division, Officer Gladney struck plaintiff, knocking him out of his chair. . . .

Plaintiff has filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of his prior misdemeanor convictions , deriving from two incidents in which plaintiff was convicted of misdemeanor assault or battery on police officers, one occurring before and one occurring after the incident at issue in this case. . . .

Plaintiff alleges, as set forth in his trial brief, that as a result of defendant Gladney's use of force, plaintiff continues four years later to suffer from chronic headaches, neck pain, limited neck mobility, difficulty sleeping and concentrating, and sensitivity to loud noises and bright lights. Plaintiff testified similarly in his deposition. Defendant argues that the evidence of plaintiff's employment shows that he worked full-time jobs involving stressful manual labor, that he regularly worked overtime, that his alleged symptoms did not cause plaintiff to miss work or interfere with his job duties, and that defendant quit his job at P.D. George because he was not getting as much overtime as he wanted.


http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/...

Attorney Michael Wetmore was appointed on July 5, 2005 to represent plaintiff Terry Lynn Kimball in this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging an unconstitutional use of force by defendant Gladney, a St. Louis police officer. After the remaining claim was tried to a jury and judgment entered against plaintiff in November 2006, appointed counsel has timely submitted a request for reimbursement of expenses incurred in the representation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC