On Aug. 6, 2016, plaintiff James Colson, a man in his 30s, was standing next to a double-parked car on 70th Street, in southern Los Angeles, talking to a friend who was sitting on the hood of the car when they were approached by two police officers, including Officer Vasquez, a gang officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. A scuffle broke out between Colson’s friend and Vasquez’s partner. Vasquez attempted to move Colson away from the scene so that Vasquez could assist his partner. Colson did not leave, and he was arrested. During the arrest, Vasquez grabbed Colson’s wrist and executed a takedown maneuver. Colson was arrested for resisting arrest and interfering with a police investigation. He spent two days in jail but was not charged. Colson’s friend was charged following the incident and later took a plea deal. Colson sued Vasquez and Vasquez’s employer, the city of Los Angeles. Colson alleged that Vasquez falsely arrested him and used excessive force and that the city was liable for Vasquez’s actions. While Colson admitted that he did not comply with Vasquez’s request to leave the scene, he maintained that once Vasquez tried to arrest him, he did not resist. Colson’s counsel presented cell phone video, which was taken by a bystander, and claimed the video proved Colson was not resisting arrest. Colson claimed that Vasquez used the takedown move and slammed him against a nearby car while handcuffing him. Colson’s counsel contended that Vasquez and his partner had no reason to confront Colson or his friend and that the officers should have just issued a traffic citation and left the scene. Defense counsel maintained that Vasquez’s actions were justified and in accordance with his training. According to the defense, Colson was arrested because he refused to move a safe distance away from the fight, refused officer commands and fought with Vasquez. Counsel contended that Vasquez gave Colson multiple verbal orders to move away from the scene and that Vasquez attempted to guide Colson to the side of the street, away from the fight between Colson’s friend and the other officer. Defense counsel contended that Colson pushed Vasquez away and engaged in a struggle with the officer that lasted about 45 seconds. Counsel also contended that Vasquez tried to put Colson’s hands behind his back, but that Colson kept breaking out of the officer’s hold, so Vasquez executed a takedown. In addition, counsel denied Vasquez slammed Colson against a car, claiming that Colson was simply pushed up against the vehicle during the arrest. The defense’s police-practices expert opined that Vasquez’s actions were objectively reasonable and that since Colson did not listen to the verbal commands or allow himself be arrested while standing up, the takedown was justified. Defense counsel further argued that the same cell phone video used by plaintiff’s counsel actually showed Colson resisting arrest. Counsel argued that, in the video, Colson sounded agitated and combative, not compliant, when talking to the officers. Counsel also challenged Colson’s claim that he was a good guy that was mistreated by the police. Defense counsel specifically told the jury about Colson’s three prior felony convictions, including one for armed robbery and one for spousal abuse., Colson requested medical treatment, so he was placed in an ambulance and transported to Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center, in Los Angeles. He was treated for a scrape on one of his knees, and he received pain medication. Officers then took him to jail that same day. Colson had no further medical treatment, and he did not claim a permanent injury to the knee. However, he alleged that the incident caused him to suffer emotional distress and humiliation. As a result, he had one session with a counselor. Colson claimed that it was particularly humiliating when he had to explain to his young children what had happened to him. Colson sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel noted that Colson had not submitted any medical records or testimony to support his claims. Counsel also noted that there were no witnesses or family members who testified about how the incident affected Colson emotionally. Defense counsel also disputed Colson’s claim that it was hard for him to tell his children about the arrest. Counsel noted that Colson’s kids were just 1 and 2 years old at the time, and likely didn’t understand what had happened to their father.