Cop Pulls Over the Wrong Man — CAUGHT Lying AGAIN in Court! ($450K Lawsuit)
Preview: When EUCLID, Ohio police officer Michael Amiot took the stand to defend a violent 2017 traffic stop, he leaned heavily on clinical jargon like “balance displacement.” Frame by frame, prosecutors exposed a compliant citizen, an uncalled radio check, and a fictional threat—culminating in a guilty verdict and a damning portrait of badged impunity.
The Anatomy of a Manufactured Threat
On an August morning in 2017, Richard Hubard stopped for a red light in Euclid, Ohio. He handed over identification, answered every question, and obeyed orders to step out of the vehicle. Within seconds, a bystander captured Hubard being slammed onto the concrete. Cleared of initial “resisting arrest” charges, Hubard faced a system that previously tried to shield Amiot. When the officer took the witness stand, he gambled that training manual semantics would override pixel-level reality.
Cross-Examination Breakdown
-
The Missed Radio Check: Amiot admitted he held Hubard’s ID and stood feet from a radio dispatcher capable of verifying warrants, license status, or danger in seconds. Instead of running a routine check, he pocketed the ID and escalated.
-
Redefining Compliance: Under cross-examination, Amiot conceded step-by-step that Hubard complied with key commands, including exiting the vehicle.
-
Semantics vs. Physics: Amiot described the takedown as “balance displacement” and a standard “shoulder-to-ear technique.” Video playback showed rapid-fire commands to turn while the victim’s feet were planted squarely facing the officer—making immediate physical rotation a spatial necessity rather than a resistive assault.
-
The Contradiction Trap: When pressed on whether a driver past a stop bar has a duty/right to clear an intersection, Amiot diverged from departmental captain testimony, revealing a rigid posture designed to justify the stop post-hoc.
The Accountability Deficit
The trial laid bare a recurring structural hazard: police accountability often requires public video transparency just to force basic arithmetic onto the record. Amiot treated a compliant motorist like an active ambush waiting to happen, weaponizing ambiguous body-position cues to retroactively manufacture legal thresholds for force.
When a jury returns a guilty verdict on foundational assault counts after watching an officer narrate a fictional struggle, it signals a lower tolerance for “training manual” fiction when video proves quiet compliance. For Hubard, the courtroom vindication underscores a costly truth: accountability shouldn’t require national viral footage and years of litigation to unseat a bad narrative.
