Wyoming Cop Assaulted a Disabled 8-Year-Old, Then Deleted the Body Camera Footage, Lawsuit Claims
A new lawsuit alleges that Deputy Benjamin Jacquot, a school resource officer, slammed an 8-year-old's face into a conference room floor, causing bruises and lacerations.

Last spring, a disabled Wyoming 8-year-old was assaulted by a school resource officer, who pinned the boy facedown on the floor of a school conference room seemingly unprovoked. According to a lawsuit filed by the boy's family last week, after the incident, the resource officer deleted body camera footage showing the most egregious parts of the attack and even accessed the child's private school records without his parents' or school administrators' knowledge.
Last February, an 8-year-old with a "diagnosed neurodivergent disability" was sitting in the principal's office of Freedom Elementary School in Cheyenne, Wyoming, during the school's lunch period. The boy, named in the suit as "J.D.," had been doing this for days, in accordance with his Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The complaint states that Principal Chad Delbridge and another faculty member began to quietly speak to J.D. about comments he made to a school cafeteria cashier and whether he should apologize to the cashier. Deputy Benjamin Jacquot, the school resource officer, was standing nearby during the discussion. J.D. was calm during this period.
According to a report later filed by Delbridge, when J.D. stood up to return to class moments later, Jacquot grabbed J.D.'s arm. Delbridge had not asked for Jacquot's assistance in any way.
"J.D. was not a threat to himself or to anyone else. There was no reason at all for Deputy Jacquot to become involved with J.D. during this interaction with Principal Delbridge," the lawsuit notes. "Deputy Jacquot, nevertheless, forcibly wrestled J.D. into a nearby conference room using an armlock where the assault grew violent."
The suit claims that Jacquot repeatedly "slammed" J.D.'s face into the conference room floor, causing numerous lacerations and bruises. The undeleted portion of Jacquot's body camera footage shows the 250-pound Jacquot pinned on top of 68-pound J.D.
"At this point, J.D. is bleeding from wounds on his face, and his smeared blood is visible on the video," the complaint reads. "As shown on the video, Deputy Jacquot is out of control, pinning J.D. by his arms face down to the ground in a prone restraint position and yelling threats at J.D. J.D., meanwhile, is struggling to breathe, and is coughing."
According to the suit, Jacquot screamed at J.D.: "Do you understand me! I should be taking you to jail!"
Eventually, Delbridge called J.D.'s father, Ishmael DeJesus, to pick him up. When he arrived, DeJesus asked Jacquot why he grabbed J.D. even though the boy wasn't causing a disruption.
"Because, as a law enforcement officer, that's my primary function," Jacquot replied.
The complaint further alleges that "immediately after his assault on J.D., Deputy Jacquot went to his vehicle, and, upon information and belief, destroyed evidence by deleting his body cam video which showed the most violent portion of the assault, as well as the footage of his improper intervention into and escalation of this situation."
Later, Jacquot obtained J.D.'s "private and protected" school records and included excerpts of those records in the police report of the incident. An investigation from the school later concluded that Jacquot had "no need to access these records in his work with this situation."
In addition to his physical injuries, the lawsuit says that the incident has led to long-term psychological consequences for J.D., including the need for psychological treatment and J.D.'s transfer to a school for children with emotional disturbances.
In all, the suit argues that Jacquot's use of excessive force violated J.D.'s Fourth Amendment rights and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"Deputy Jacquot failed to employ reasonable interventions with respect to J.D. such as crisis intervention, de-escalation, patience, and waiting, which would have been consistent with J.D's status as a disabled child as well as his IEP," the lawsuit reads. "J.D. suffered and continues to suffer physical pain, emotional pain, psychological injury, trauma, and suffering."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Another reason to get rid of taxpayer funded education institutions. It will eliminate school resource officers from being cheeky.
I inherently distrust any adult who wants to be around other people’s kids.
To be fair I prefer children to adults. Children are unbridled potential and if given the chance can be amazing.
Adults are already screwed up and pretty much all they will be for the rest of their days.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
Sad that you don't think there's any wholesome reason for someone to enjoy kids. I'll just get off your lawn now...
Please explain in detail exactly how in your limited mind getting rid of taxpayer funded schools would stop kindergarten cops from being assholes? Extra points for remembering that they would simply be hired by private schools once your dystopian dream came true.
Please explain how getting rid of state controlled schools would be worse than what we have now.
Special Ed, you so funny.
Taxpayer liability vs. private owner/insurance liability. There would still be criminal acts committed by school personnel, but the taxpayers wouldn't bear the burden.
Don’t hire Law Enforcment Officers.
Instead, employ Officers of the Peace.
Explain the logic of having school resource officers at government schools and why a private school would have to employ similar jack booted thugs.
Privatizing education will hopefully also stop forcing schools to accept "neurodivergent" children who are disruptive to class and whose behavioral issues are too much for regular teachers to handle.
Thanks for pointing out the moral superiority of private schools compared to government schools. School and State should be separated just as Church and State, for the same reasons. People should have a free choice of where their kids are educated.
QI defense in 5... 4... 3...
This wouldn't have happened if we repealed the Jones Act.
Deputy Jacquot starts every bodycam video with "Security Officer's Log, Stardate -300928.06..."
Then his right to keep the video from being shown at trial is just a 1A issue for FIRE to defend.
Good thing that kid wasn’t trespassing.
But he probably deserved it.
Sarc believes that.
Like most of these stories, the part where the school resource officer was arrested, tried, convicted, fired, and sent to prison is left out.
He should really be called a prison guard.
Truth. Schools are prisons ruled by force, not educational facilities ruled by reason.
When God's Own Prohibitionists realize that even an IQ of 75 had sense enough to destroy evidence, the goon will surely receive a medal for girl-bullying or child-beating beyond the call of duty. Certainly the exemplar will get the Lieutenant William Calley Presidential Pardon--provided only that a girl-bullying hero can again be elevated to the position of Reichsfuhrer-In-Chief. Make America Germanic Again!
Needs more Comstock
When he arrived, DeJesus asked Jacquot why he grabbed J.D. even though the boy wasn't causing a disruption.
"Because, as a law enforcement officer, that's my primary function," Jacquot replied.
Hey! An honest cop!
I literally lol’d at his candid response. Yup, this is what cops are trained to do first and foremost: to attack and slam.
Just another example of a low level IQ cop being the hammer to every nail he sees.
So when is the execution scheduled ?
They’d be more likely to execute the kid. Cops are holy.
So, who is going to defend the cop claiming that what I see as a clear initiation of force is actually a reasonable method of disciplining a child.
Maybe the kid pointed a finger gun at him.
Chewed his poptart in the shape of a gun?
Shirley the cop was justifiably worried about the kids retard strength
Liz Cheney?
Nobody. But you have to admit that this is garbage reporting.
"According to a lawsuit" "The suit claims" "According to the suit" "The complaint further alleges"
See, that's a one-sided story that wasn't investigated even slightly. But it fits an overall narrative, so let's breathlessly repeat it as we fall to our fainting couches in oh-so-righteous outrage.
So, who is going to consider the situation a little more objectively, rather than going exclusively off the account of the plaintiff's allegations? A few things to consider:
1) Anybody and everybody can get diagnosed with a "neurodivergent disability" these days. It's like "racism" - the constant misapplication of it has stripped it from any meaningful inherent context. The same goes for an IEP. The only people who set IEPs are parents whose kids are A) retarded; B) precious precious precious snowflakes; C) troublemakers.
2) We can reasonably lean towards C, because this is a kid who obviously can't eat lunch without incident in a social setting, and B) he did something suggestive of requiring apology. And no, we can't equally lean towards A, because were that the case we'd have more to go on than "neurodivergent disability". We'd know if he was like, Down's or Autistic or whatever because they'd articulate that explicitly when framing the complaint.
Now, let's stop here before anyone goes running down the rabbit hole of blaming the victim - and make no mistake, this child IS a victim. If the allegations are to be believed (and supporting evidence certainly helps them), then NEITHER of these two points ultimately matter. The kid is eight. He could have set the principal's desk on fire and jabbed a pen in the other faculty member's leg, and it wouldn't have warranted the level of physical restraint this cop is alleged to have used or what is said to be seen from the bodycam. So, again - we're not defending the cop. We're just trying to build a more complete picture, rather than indulging in pointless reflexive confirmation-biased outrage.
Because there IS potentially a reasonable argument that "J.D." shouldn't have been in that school in the first place. This is actually a real problem with public education. If we're going to take this "neurodivergent" stuff seriously, then we're forced to ask why this kid isn't in the special class with the kids who wear duct-taped mittens and meow like cats. Because it's entirely fair to say that this whole sordid tale was avoidable if not for idiotic school policy that wants to have normal kids and abnormal ones sharing the same setting. Instead, we seem to want it both ways. "DiVErsItY iS oUR sTReNgTh!" so I guess that means we'd better welcome the kid with the diagnosed mental problems like he's no different from anyone else.
Would this have been avoidable with less idiotic school policies that filter out the problem children? Who knows. Nobody's asking, are they.
3) Let's talk about that bodycam. Now, I'm not sure how current Cheyenne is on the tech, but it's my understanding that 5-0 isn't supposed to be able to tamper with bodycam footage. I don't think they're even supposed to be able to access it. So... again, gotta restrain that reflexive outrage and wonder about the story beyond plaintiff's claim for damages.
Doesn't in any way excuse what happened to this kid, I'm just saying - mere allegations in a lawsuit make for bad, shitty, yellow journalism. If you're not going to investigate it from both directions, then it's clickbait for idiots looking for reasons to be outraged.
Be better than that, Reason.
ps. "J.D., meanwhile, is struggling to breathe"
Sure, why not. See if some of that Saint Floyd lightning strikes, right? *eyeroll*
This. The breathless repeating of lawsuit claims is not journalism. The cop may in fact be a real piece of work and this whole thing could be as fucked as they say it is but we'll never know without the complete picture.
Deleted. Bodycam. Footage.
Nuff Said.
According to who?
Video footage is the only way we can get actual neutral observation of an event. Human memories are inherently unreliable. Thus bodycams were invented. The idea is they show how the cop was in the right when there is some question as to the legality of their actions.
Explain why such evidence would be deleted if the cop was in any way in the right.
Is there any example of a cop behaving so badly you won't rush to defend them?
These guys are so pro cop if a cop raped their significant other they'd be proud the cops chose their significant other over all the others they could have raped.
Neurodivergent?
I think the cop is neurodefective.
The non-libertarian solution is to let him spend some time in a hole covered with 6 feet of dirt. Perhaps the libertarian solution is to give him a choice: hole or parachute lessons. And the kid's father gets to prepare the chute.
Just put the cop in gen pop.
Libertarian solution. Home School. Done.
The kid isn't going to have the damage erased by shooting the cop.
The cop needs punishment for his own reasons. He needs to learn we the people don't worship his kind and what he did was wrong. But his union is going to prevent that.
The problem is that most people are so terrified they don’t care about their own liberty anymore.
Truth.
We (as a society) traded liberty for security, and didn't even get the security.
The libertarian solution is to privatize schools and to let schools kick out kids who misbehave.
“Cops are actually committing sexual assaults on duty so I thank God that this is what passes for a controversy in [Austin, Texas - delete] [Cheyenne, Wyoming - insert].” – Art Acevedo (former police chief of Austin, Houston and Miami and former member of the DHS Working Group on Countering Violent Extremism)
One of the best analyses of Kissinger I've ever heard.
“ “Because, as a law enforcement officer, that's my primary function," Jacquot replied.”
Jacquot is correct.
Which is why we need Officers of the Peace, not Law Enforcement Officers.
Yet another "according to the plaintiff" from Ms. Camp.
I mean, you'd think that the number of cases of government officials behaving badly are sufficient that you could regularly report on just those cases where there was actually a determination of facts.
But apparently government officials are so consistently well-behaved that Ms. Camp can only manage to come up with material if she repeats any claims made by anyone filing a lawsuit in a legal system that provides no reliable penalty for filing baseless claims.
Or, you know, Ms. Camp is a lazy hack.
On the one had, it is just the plaintiff's side of the story and based on their complaint alone. And that's based on limited bodycam footage and the account of a troubled kid.
On the other hand, I've been trying to imagine a set of factual circumstances where this isn't excessive, and haven't come up with anything plausible. Maybe the cop and his lawyers will have a better explanation that I can't conceptualize.
And on the gripping hand, the apparent destruction of evidence by the resource officer seems potentially damning. If it's true, that act on its own is unlikely to be covered by department policy or even QI.
It does not include the account of the kid. It includes the purported account of the school principal.
Who doesn't say anything that indicates the kid needed wrangling. Indeed, apparently says he didn't ask Officer Bodyslam for assistance at all. Though I do somewhat wonder why he didn't say anything to the cop at the moment, unless he was afraid the cop would come after him.
I find that when a thug gets his thuggishness up the only way to communicate is shooting him. Multiple times. Odds are the principle was unarmed and probably a liberal arts degree pussy as well.
With the deleted body cam footage there is no neutral observer. Thus all we have is the hearsay. The deletion of the footage is rather telling.
Assuming there's any truth to it.
Destruction of evidence never looks good. Especially when it's a cop. Also the bruising on the face is rather telling. Unless you believe that physical discipline should be so severe as to leave marks.
Assuming there's any truth to the claims of destruction of evidence.
If the footage wasn't destroyed why isn't it being shown to absolve the cops actions?
Do you really think there is such a dearth of cases of objectively provable and/or court-found misconduct by government officials in the U.S. that Reason couldn't run a story about one of those instead of just repeating the unverified claims of a plaintiff's brief?
I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of such cases where cops go way too far. I also am sure most never make the news because of the cop union reps making deals with the media, the families and anyone else who might get the story to a wider audience.
We've seen plenty of cases where they sure as hell try to shut everyone up but the people decide the cops need prosecution of some sort in spite of the settlement money offered.
I used to get a daily feed of emails with articles from local newspapers across the nation about cops getting out of hand, buying off the victims and the union moving the cop to another city where he would continue to be a bad cop.
It got to be too much email for me to keep up with. Upwards of 10 new cases a day with updates on the officers from previous cases ate up too much of time to follow. I tried to just keep track of names and where they had been moved to but it was far more than I could manage without eating up way too much of my time.
I just accepted that cops weren't all good and I needed to carry a tape recorder with me at all times. Cops hate tape recorders. It's like garlic to a vampire or soap to a Frenchman.
From what it sounds like the kid is an asshole. Did he deserve to be body slammed? No, but being an asshole is something that will lead someone to beat the crap out of you. Perhaps he learned his lesson from this?
No, he'll be told he can be as much of an asshole as he wants without repercussion and probably be spoiled even further with settlement money. He'll probably buy a camaro (or Subaru) and flip it, killing himself and his passengers, maybe some bystanders.
Theoretically, the complaint may be distorted beyond belief, the incident may not have been as bad as portrayed, the kid may have had some kind of weapon, the cop may not have destroyed evidence at all, etc.
Reporting on a complaint before the other side has a chance to reply could lead to bad reporting. There’s a lag between the original accusation and the defendant filing an answer, by which time the original accusation is burned into the public mind. And if a reporter calls for comment, the lawyers won’t want to tip their hand until they file their reply. So there’s an interval in which the plaintiff’s account goes out uncontradicted. Perhaps inevitable in a traditional-style newspaper which has to get the story as fast as possible, but in a magazine there’s less need for such “hot takes.”
Juries often come up with verdicts which contradict the agreed-on journalistic narrative. See Rittenhouse.
So you are defending the use of force on children to teach them to be good little drones instead of having a personality of their own that some may find abrasive.
You want to raise abrasive kids with personality? Do it on your on dime; don't force tax payers to subsidize your kids' behavioral problems. And don't complain when they end up in the gutter after school anyway.
I mean, you kind of sound like an asshole, and probably one who hasn't been taught their lesson yet. In your shoes, I'm not sure I'd advocate for this line of education.
I am an unrepentant asshole. My father tried beatings but they never taught the lessons he wanted. I just learned to fear and hate him. Probably why I became an asshole.
Main streaming these kids has been the worst thing that ever happened to education.
It only takes one kid to end learning for the entire class.
They actually put extremely violent and uncontrollable kids in the class with a minder as part of his individual education plan.
The minder is supposed to stop him from striking teachers and other students.
Who could possibly learn in a situation where someone might at any time start screaming and hitting you.
It is 1 million times better to get these kids out of the regular classroom and into the special education setting
Agreed.
It only takes one kid to end learning for the entire class.
Not just this, they are also the reason why good teachers quit. Most teachers do not go into the profession to spend most of their time dealing with little monsters created by bad parenting.
Historically (and in a libertarian society), kids with behavioral problems would be kicked out of regular schools. If they become delinquent, they'd be forced into schools dedicated to kids with behavioral problems.
Parents should be financially responsible for their kids and any damage they do. Conversely, kids should be financially responsible for their parents in old age.
That can be said about kids without real retardation as well. One kid whose parent doesn't mind them being a disruption in class and thirty other kids don't learn a thing in classes they share with that kid. Thats why homeschooling is a far better option for all children. If a parent doesn't care about their kids education that kid is probably screwed anyhow. May as well let him learn his lessons on the streets because that's where he will wind up.
I once served as a small-town mayor, and in that position I was strongly supportive of our police department and its officers. I lobbied for higher pay and better equipment. But with the advent of body cameras and people more willing to speak out on police abuse, I just can't do it anymore. I tried, but I just can't. My default assumption now is that most are bad, and almost all will get away with whatever they can. From "professional courtesies", which is really the practice of letting other cops get away with crimes to uniformed, armed highway pirates stealing money from citizens and calling it "civil asset forfeiture," cops are simply corrupt. The sad fact is that we need them, but not the ones we have.
Cops remind me of dogs.
People domesticated wolves into dogs to guard the livestock. I think we do much the same with cops. If for a twist of fate the kid who grows up to be a cop could have easily gone the other way and been a criminal. The qualities we look for in police have a lot in common with what criminal organizations look for in their enforcers and thugs.
We aren't looking for IQ 160 math geniuses for police training. We aren't looking for any intellectual qualities at all. We want people willing to be a civilized thug in the service of a local government. A domesticated criminal in short.