Georgia Police Tried To Arrest a Paralyzed Man for Kicking Down a Woman's Door and Assaulting Her
The woman has since recanted her allegations.

Last month, police officers in College Park, Georgia detained Charles Read for felony assault charges, alleging that he kicked down his ex-girlfriend's door and attempted to strangle her. The only problem? Read is paraplegic—and has been for more than 20 years. Despite the obvious discrepancy, police officers still handcuffed Read and tried to take him to jail, even as the same officers seemed unsure if it was physically possible for him to have committed the crime in the first place.
"If she made a false report, that's going to be on her . . . It's a warrant now. I have to go ahead and take you in. So now that's gonna be up to you and the courts and your lawyers and her to establish your innocence," Officer Mark Belotte told Read in body camera footage obtained by Reason. "So at this point, she says you kicked down her door. It don't look like you could kick anything, no offense, at this point in time."
In June 2024, a woman named Katherine Jensen called police and reported that Read, whom she claimed she had broken up with a few days prior, had come to her house, kicked down her door, choked her, and attempted to steal her car keys. Afterward, he left on foot. In body camera footage obtained by Reason, Jensen told police that she didn't want to press charges. Still, officers obtained an arrest warrant for Read.
It's unclear why it took police so long to detain Read, who said he had been in contact with police for more than a month before coming to the station.
When Read arrived at the police station on March 20, Officer Mark Belotte—the same one who originally responded to Jensen's call in June—read Read his Miranda rights and began questioning him. Belotte asked if Read knew anyone named "Katherine Elizabeth Jensen," and Read replied that he had an old ex-girlfriend "from like 20 years ago," with that first and middle name, but not that last name. He also asked how long Read had been in his wheelchair, and Read said he had been paralyzed since he was 18.
"According to Ms. Jensen, on this date, you forcefully entered her home and attacked her," Belotte said.
"I have absolutely no idea who that is. Yeah, I certainly didn't force my way into anybody's house," Read replied.
As the conversation went on, Read insisted that he had no idea why he was being accused of forcibly entering Jensen's home and strangling her, pointing out that he had been paralyzed for the past several decades and was married, not Jensen's recent ex-boyfriend. Still, Belotte told Read that he was being arrested. "This is crazy to me . . . Is this a joke?" Read said as Belotte handcuffed him.
Seconds after being handcuffed, Read—who had told Belotte he had limited muscle control—fell out of his wheelchair and onto the floor, where officers left him for more than three and a half minutes. When Belotte later told another officer about this incident, footage captures the other officer assuming Read faked the fall: "it's a ruse, man, it's an obvious attempt not to go to jail," he said.
Still, a third officer expressed misgivings about Read's arrest. "We're gonna do our due diligence, because if you're paralyzed, somebody must have made a mistake," the officer said to Read. Later, that officer told Belotte that Read's legs looked similar to the limbs of some of his own family members who were paralyzed, indicating that Read wasn't lying about having been paralyzed for decades. "I would suggest calling the district attorney's office, let them know what you got," the officer told Belotte, who interjected, "Because now it's looking like she might have made a false report."
Police may have had more reason to doubt the veracity of Jensen's claims had they conducted a brief internet search. Last year, Jensen was criminally charged after she made false allegations that Airbnb guests stole her property.
But even so, Belotte insisted that Read would have to go to jail, and that it would be up to him to come up with the documentation proving his innocence at a later court hearing. Read, in addition to insisting he was innocent, argued with officers that his complex medical needs made taking him to the Fulton County jail particularly dangerous for his health. After a lengthy back and forth, Read convinced officers to let him go on the promise that he would eventually turn himself in. But even though he could leave, he still had a felony arrest warrant out against him.
In an email sent this week to the College Park Police Department obtained by Reason, Jensen recanted her allegations. "It has been brought to my attention that my mental state and physical trauma in that moment worked to confuse me into providing information that needs to be edited," she wrote. "Will you please contact me at your earliest convenience so I can edit the information in the report and clear the name of an [sic] innocent man." Still, police refused to revoke the warrant.
Andrew Fleischman, Read's attorney, tells Reason that, while it was reasonable for police to critically examine whether Read could have committed the crime—say, if he had become paralyzed in the several months between the alleged incident and the detainment—it was their lack of curiosity about his claims of obvious innocence that troubled him.
"It's not so much that they should have just said, 'Oh, he didn't do it.' But they should have been like: 'Let's not get the warrant yet. Let's do some more investigation because I'm not sure.' That's really what was missing," Fleischman says. "And when courts look at probable cause, part of a police officer's duty is not just to find probable cause, but also to dispel suspicion of a crime. That's part of what they're supposed to do. And to do it in a reasonably prompt manner."
Fleischman tells Reason that police informed him the warrant was dismissed on Friday.
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
'Cause I can't fight this feeling anymore
I've forgotten what I started fighting for
And if I have to crawl upon the floor
Come crashing through your door
Baby, I can't fight this feeling anymore
Look, who filed a false report, who was perpetrating a ruse to avoid arrest, and who arrested whom on the basis of a false report is all a little vague. The point is, the issue is with the cold, uncaring, and borderline sociopathic police department and not anyone who would obfuscate the facts to advocate #believeallwomen or #emptytheprisons political movements.
Really the problem is that he identified as a paraplegic who couldn't have committed the crime rather than as a woman who had a right to be there.
Reason is in a conundrum here after believing Balsey Ford and Carrol.
Who?
First rule of being a bureaucrat: Never accept responsibility for making a decision.
You were ok with Babbitt’s murder you hypocrite so you can’t criticize the police.
Also note that tReason.cum didn't report the political Tribe of Charles Read... HOW in the bloody HELL are we supposed to know twat to stink about this shit, lacking this VITALLY CRITICAL piece of information?
Man you're a broken leftist retard.
And you weren't just okay with her murder, you celebrated it. And you believed all women when it worked against your enemy.
Weird.
He just hates women .
Lucky the popo didnt beat him until he got up, that damn faker would have deserved it.
OT Post:
Hey y’all think Biden is senile? Trump at 78 seems about the same!
Rex Huppke USA Today “Trump babbles his way through doing a bad job and the polling proves we know it | Opinion
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/04/11/trump-approval-rating-tariffs-groceries-polls/83036443007/
When the 2024 World Series champions Los Angeles Dodgers visited the White House recently, Trump attempted to talk about the team’s resilience in the playoffs and wound up saying whatever this random assortment of words is: “When you ran out the healthy arms, you ran out of really healthy, they had great arms, but they ran out, it’s called sports, it’s called baseball in particular, and pitchers I guess you could say in really particular.”
It's well known that the press can make anyone look bad by literally writing down what someone literally says complete with all hesitations, repeats, malapropisms, etc. and deliberately not cleaning it up for publication.
I for one have NEVER spoken this lamely! How do you like having a POTUS who can't hardly think or speak coherently any more? Couldn't "Team R" primary voters have done any better than this?
>Andrew Fleischman, Read's attorney, tells Reason that, while it was reasonable for police to critically examine whether Read could have committed the crime—say, if he had become paralyzed in the several months between the alleged incident and the detainment
Ah, so the headline is clickbait. Having a headline saying "tried to jail a paralyzed man for kicking down a door" implies that the arrest makes no sense, because he's paralyzed, and obviously a paralyzed man can't kick a door. The information, missing from the headline, that there's a several month gap after the alleged kicking, negates the implication from the headline.
>it was their lack of curiosity about his claims of obvious innocence that troubled him.
Every suspect proclaims their innocence. Lack of curiosity about claims of innocence is necessary. Otherwise you're basically requiring that with every warrant, the police do a second warrant investigation when the suspect inevitably claims innocence.
The police didn't do a *first* warrant investigation - that is the issue highlighted by the article.
Stop sucking cop dick. Its one thing to support them when they're in the right - its another to try to minimize laziness on their part.
1) In body camera footage obtained by Reason, Jensen told police that she didn't want to press charges. Still, officers obtained an arrest warrant for Read.
2) In an email sent this week to the College Park Police Department obtained by Reason, Jensen recanted her allegations. "It has been brought to my attention that my mental state and physical trauma in that moment worked to confuse me into providing information that needs to be edited," she wrote. "Will you please contact me at your earliest convenience so I can edit the information in the report and clear the name of an [sic] innocent man." Still, police refused to revoke the warrant.
-------------------------------------------------
It's almost like they are more interested in getting bodies into the paid-per-inmate jail system than they do about justice.
"...Belotte insisted that Read would have to go to jail, and that it would be up to him to come up with the documentation proving his innocence at a later court hearing." For at least 60 years of my lifetime I've been taught or read that the state must prove guilt, and the accused doesn't have to prove his innocence. What are the cops learning at the academy these days? What are they being told by their prosecutor buddies? Wait...am I still living in the USA, or am I now in some place like Hungary? Or on a really bad acid trip? Or dead?
#BelieveAllWomen, Emma. #MeToo.
"If she made a false report, that's going to be on her . . . It's a warrant now. I have to go ahead and take you in.
So, this is actually a pretty complex subject that Emma has gimped her undeveloped proto-brain into, and tried to narrative some stupid sympathy game ("fell out of his wheelchair and onto the floor," "his complex medical needs" blah blah - who the f cares) instead of addressing the actual issue. Let's lay out a fact pattern:
-An arrest warrant requested based on a set of facts, and is properly issued and signed by a judge.
-Beat cops come to arrest the subject of the warrant.
-They immediately realize he cannot be the perpetrator of the crime for which the arrest warrant has been issued.
I've never actually borne witness to this happening, but I can tell you three things:
1) Technically the beat cop is not wrong for executing the warrant. If they validly identify the subject as the one named in the warrant, they're supposed to arrest him.
Meaning, the cop is not technically wrong when he says he has to take the cripple in. And I doubt many would look twice at him just executing a duly issued and legal warrant on its terms from a liability standpoint.
2) Cops are allowed discretion based on obviously disqualifying evidence. BUT, disqualifying evidence is a real double-edged sword. If they're looking for Pat Williams described as a 240lb white man living at 123 Main Street., and when they arrive at 123 Main Street Pat Williams turns out to be a 110lb black woman - no, you don't arrest Pat. Clearly the warrant got something wrong.
Or did it?
CYA still applies to cops. And sometimes criminals are BS artists. Sometimes they pretend not to know English. Sometimes they pretend not to be the owner or renter of a piece of property. Sometimes one criminal is hiding another. Sometimes they may be conspirators. And, yes, sometimes they even pretend to be cripples. And it's not like the cops can go all Walter Sobchak "I've seen a lot of spinal cases, and I'm telling you - this guy walks" on the subject.
And I can see any cop - especially in this day and age - staying VERY technical for CYA purposes. Even if it leads to absurd results. Because this way, they always have the, "I followed the legal procedure" argument in their pocket, as opposed to "I made a judgment call" claim.
3) Where I stop defending the cop on this one, is based on him NOT doing what would have been the most reasonable thing (which his fellow officer even TOLD him he should do): stay the arrest and seek clarification.
It's not like the guy was going anywhere. Assuming 5-0 cleared the scene and had him disarmed, they could wait a tick to seek clarification.
Get your supervisor on comms and explain what you're dealing with. Let him make the decision. Maybe even call a CP or the ADA or whoever if they wrote up the warrant and be like, "I really really don't think this is your guy and here's why." And then let him make the decision. (Which might be kinda funny if he's a cocky twerp that knows better than everyone else and is like, "Just shut up and do your job, flatfoot!" - who later gets ALL the egg on his face.)
If there's no exigency to the situation, then the cops should absolutely stay the execution, assess the situation, and run it back up the chain of command.
Why are all the retarded cops in Georgia lately?
Wait...never mind...
I'm surprised we haven't seen a "ah, but you don't know what happened before the video started" post.