FOX 2 Detroit reporter Dave Spencer opens a recent news report with a result that sounds like a headline from a different era: a federal jury awarded more than $4 million after finding a Clinton Township police officer used excessive force on a man who was running away.
Spencer makes it plain that the money can’t undo what happened. He says the victim, Daniel Reiff, will “never be the same,” because the incident ended with Reiff losing an eye.
According to Spencer’s report, the call that brought police out was not a 911 emergency. Attorney Jon Marko says a neighbor phoned the non-emergency line to report a “suspicious person” cutting through yards.
That detail matters, because it sets the scale of the situation. A low-level “check it out” call became a life-changing use-of-force case.
What The Jury Said: Excessive Force, Real Damage, Real Money
Spencer describes the incident as happening about four years earlier, in 2021, with the courtroom decision arriving now. The key finding, he reports, was that the officer’s force crossed the line.
The officer is identified as Broc Setty of the Clinton Township Police Department. Spencer plays audio from bodycam where Setty can be heard yelling, “Woo, baby,” during the chase.
Marko tells Spencer that his client ran because he was scared – he had anxiety and a history of drug addiction, and police closing in made him panic. Marko is careful to admit that running wasn’t the best choice, but he argues the punishment didn’t fit anything close to the “crime.”
In Spencer’s telling, Reiff was caught and taken to the ground. While Reiff was down, the jury found Setty used excessive force by punching him in the eye, breaking bones, and ultimately causing Reiff to lose the eye completely.
That’s the hard part to read without flinching. Even if you believe in strong policing, a punch that destroys an eyeball during a non-emergency response is the kind of fact pattern that forces the public to ask: what exactly are the rules, and are they being followed?
“Like Squishing A Grape”: The Phrase That Stuck
Spencer’s report includes the detail that makes this story unforgettable. Jon Marko says medical testimony described the eyeball injury “like a grape” being squeezed until it bursts.
Marko’s description is blunt: he says the officer “sucker punched” Reiff in the face with full force and broke teeth. He tells Spencer, “It’s all on video,” and he insists there was no justification for such a strike.
That “like squishing a grape” phrase also becomes a centerpiece in the legal YouTube coverage from John Bryan, Esq., host of The Civil Rights Lawyer. Bryan says the case went viral because it’s one of those incidents where the injury is so extreme that people stop arguing about politics and just react as human beings.
Bryan introduces Jon Marko, the civil rights attorney who represented Reiff and has him explain how they used that phrase at trial. The attorney describes bringing an actual grape into court as a visual reminder of what the treating doctor said happened.
It sounds theatrical, but it also makes a point: when defense teams try to shrink injuries down to “not that bad,” a simple object can make it impossible to look away.
John Bryan’s Breakdown: Eight Cruisers, A Chase, And A “Battle Cry”
John Bryan retells the story with strong language and a clear opinion. He says the police response looked wildly oversized for the type of call that came in.
Bryan describes a neighbor calling because she didn’t recognize two “younger looking kids” walking through the neighborhood. He claims the department sent “the cavalry,” describing eight police cruisers scrambling to the scene.
Bryan’s framing is that the urgency looked fake – like officers were speeding and weaving through traffic as if they were heading to a bank robbery, not checking a yard-cutting complaint.
In Bryan’s video, Marko explains that Reiff had just gotten off a bus and was walking down a street in an area without sidewalks. The attorney says the officer tried to stop him aggressively, and Reiff, who had negative experiences with police, said he didn’t want to talk and walked away.
Then, Marko says, things escalated fast. The officer chased him while yelling threats about using a taser, including the “Woo, baby, I’m gonna tase you, bro” line that pops up across coverage.
Bryan focuses on tone as much as actions. He argues the officer sounded excited, almost celebratory, like this was entertainment instead of law enforcement.
That matters because policing is supposed to be boring when nothing serious is happening. When an officer sounds thrilled that someone is running, it raises a scary question: is the chase about public safety, or about ego?
The Defense Claim And The Video Fight
One of the most important parts of Bryan’s segment is the discussion of what the officer said to justify the punch.
The attorney tells Bryan the officer claimed he tried to strike the body and missed, blaming Reiff for “moving into” the punch. The attorney says the video does not support that story, and he describes slowing footage down frame by frame for the jury.
According to the attorney, the frames showed something different: he says Setty used one hand to pull Reiff into position and then punched with the other hand. If that’s accurate, it changes the punch from a mistake into a deliberate act.
Bryan also highlights a key legal point through the attorney’s explanation: in excessive-force law, force has to be proportional to the situation. A punch to the face, especially when someone is already down, can be treated as serious, even deadly, force depending on the context and risk of catastrophic injury.
The attorney points out the call was non-emergency and the underlying suspicion was minor. That argument hits hard because it’s difficult to justify catastrophic violence over something that, at worst, sounds like a neighborhood nuisance complaint.
The “Heroin” Moment And Why Fear Warps Decisions
Bryan’s video also digs into a strange piece of bodycam audio: Reiff appears to say he swallowed heroin and is worried he will die.
The attorney tells Bryan there were no drugs in Reiff’s system and his tox screen came back clean. He suggests Reiff may have said it out of fear, possibly believing it would send him to a hospital instead of jail.
It’s a messy detail, but it actually makes the story more believable. People in panic say dumb things, especially when they think they’re trapped.
And that goes to the bigger theme across all three sources: fear drives the worst outcomes on both sides. A civilian panics and runs. An officer escalates instead of slowing the situation down. Then a split-second decision becomes permanent damage.
Rashad Richey And Sharon Reed: The Outrage, The Cost, And The Job Still Intact
On Indisputable, Dr. Rashad Richey tells viewers the man who lost an eye after being punched by a cop has now been awarded $4 million. He frames it as “defunding the police by way of the police,” meaning the misconduct itself becomes the budget hit.
Richey names Broc Setty as the officer and repeats the core allegation: Reiff’s eye was “squished like a grape,” with facial fractures requiring multiple surgeries. He says medical witnesses described catastrophic damage and notes Reiff has been diagnosed with PTSD.
Richey then drops the detail that makes people furious: he says Setty is still employed by Clinton Township PD. He even names the police chief, Preston Sullins, in discussing leadership over the department.
Richey’s angle is that taxpayers will now “bear the budget” for the officer’s behavior. In other words, the community pays twice – first in trust, then in cash.
Sharon Reed, also on Indisputable, calls the situation “crazy” and says the officer committed a violent criminal act in plain sight. She argues the $4 million still doesn’t feel like enough for losing an eye, and she rejects the idea that this should be waved away as “just policing.”
Reed goes further, calling some departments a “criminal enterprise” and describing “mafiosa type behavior.” Her language is sharp, but it reflects the emotional truth: when people see a brutal injury and no meaningful employment consequence, they conclude the system protects itself.
The Verdict And The Message It Sends
Back on FOX 2, Spencer adds more about what happens after the verdict. He reports Reiff’s medical bills were in the hundreds of thousands, and the costs are still piling up.
Spencer says Reiff needs ongoing treatment, is being fitted for a glass eye, and is experiencing PTSD, according to attorney Jon Marko. Spencer also reports that Setty remains on the job – and is now a sergeant.
That last point is gasoline on the fire. It’s one thing when a department drags its feet. It’s another when the public hears “still employed” and “promoted” in the same story.
John Bryan underlines this too, saying the officer “cost taxpayers $4 million” and still moved up the ladder. He treats that as the definition of no accountability.
A Hard Truth: Rights Mean Nothing Without Consequences
This case lands because it forces two uncomfortable thoughts to exist at the same time.
First, Daniel Reiff did run, and that can complicate encounters. Even people who sympathize with him can admit it wasn’t smart.
Second, none of that makes it acceptable for a police officer to deliver a forceful sucker punch that ruptures an eyeball during a non-emergency response. A society that shrugs at that is basically announcing that rights depend on who you are and whether an officer likes you in the moment.
Jon Marko’s message in Spencer’s report is that constitutional rights belong to everyone, not just the “easy” people.
Sharon Reed’s message is that brutality isn’t policing, it’s abuse with a badge. John Bryan’s message is that lawsuits are sometimes the only lever ordinary people have when internal discipline fails.
And here’s the brutal bottom line: if the biggest consequence is a payout funded by taxpayers, while the person who threw the punch keeps the job, the system is teaching the wrong lesson. It tells officers the risk is manageable, and it tells the public that justice is something you buy after the damage is done.
That’s why “like squishing a grape” isn’t just a graphic phrase. It’s a symbol of how quickly a “routine” call can turn into a permanent injury – and how long it can take to get anything that resembles accountability.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
