Attorney and legal YouTuber Nate Broady, who posts under “Nate the Lawyer,” says this case is back in the spotlight because viewers kept asking what happened after the viral arrest of a paraplegic man accused of doing the impossible.
In Broady’s retelling, the core allegation was wild on its face: a woman told police her ex-boyfriend chased her down, kicked in her door, assaulted her, and then “ran away on foot.”
Broady says the man police arrested was 41-year-old Charles Read (Broady’s video also pronounces/spells the last name like “Reed”), and he’s been in a wheelchair for decades.
That’s where the story starts to feel unreal, because Broady’s point is simple: if the report says the suspect ran away on foot, and the suspect can’t walk, the system should slam into reverse immediately.
Instead, Broady says, it didn’t.
Bodycam And The Decision To Arrest Anyway
Broady walks viewers through bodycam clips and what he calls the “insanity” of how officers handled it.
He says the complainant, Katherine Jensen, gave police what sounded like a detailed identification – name, date of birth, description, the whole package.
Broady then plays audio of an officer emphasizing how specific Jensen’s report was, saying she “spelled out his name” and gave his date of birth, arguing it didn’t sound like “mistaken identity.”
That “detailed report” idea becomes the excuse, Broady argues, for why officers treated Read’s wheelchair like it was just an inconvenient footnote.
Broady highlights a supervisor’s comments from an office conversation, where the supervisor dismisses the situation as “a ruse” and an “obvious attempt” to avoid jail.
And that’s the part that stings if you’re watching as a regular person: Broady’s framing is that the department didn’t treat Read like someone with a built-in, obvious alibi.
They treated him like someone faking.
In the bodycam sequence Broady cites, Read insists he can provide paperwork showing he’s been in a wheelchair a long time, and the officer responds that it’s “not a right here right now matter.”
Broady’s criticism is that this is backwards policing. When the “right here right now” facts scream that something is wrong, that’s exactly when you pause, verify, and fix it.
Instead, Broady says officers arrested him anyway.
The Recanting Email And The PR Damage Control
Broady says the story gets even more embarrassing for the department after the arrest – because the complainant later tried to walk it back.
He reads from what he describes as an email obtained by Read’s attorney, saying Katherine Jensen contacted a College Park Police detective asking to change her statement.
Broady quotes Jensen’s message as saying her “mental state and physical trauma” confused her, and she wanted to “clear the name of an innocent man.”
If that’s accurate, it’s not just a minor update. It’s the person who triggered the arrest effectively waving a flag that says: you grabbed the wrong guy.
Broady argues that at this point the department had a full-blown public relations problem, and he claims the city brought in a PR firm to manage the fallout.
He reads what he says was advice in an email from a publicist, suggesting the story should “fade through the weekend” and that there was “no logical reason” for continued media pickup.
Broady laughs that off as wishful thinking, pointing out how viral the story became, including his own video performance and other coverage that racked up millions of views.
This is one of those moments where my patience would be gone if I were in Read’s shoes. Even if a department is worried about optics, the first instinct should be fixing the injustice, not betting on the internet getting bored.
Officer Background, Discipline, And A Resignation “In Lieu Of Termination”
In Broady’s update, he says attention turned to the arresting officer’s record after the case blew up.
He identifies the arresting officer as Markenley Belotte.
Broady says records show the officer previously applied to work for the Atlanta Police Department and was rejected for being “untruthful,” including an alleged omission of a termination and incorrect employment dates.
Broady then lists what he says College Park records show: at least eight disciplinary issues in about two years, including falling asleep during an extra patrol job, going AWOL on duty, clocking more time than worked, and accidentally deploying a taser inside the department.
Broady’s point isn’t just “this guy had issues.” It’s that none of those disciplinary actions, as Broady tells it, were for Read’s false arrest – meaning the headline-making fiasco wasn’t what triggered consequences first.
Only after the viral disaster did the department, in Broady’s telling, allow the officer to resign “in lieu of termination.”
Broady describes it like a familiar script: the “foot soldier” gets pushed out, the institution tries to move on, and the people who approved the decision path keep their seats warm.
He also notes that, according to him, Atlanta News First reached out to the officer for an interview and he declined.
The Supervisor Stays, The Accuser Isn’t Charged, And That’s The Part That Doesn’t Sit Right
Broady spends a lot of time on what he sees as the real “update,” and it isn’t just one officer leaving.
It’s who didn’t face consequences.
Broady points back to the supervisor – the one he says brushed off Read’s wheelchair and suggested the department still had probable cause.
In Broady’s words, the department “backed the major 1,000%,” saying the supervisor did nothing wrong and was simply advising a junior officer in a “complex situation.”
Broady doesn’t buy that framing, and honestly, I don’t either. A situation stops being “complex” when the allegation includes “ran away on foot” and the suspect physically cannot run.
Broady also asks the question people always ask in these cases: what happened to the person who made the false report?
According to Broady, Katherine Jensen has not been charged.
He adds that he says they reached out to her and she didn’t respond.
Broady brings up what he describes as Jensen’s prior arrest in another jurisdiction for theft and forgery tied to allegedly filing a false police report, and he uses that to argue police should have treated her accusation with extra caution.
Even without any prior history, the basic logic test still matters. But if Broady’s claim is right about the past incident, then this looks even worse: an accusation that didn’t match reality, treated as gospel, aimed at a person who couldn’t possibly match the “on foot” narrative.
The DA Drops Charges, And A Civil Case Starts To Look Inevitable
Broady says the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office ultimately dropped the charges.
He quotes what he describes as an email sent to College Park Police, stating Read “could not have been at the location on the date and time of the incident.”
That’s the kind of line that should make a city lawyer’s stomach drop, because it’s a clean, direct statement that the case never should’ve gone forward.
Broady says Read “lawyered up,” and he identifies Read’s attorney as Andrew Flechman.
Broady quotes Flechman describing how the complainant’s description allegedly focused on clothing and appearance but didn’t mention the wheelchair – something Broady calls the “number one thing you’d mention,” especially if the suspect supposedly fled on foot.
He also quotes Flechman saying they’ve “never seen a case where somebody was so clearly innocent” and it would’ve taken “so little work” to establish it, but “nobody was willing to do the work.”
Broady then lays out what he believes could come next: false arrest claims, failure to investigate, possible civil rights claims under Section 1983, and scrutiny of the city’s hiring practices and supervision.
I’ll add this: even if a department hides behind “probable cause,” juries tend to understand common sense. And common sense says you don’t jam someone into the system over an allegation that collapses the moment you look at the person.
Broady ends his update with a blunt summary: Read was innocent and cleared, the arresting officer is gone, the supervisor is still in place, and the accuser hasn’t been charged.
And whether you come at this from law, basic fairness, or just human decency, that distribution of consequences feels upside down.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
