United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Texas SWAT Attacks 81-Year-Old Man, Breaks His Hip, Denies Him Medical Assistance
Source:
Counter Current News/KTBC
URL Source: http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/05/texas-swat-herman-crisp/
Published: May 26, 2015
Author: M. David and S. Wooten
Post Date: 2015-05-28 13:09:52 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3437
Comments: 34
An 82-year-old man was shocked to find a Texas SWAT team storming his home. Before Herman Crisp could even ask any questions the uniformed officers, clad in military gear, knocked him down, broke his hip and denied him medical assistance. Herman Crisp explained in an interview with local KTBC news that the Georgetown SWAT deputies threw a flash-bang device at him while he as sitting in a chair and smoking a cigarette outside. Crisp explains that the explosion knocked him out of his chair and to the ground. That’s when the SWAT cops moved in and slammed him to the ground again for good measure before handcuffing him. That second slam to the ground was so forceful that it broke Crisp’s hip. The SWAT cops refused to call paramedics, Crisp alleges in a new lawsuit just filed. His family says that when the found him the next day, he was lying in his own feces since he couldn’t get to the bathroom or to a phone. “After they left, I tried to get up because I had to go to the bathroom,” he said in an interview with KTBC. “And I couldn’t go. So, I just crawled over and laid on the floor right down through here. My sister had to call paramedics.” Now, even after two surgeries and physical therapy, Crisp is forced to use a cane to walk, something which wasn’t the case before this SWAT attack. Crisp’s attorney Boadus Spivey said this is nothing short of the Georgetown Sheriff’s Office engaging in a “conspiracy of silence.” “Things like this don’t happen in a vacuum. There’s nothing that we’ve been able to get that identifies the officers, that identifies the action that occurred. We have our client’s information but I had to hire a private investigator just to get enough faxed to determine whether I should file a lawsuit or not. And I’m convinced that the facts are adequate to file this lawsuit and we’ll find out now that we have some way to get accurate information,” the lawyer commented. The SWAT deputies had a warrant to search Crisp’s home. But they have not explained what they were looking for. The deputies have been so tight-lipped since the SWAT raid that Crisp says he was left with no choice but to file suit against Williamson County and the City of Georgetown. He is seeking damages in excess of $1 million due to the cost of medical care and mental anguish. Watch the local video from KTBC below… (Article by M. David and S. Wooten) ***** The SWAT deputies had a warrant to search Crisp’s home. But they have not explained what they were looking for. Another "victory" for the drug warriors. Way to beat up on the elderly you sniveling cowards.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
Not what. Who. They were searching for his scumbag loser nephew he was harboring.
Not what. Who. They were searching for his scumbag loser nephew he was harboring. So, that justifies breaking the hip of an 81 year old man?
Justifies? No. Goes a long way to explaining it, however.
tell me how, looking for a nephew justifies throwing a 81 year old man to the ground after throwing a flash bang at him, on his front porch, is justified.
I thought I said it wasn't justified. Let me check. Yep. I clearly said it didn't justify it. Where the f**k did your read I said it was justified? Why are you asking me the same f**king question again? I said the fact that he was harboring his scum-sucking, loser nephew-with-an-outstanding-warrant went a long way to EXPLAIN why things happened the way they did.
Warrant for what?
A warrant for his arrest.
Yes, but what was the warrant for? Was it for failure to appear on a traffic violation?
Ask Deckard. It's his article. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if the warrant was for "failure to appear on a traffic violation" this yellow journalism article would have mentioned it. So I'm gonna guess murder.
#34. To: misterwhite (#33)
Dig a bit deeper, it is not for murder.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"The SWAT deputies had a warrant to search Crisp’s home. But they have not explained what they were looking for."
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
"The SWAT deputies had a warrant to search Crisp’s home. But they have not explained what they were looking for."
#6. To: BobCeleste (#4)
"So, that justifies breaking the hip of an 81 year old man?"
#8. To: misterwhite (#6)
Goes a long way to explaining it, however.
#9. To: BobCeleste (#8)
"tell me how, looking for a nephew justifies throwing a 81 year old man to the ground after throwing a flash bang at him, on his front porch, is justified."
#23. To: misterwhite (#9)
I said the fact that he was harboring his scum-sucking, loser nephew-with-an-outstanding-warrant went a long way to EXPLAIN why things happened the way they did.
#26. To: BobCeleste (#23)
"Warrant for what?"
#32. To: misterwhite (#26)
A warrant for his arrest.
#33. To: BobCeleste (#32)
"Yes, but what was the warrant for?"
Replies to Comment # 33. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if the warrant was for "failure to appear on a traffic violation" this yellow journalism article would have mentioned it. So I'm gonna guess murder.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]