Title: Dept Says Cop Followed Procedure When He Mistook a 70-yo Man’s Stroke for DUI and Beat Him Source:
Free Thought Project/FOX4/Kansas City URL Source:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/po ... ni-stroke/#IlDF981CGh2ECvM3.99 Published:Oct 2, 2015 Author:Andrew Emett Post Date:2015-10-02 13:10:26 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:4361 Comments:32
Marshall, MO — Police refuse to investigate an off-duty officer of using excessive force after mistaking an elderly stroke victim for a drunk driver. Immediately after throwing a 70-year-old man out of his truck, the cop restrained him on the ground by pressing his knee into a blocked artery on the side of the elderly man’s neck. Although the elderly man repeatedly informed the officer that he was suffering from a stroke, the enraged cop continued to manhandle him until other officers finally arrived.
While driving to Walmart around 6 p.m. on Sunday, 70-year-old James Miller began feeling dizzy and ill before veering off the road and accidentally hitting a house with his pick-up truck. Instead of correctly reading the situation, off-duty Columbia police Sgt. Scott Hedrick ran out of the house and immediately pulled Miller out of the vehicle. After slamming the elderly man to the ground, Hedrick pressed his knee into a blocked artery on the right side of Miller’s neck.
“He had my arm twisted behind my back. I said it was hurting and he said, ‘I’ll break your arm,’” Miller told FOX 4.
Although Miller repeatedly asked Sgt. Hedrick to remove his knee because Miller believed that he was having a stroke, the off-duty cop ignored his pleas and accused him of being drunk without even bothering to smell his breath. A Marshall police officer later arrived at the scene and found Hedrick restraining the compliant elderly man on the ground. After placing the 70-year-old in handcuffs, the officer gave Miller a sobriety test and verified he was sober.
On Monday, Miller’s doctor confirmed that he had suffered a mini-stroke when he lost control of his truck. Due to a pre-existing blocked artery in his neck, Miller suspected that he had been showing signs of a stroke but was unable to pull over in time.
According to a police report, Hedrick’s wife had been standing near the area where Miller’s vehicle hit the house. Instead of rationally assessing the situation, Hedrick lost his temper and immediately began treating the stroke victim like a reckless criminal. An officer at the scene reported that there was a crack in the house and minor damage to the front left bumper of Miller’s vehicle.
“I told him [Hedrick] I’m having medical problems, and he said he didn’t care,” Miller recalled. “They’ve got a job to do. They go through a lot, and they don’t get paid enough for what they do. But this guy stepped over the line.”
This week, a spokeswoman for the Columbia Police Department announced that the department has decided not to investigate Hedrick for use of excessive force.
" a spokeswoman for the Columbia Police Department announced that the department has decided not to investigate Hedrick for use of excessive force. "
I would assume this man will file a civil suit, and if the facts are as given, I would imagine that afterwards, the spokeswoman,and her compadres will have the smirk wiped off their faces.
I would assume this man will file a civil suit, and if the facts are as given, I would imagine that afterwards, the spokeswoman,and her compadres will have the smirk wiped off their faces.
It is their liability insurance that will pay and the taxpayers will face marginally higher liability insurance rate increases.
We need independent prosecutors just to evaluate and indict cops who are criminal. And we need to change laws so that police chiefs and officers are no longer immune from liability for their actions.
In terms of liability, we need to attach tracking of misbehavior to individual cops since bad cops tend to move from one PD to another. Their past misconduct should automatically raise the costs to insure their PD, making them less desirable as employees due to higher inherent costs.
As it is, the good cops who follow their training and department policy suffer from the actions of the worst cops on their force or from bad leadership that tolerates brutal or careless cops on the force.
We end up with a system where there is little incentive for good behavior because there are so few consequences for bad behavior. When good policing is equally rewarded as bad policing, you can't expect good results over time.
We need a system that incentivizes good behavior and that serves to drive out the bad apples.
I've actually experienced this. Years back, I was on patrol one Sunday morning, around 0730 hrs. Found a car that was unoccupied, warm and in a ditch. Found the occupant walking in the rain about a mile away. Slurred speech (so slurred, it was almost impossible to understand her), poor motor skills... and combative. She stated she left a home that I knew to be a drug dealers home... and that she didn't know why she was walking in the rain. I smelled no alcohol on her breath. I could tell she couldn't complete even one roadside sobriety test... and she wanted me to take her back to the druggies house.
I thought it was possible her problems were medical... but by odds, I figured she was high on some narcotic. Since I was unsure, and she wasn't able to care for herself (walking in the rain after wrecking her car while drooling)... I decided to make a mental health law arrest and bring her, against her will to the hospital. She kicked and screamed all the way to the ER. I asked the nurse (a good friend of mine) to text me with the prognosis. The nurse thought she was impaired by drugs... I still wasn't sure.
I received a text later that day... no BAC... she had a stroke. She also had a small amount of THC in her blood.
At least 8 out of 10 cops I know would have hooked her up for DWI or DWAI.
The only people I gave a beating to not only gave me legal justification... but they DESERVED IT.
Beyond being an enforcer about your cross walk near a publick skool, you maintain being a self appointed god-like creature as: Judge & Jury when you wear a firearm, correct?
