Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MrScorpio

(73,631 posts)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:26 PM Feb 2013

Epileptic man mistaken for drug abuser beaten by Indianapolis police, lawsuit claims

INDIANAPOLIS - A seizure patient has filed a lawsuit against the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, claiming officers beat and arrested him after mistaking his symptoms for being high on drugs.

In his federal civil rights lawsuit, Randy Lynn of Indianapolis claims he suffered an epileptic seizure after shoveling snow from a sidewalk in the 2500 block of West Washington Street on Feb. 2, 2011. He fell to the ground and suffered a bloody nose, prompting paramedics to be called.

When IMPD officers arrived, Lynn's lawsuit claims officers immediately assumed that he was intoxicated.

He accuses Officer Timothy Huddleston of forcing him back to the ground during a struggle, and then Officer Nathan Challis is accused of using a Taser to jolt him three times during his arrest.

Lynn also accuses the officers of striking him on the head several times, while shocking him with a Taser on the neck, the lower back and his leg.

His lawsuit claims he was entirely unaware of what was going on due to his medical condition.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/epileptic-man-mistaken-for-drug-abuser-beaten-by-indianapolis-police-lawsuit-claims
24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Epileptic man mistaken for drug abuser beaten by Indianapolis police, lawsuit claims (Original Post) MrScorpio Feb 2013 OP
If true, indefensible conduct by the police. nt geek tragedy Feb 2013 #1
...again. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #2
What else is new? Bake Feb 2013 #13
Let me guess. If the police were not selling med marijuana, Eric Holder and his DOJ will do nothing. AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #3
? PotatoChip Feb 2013 #5
That's what Eric Holder, who heads the agency for protecting civil rights, would say. AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #6
Still not following you. PotatoChip Feb 2013 #8
You really don't understand that AG Holder and his DOJ have the responsibility to enforce the AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #19
You make an awful lot of assumptions PotatoChip Feb 2013 #21
Asking questions in reponse to your "Still not following you," is not making assumptions. You say AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #22
Lol! (nt) PotatoChip Feb 2013 #23
Duh. The only thing that gets Holder excited is prosecuting med marijuana cases. Bake Feb 2013 #14
Don't disagree with you. At all. PotatoChip Feb 2013 #16
Holder has nothing to do with this case. Bake Feb 2013 #17
Oh, ok. PotatoChip Feb 2013 #18
(1) The police use of excessive force is a federal Civil Rights violation. AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #20
Good point, actually. Bake Feb 2013 #24
Another reason to stop the war on drugs.. midnight Feb 2013 #4
Truly. Even if this guy was smoked on something rurallib Feb 2013 #7
I agree..... midnight Feb 2013 #9
But typical. Bake Feb 2013 #15
Why would it be okay to beat someone down IF they were high? TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #10
When we empower an ignorant and bigoted LEO to intervene to "secure the peace" HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #11
fuck tha police frylock Feb 2013 #12

Bake

(21,977 posts)
13. What else is new?
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:23 PM
Feb 2013

Screw the police. Thugs in uniform. Oh wait ... these must have been "bad apples."

Of course.

Bake

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
6. That's what Eric Holder, who heads the agency for protecting civil rights, would say.
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:27 PM
Feb 2013

At a minimum, police should not violate the civil rights of the citizenry by delivering unnecessary and excessive violence.

Apparently there are some people, who like Eric-I-don't-have-to-enforce-the-Civil-Rights-laws-Holder, agree with that.

PotatoChip

(3,186 posts)
8. Still not following you.
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:54 PM
Feb 2013

I 'get' and agree with this part...

At a minimum, police should not violate the civil rights of the citizenry by delivering unnecessary and excessive violence.


I just don't really understand what either Holder or the federal DOJ have to do with a local police brutality case.

Oh well, whatever.



 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
19. You really don't understand that AG Holder and his DOJ have the responsibility to enforce the
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:17 PM
Feb 2013

laws prohibiting police actions which violate Civil Rights?

Are you unaware that other US Attorney Generals have enforced the law against Civil Rights violations?

Who do you think has the authority to enforce the laws against Civil Rights violations?

Who do you think has established a reputation in the last several years for going against State-approved medical marijuana dispensaries while not going against the police who violate Civil Rights?

Do you not know that when police use unnecessary and excessive force, they are not just being unnecessarily brutal but they are violating Civil Rights?

You're not aware of any of this?

PotatoChip

(3,186 posts)
21. You make an awful lot of assumptions
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:32 PM
Feb 2013

as to what I am or am not aware of. Which is really very funny in regard to the subject matter that you brought up here. But you clearly don't know me, and that is more than ok with me.

Have a nice day.

One last thing though: You are wrong on a number of counts as it relates to this case. I suggest that you read the entire article. That is all.

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
22. Asking questions in reponse to your "Still not following you," is not making assumptions. You say
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:57 PM
Feb 2013

that you don't know. OK, I believe you. The issue then involves the question of how much do you not know.

Bake

(21,977 posts)
14. Duh. The only thing that gets Holder excited is prosecuting med marijuana cases.
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:24 PM
Feb 2013

He sure as hell has no interest in prosecuting the Wall St. banksters.

Holder needs to GO. NOW.

Bake

PotatoChip

(3,186 posts)
16. Don't disagree with you. At all.
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:31 PM
Feb 2013
The only thing that gets Holder excited is prosecuting med marijuana cases.

He sure as hell has no interest in prosecuting the Wall St. banksters.


Just trying to understand what Holder has to do with this case.

Bake

(21,977 posts)
17. Holder has nothing to do with this case.
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:34 PM
Feb 2013

It just seemed like a good opportunity to respond to the poster.

Bake

PotatoChip

(3,186 posts)
18. Oh, ok.
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:46 PM
Feb 2013

Has Holder been in the news for something akin to this recently? If so, I'd better understand why not one, but several people brought him up here. I was not trying to be snarky, just truly didn't know why something seemingly unrelated was coming up.

I've been busy today, only popping in and out, so I may have missed out on- whatever. I'll look later.

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
20. (1) The police use of excessive force is a federal Civil Rights violation.
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:26 PM
Feb 2013

(2) The US Attorney has the authority and responsibility to prosecute violations of the Civil Rights laws.

(3) Holder has developed a reputation for prosecuting those who sell State-approved medical marijuana, and a reputation for being indifferent with respect to the violation of the Civil Rights laws by the police.

(4) To the extent that Holder "has nothing to do with this case," that is a result of his choice to not prosecute police violations of the Civil Rights laws.

(5) To the extent that some overlook violations of Civil Rights laws by the police and do not want the police to be prosecuted for such activity, Holder is their man.


rurallib

(62,416 posts)
7. Truly. Even if this guy was smoked on something
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:41 PM
Feb 2013

physical brutality is a hell of a response by the police.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
11. When we empower an ignorant and bigoted LEO to intervene to "secure the peace"
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:04 PM
Feb 2013

this is what results.

The list of victims is really quite extraordinary...and runs the entire gambit from deaf whittler killed for not responding to persons in diabetic comas being beaten for non-responsiveness.

DEAR LAW ENFORCEMENT,

THE PEOPLE ARE NOT ALWAYS THE FUCKING ENEMY! Sometimes the people are in desperate need of medical attention, and you dumb fucks with badges privilege your perspectives and interest in the preciousness of your own assholes to just act like precious ASSHOLES.





Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Epileptic man mistaken fo...