84-year-old man allegedly beaten by police officer after calling 911

[RamboLiberal]

-----

An Alabama police officer allegedly hospitalized an elderly man who called 911 to report an accident across the street from his house while his wife watched the entire beating from her wheelchair.

The Courthouse News Service reported that 84-year-old Dorsey Henderson of Fairhope, Alabama called 911 after investigating the car accident and discovering that the driver of the vehicle was severely intoxicated.

Henderson told the driver of the car he was under citizens arrest and needed to wait near his car until police arrived.

When Officer Trent Scott arrived on the scene, Henderson attempted to inform him of the driver's belligerent behavior and that the driver had been placed under citizens arrest. The officer allegedly told Henderson there was "no such thing as citizen's arrest in Alabama," and to "get out of the way, old man."

After Henderson tried to explain that he was only trying to help, Officer Scott placed him in an arm bar and slammed him face first into the ground, breaking his nose and eyeglasses. Henderson's wife, Dorris, watched from a wheelchair at the front window of her house, telling a 911 dispatcher that the officer was "beating the hell out of my husband."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/18/eighty-four-year-old-man-allegedly-beaten-by-police-officer-after-calling-911/

If true, this cop needs fired then charged criminally!

[Fumesucker]

1. Forget it Jake, it's Alabama..

I'm going to hazard a guess that the officer is white and Henderson is not.

[Aerows]

3. My conclusion too

I live in MS and I'm white, and it's still not hard to draw that conclusion.

[Fumesucker]

5. I'm in GA and white too..

It's damn near impossible *not* to draw that conclusion.

[MattBaggins]

2. Citizen's arrest in Alabama does exist AFAIK

North Carolina is the only state that doesn't have citizens arrest statutes unless i am mistaken.

[Politicalboi]

10. Gomer put Barney under citizens arrest

In Mayberry North Carolina. LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9efgLHgsBmM

[damntexdem]

4. Hope sure ain't fair in Fairhope.

Officer thug needs to be fired.

[RandiFan1290]

6. My sister just moved from Fairhope

back to south Florida. She told me several stories about these thugs and still has nightmares about it. She was stopped and searched for simply taking a walk after dinner. She was told that only people up to no good walked around that neighborhood. She was pulled over several times and searched for no reason. One night they showed up to her door and as she was talking to them they busted into the house. Why? They saw a cigarette rolling machine on the table with her loose tobacco. The house was searched and they kept her machine even though she had no drugs. They told her that she must be on the weed because her tongue had a green tint to it and those machines were only used to roll blunts.

She was afraid to ever leave the house and luckily I was able to help her move out of that shit hole.

[Golden Raisin]

17. O'er the land of the free

and the home of the brave. :sarcasm:

[nolabear]

7. One sweet note in this horrific story

and it is horrific, and I hope they never let that "officer" hold a job that entails any contact with actual human beings again...but in the complaint they cite as one of the damages Mr. Henderson's inability, as a result of the assault, to enjoy "sexual society" with his wife. At eighty four, I DO hope they've enjoyed that society so far and will again. Gives me hope.

And no, that's not all I draw from this. Sometimes what people do to one another boggles the mind.

[struggle4progress]

8. $250K lawsuit against Fairhope filed 3 May 2011 for alleged events of 5 May 2009

so I'd guess the statute of limitations was 2 years

<edit:> Filing at http://www.scribd.com/doc/55774117/Elderly-Beating

[Mojeoux]

14. This is hope-full. Why do they still have this guy on the job?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Exultant Democracy]

42. I think it's funny, but you are going to hurt the southern contingents feelings.

[Rebubula]

54. LOLZ...

...yeah...because Northen cops have never acted in such a way.

/amirite, Mr. Diallo?

[Mojeoux]

11. Poor Old Guy, and Officer Trent Scott is still on the job.

Try calling the Fairhope Mayor's Office 1 251 928 2136


Fairhope Police Dept. 1 251 928 2385

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. My new motto: Don't get the law involved. (with apologies to Dr. Nick Riviera)

[librechik]

15. absolutely best motto ever

[SDuderstadt]

13. Take note that RawStory's "source"...

for this is "the Courthouse News Service", which means someone is looking at complaints that have been filed and writing stories based upon them, which means they are written almost entirely from the complainant's point of view.

People replying should take note of your qualifier, "if true" and refrain from judgment before reading both sides of the story.

The "ready, fire, aim" factor is far too strong at DU.

[H2O Man]

16. Oh, sure. Uh-huh.

There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of reasons why the cop beat up the elderly man. Thank you for you vigilant service in this area.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Duh...

Do you know what "courthouse news services" do? I am not pretending to know one way or the other what happened in this case, nor am I defending the cop. However, the story is written entirely from the viewpoint of the complainant. I am suggesting that people get both sides of the story before leaping to conclusions.

Do you seriously have a problem with that?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

20. I am suggesting that people get both sides of the story before...

leaping to conclusions, as you are doing. "Courthouse news services" merely take a complaint, then characterize it, which, in this case means it is written entirely from the complainant's point of view. I don't know what actually happened and neither do you. If the story was written completely from the officer's point of view from his report, I would have exactly the same concern.

Do you honestly have a problem with that? Maybe you should think about that before blindly attacking me.

[struggle4progress]

22. The idea -- that opposite parties in a litigation, might have different versions of events,

and that the actual facts cannot immediately be determined by clairvoyance or by a quick peek into the World of Google -- is a very subtle point that not just anyone can easily grasp

;)

[SDuderstadt]

24. Thanks...

that is precisely my point.

[H2O Man]

21. "Duh" ? Really? Gosh.

And here I was simply agreeing with your insight. The chances are -- at least in my opinion -- that most forum members would find the cop's beating the elderly man up offensive. Especially considering that his wife was watching from her wheel chair.

But you, in that singular manner that defines your contributions to this site, noted that there is another side to this story. You offered no evidence to support this singular claim, but I still thanked you for advocating for truth and justice.

It's almost startling, shocking, and simply amazing that you take offense at this. Almost. But not quite, as I know you.

Again, thank you.

[SDuderstadt]

23. I don't think you were "simply agreeing with my insight"

especially given your subject line and comment that there must be "hundreds, if not thousands of reasons" for the cop to beat up the elderly man. Do you honestly disagree that we don't know both sides of the story? Are you assuming the cop is automatically in the wrong?

I'm sincerely sorry if I misinterpreted your post, but, to be blunt, I don't think I did.

[H2O Man]

25. Yet, you did.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, there were probably billions and billions of reasons to beat that darned old man up.

[SDuderstadt]

27. You're assuming the elderly man was beaten up...

as he claims in the complaint. How do you know the cop beat him up? You don't. How do you know that there wasn't a scuffle and the elderly man's glasses and nose weren't broken in a fall? Attorneys get paid to take their clients' side. How do you know that the attorney is not exaggerating?

I prefer to consider evidence from both sides before drawing conclusions. Not coincidentally, that is also what judges do. Do you have a problem with that?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

30. "We need more vocal advocates of police violence"

Show me where I did so in any way, dude.

Your bias is showing.

[H2O Man]

31. Relax.

It'll be okay. We can work through this.

The OP's title makes clear the article is about a complaint. It's not the entire case. No video of Rodney King, etc. You contributed your point(s). I made mine, based entirely on my opinion (based upon a foundation) of you. And I have agreed with your taking the side that you have. I find it consistent, and approve entirely.

It is, of course, a case involving police violence. You think it might well have been justified, that there might be a good reason to beat up an 84 year old. I admire that you venture where few others would go.

[SDuderstadt]

32. It's not "okay"...

dude. I made the case for waiting until the facts are in. You turned it into a huge "you advocate police violence" strawman, yet cannot show me where I did. Sorry, dude. Not buying it.

[H2O Man]

33. I can't tell

if you are being serious, or not. I assume you recognize that -- "right" or "wrong" -- an 84 year old man got the crap knocked out of him. That is, by definition, violence. You have stated that not all the facts are in, at least to your satisfaction. Hence, it sure sounds like you are saying that the story the 84 year old man told may be wrong, and that the cop might have had mighty good reason to beat him up.

But now it seems like you are saying something else. Maybe you are just fooling around.

[SDuderstadt]

34. No, dude...

I don't recognize that is what happened at all. I recognize that is what the complainant claims. I merely noted that there are other ways he could have gotten his nose and glasses broken beyond the cop beating the crap out of him. That's all I said. Yet, you cynically tried to parlay that into me somehow advocating police violence, when I did nothing of the sort.

I don't know what actually happened. Neither do you. We won't until all the facts come out, not just the complainant's side. I have said repeatedly that I am not siding with the cop. Why you have a problem with that is a mystery known apparently only to you.

[H2O Man]

36. I have no problem

with this. I went out of my way to be kind to you, and to try to assist in promoting your point of view. This clearly has been upsetting for you. I hope you can navigate your way through this.

There is, of course, a possibility that I have more insight on this topic than you. I do not expect you to admit that. In fact, I'm 100% sure that you won't. But that's a good thing.

[SDuderstadt]

37. If you have more "insight" on this...

why not provide it?

It's also simply not true that you tried to either be kind to me or assist me in promoting my view. Instead, you falsely accused me of advocating police violence.

I'd be glad to admit it if you have more insight than me on this. Of course, you'd actually have to provide the "insight" rather than play games. I hope your "insight" is factual, rather than simply belief on your part. What are you waiting for?

[H2O Man]

38. I was being kind.

You seem to take issue with that.

[SDuderstadt]

39. No, you weren't...

You falsely accused me of advocating police violence.

You have a funny definition of "kind". Now, about that "insight" you claim to have...

[H2O Man]

43. Mere speculation

on your part. I, on the other hand, know the exact truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Are you going back on your position that, at some times -- such as the case of this elderly, 84 year old man who was attempting to insure the safety of his community -- that police violence is justified?

[SDuderstadt]

44. For the third time...

show me where I took that position.

I have said repeatedly that we don't know what actually happened. We only have the complainant's account.

Enough of your silly strawman arguments, dude.

[smirkymonkey]

78. Yeah, first of all, he was OLD.

He should have been shot just for costing the rest of taxpayers increased insurance premiums.

:sarcasm:

[slutticus]

88. Guilty until proven innocent

DU: Judge, Jury, Prosecutor

:rofl:

[Control-Z]

47. What H2O Man said.

Though, he was more polite than I would have been.

[SDuderstadt]

48. Let me make sure I get this straight...

I am advocating getting all the facts before drawing conclusions and for that I am being slammed?

Fucking unbelievable.

[LanternWaste]

75. Your martyrdom is duly noted... as always.

Your martyrdom is duly noted... as always.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Yes...

defending fundamental fairness is so...self-absorbed.

[Liberal_in_LA]

26. kick. Hope the victim gets justice

[SDuderstadt]

28. If he is, in fact, a...

victim.

[DirkGently]

35. Horrendous if true.

[lpbk2713]

40. When an ambulance arrived Ofcr Scott sent it away.

The lawsuit further alleges that Scott handcuffed Henderson, and when the first ambulance arrived on the scene, sent it away, stating, “Go on, he doesn’t need an ambulance.”

A second ambulance would eventually transport Henderson to Thomas Hospital, where the complaint alleges he was diagnosed as having “suffered a broken nose, multiple contusions, and a torn rotator cuff in his right shoulder”, the complaint states.

Scott was hired by the city on June 4, 2001, and earns $24.86 per hour, according to records. He was still employed by the city as of May 16, according to CNS.


From this link: http://www.baldwincountynow.com/articles/2011/05/19/local_news/doc4dd55ae62e7e2850306558.txt


Website for the city of Fairhope: http://www.cofairhope.com/

Near the bottom of the page it says ...

In order to better serve our citizens, we want to make it easier to contact your elected officials. To send a message to all City elected officials, please click here.

... and it gives a link to the city officials. I think I will suggest to them that they might want to think about whether
Ofcr Scott is the type of individual they want to have a position with the amount of power he apparently has.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Again, all these things are...

"alleged" in the complaint by the complainant. You're presenting it as a statement of fact, when it has not been established as such. I'd prefer to wait for the factual record before drawing conclusions.

For example, I'd love to see what the ambulance attendants have to say, wouldn't you?

[yardwork]

45. The article states that a superior officer arrived and called the ambulance back.

Unless this part is a fabrication, it would seem to corroborate the couple's account:

A superior office who later arrived on the scene ordered the ambulance to return and Henderson was taken to the hospital, where he doctors said he suffered a broken nose, multiple contusions and a torn rotator cuff.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Which still doesn't mean the cop...

"beat him up".

I am suggesting that we wait for more facts before drawing conclusions. That's it.

[PATRICK]

49. Unfortunately

this is all too typical a DU response to a truncated story. What the article shows is a bare bones but accented report and an official complaint, therefore two original print sources, the summary of a very brief Court News article from the alleged victim's point of view with a couple of their quotes. In none of these sources is there an attempt at deeper reportage. Perhaps some larger media might do(or has done?) a fuller job on what seems a fairly big story. Usually we chew on the scraps of info like hungry pups with a lot of barking. Usually it is not so sensationally outrageous as first presented if only because of the truncated and slanted presentation. At least the post uses the word allegedly for proper context.

In our lousy news environment it is tedious and often hopeless to first seek good coverage of a story before even being able to post a reasonable comment. While waiting, the premature discussion disintegrates. I don't think the cautionary critic can be branded an enemy of senior citizens and a friend to strong arm police procedures, nor should he be baited to fall into the trap of trying to imagine alternative points of view likewise unreported.

[peace4ever]

50. Like the IMF Head story, eh?

:hi:

[Pithlet]

51. Just about the most pointless thing in the world

is getting huffy about posters having an opinion about news stories. And I mostly see it when it's stories about cop abuse. I wonder why that is?

Unless you directly witnessed it or are somehow personally involved, you don't know if a story is 100% accurate, and have no way of knowing for sure. So no one opining about a story is going to know for sure. But people persist in talking about it and forming opinions anyway. It's useless to tell them to stop. I sure don't plan on stopping, myself. If someone's axe is ground by my opinion on the story, and wants to stick their "We don't have all the facts you can't judge!!!" nose in my face? I don't care. If you tell me I can never have an opinion on a news story, I can tell you where I think that opinion belongs and you won't like it.

[SDuderstadt]

52. People aren't merely...

"expressing opinions" here.

They are condemning the cop based upon an "article" that was based solely upon the complaint. No one told you that tmyou couldn't have an opinion. The ironic thing here is the number who believe we shouldn't be allowed to express opinions upon their opinions.

[Pithlet]

53. Yes. They are expressing opinions.

That's all. They're "condemning" the cop, with their very bad opinion of what he's allegedly done. They get do to that. It isn't against the rules here. Sorry that doesn't sit well with you, but it is what it is. Putting "article" in quotes doesn't change anything. You personally feel there isn't enough evidence that you don't want to personally judge. That's fine, too. You also get to do that.

[SDuderstadt]

55. No, they are not...

they are making flat statements of fact. Read their posts again.

[Pithlet]

56. Again. They get to do that.

That's their opinion. You don't have to agree. :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

57. And, I didn't...

Duh.

[Pithlet]

58. So what's the problem?

:)

[SDuderstadt]

59. I don't know...

what your problem is.

[Pithlet]

60. My problem is that with your standards no one should ever discuss a news story.

Because news stories are rarely fully detailed and completely accurate. They're going to discuss it anyway. You're tilting at windmills. I don't intend to stop, myself.

[SDuderstadt]

61. You might want to look at what...

"courthouse news services" actually do. They take complaints from a courthouse and write articles that essentially say, "here is what the complainant alleges. It is not intended to be a hard news story, in that the only news or facts they are presenting is the "fact" that the complainant alleged something. What about if similar articles were written based solely upon what the writer of a police report says?

Are you intentionally missing the point?

[Pithlet]

62. Yeah, it might not be accurate.

Oh, no! Someone's wrong on the internet!!!!!! They're incorrectly interpreting inaccurate data! Oh noooooooooosss!!!!11

[SDuderstadt]

64. It is written ENTIRELY from the point of view of...

the complainant. It is totally one-sided.

That's a little different than "incorrectly interpreting inaccurate data". Duh.

[Pithlet]

65. Yes. It does indeed report the facts from one side of the story.

It is indeed entirely reasonable to say "I'm not going to rush to judgment, here" I'm not arguing with you on that point at all. I'm merely saying that it does no good to attack people for the judgments they're making. They're reading those same facts and coming to a different conclusion. I'm sorry you don't like that conclusion. I know. I regularly don't like the conclusions that people come to on DU. That happens a lot.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Advising people to get all the facts before drawing conclusions isn't...

"attacking" them.

[Pithlet]

67. No, but it sure is annoying and pointless and it can feel like an attack

Attack may be a strong word. But people don't like having fingers wagged at them. As I said. The chances of all the facts coming in are very low. It's a story being posted on an internet. We aren't all sitting around the table in a jury room.

[SDuderstadt]

68. So, you falsely accused me of...

"attacking" people.

My irony meter just broke.

[Pithlet]

69. Attack may be a strong word, but

You're essentially accusing people of rushing to judgement, and telling them they shouldn't be forming that opinion.

[SDuderstadt]

70. I pointed out...

the flaw in the story and they DID rush to judgment. In exchange, I was accused of supporting police violence and bias against elderly people. I give up. Go argue with yourself.

[Pithlet]

71. "The "ready, fire, aim" factor is far too strong at DU."

That was also in your post where you were "just pointing it out". I'm sure that had nothing to do with the response you got.

[SDuderstadt]

72. What would you call it?

It's an accurate description.

[Pithlet]

73. I would call that not just pointing out the story is onesided n/t

[SDuderstadt]

76. Really?

And they couldn't have figured that out on their own by simply paying attention to the story itself?

My abject apologies for defending fundamental fairness. I somehow got the mistaken impression we progressives value fairness. My mistake.

[Pithlet]

77. Well, people can disagree with you and still be progressive.

Yep. It's possible.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Discarding...

fundamental fairness isn't.

[Pithlet]

83. Yeah. They didn't interpret the facts the way you did.

That doesn't make them not progressive. Sorry.

[SDuderstadt]

85. Claims aren't facts...

do you understand the difference?

How is arguing against fundamental fairness "progressive"?

[Pithlet]

89. You're right, They aren't. So what?

People can still come to a different conclusion and be progressive.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Blatantly disparaging fundamental fairness is...

progressive?

Could you explain what is "progressive" about that? I can't believe that I even have to have this conversation with fellow progressives. Those stupid founding fathers were so "naive".

I will, as they say, take my answer "off-the-air".

[Pithlet]

93. It's a comment about a news story on a message board. Not a verdict on a jury.

No, I don't think it makes someone unprogressive to come to a conclusion about guilt or innocent based on a news story. That is ridiculous. Otherwise no one is progressive because I doubt there are few people who have never done so.

[SDuderstadt]

95. Yeah...

fundamental fairness is SO passe, especially since we're not in a jury room.

Fucking unbelievable.

[Pithlet]

97. They are being no more unfair

than any other post on any other news topic today. Your judgement about their unfairness is meaningless.

[Pithlet]

74. And if someone wants to make a preliminary judgement based on a story

that's rather one sided, they can do so, even if you don't happen to agree with it. If you come in with snide comments, expect to get attacked back. Oh well, I say.

[SDuderstadt]

79. They weren't merely making...

preliminary judgments (not "judgements"). They were making a wholesale condemnation based upon a blatantly one-sided account. You can trivialize it all you want, but this is something I expect from the other end of the spectrum, not ours.

Surely, you'll have no problem with me defending freepers now, based on your "logic", right? After all, they're just making "preliminary judgements". Fundamental fairness is, apparently, no longer important. Like I said before, go argue with yourself.

[Pithlet]

81. Really. You expected

that a story about an old man getting beat up by a cop would garner a different response? No one could possibly be that naive. If you are, then my humble apologies. But, yeah. Cop beating up old man, everyone isnt' going to instantly read the story and have the exact same opinion as you. Rough world.

[SDuderstadt]

84. Correction...

a story in which an old man claims he was beat-up by a cop. You're assuming facts not in evidence.

Simple question: why did Henderson wait two years to file suit?

[Pithlet]

86. I don't know. Why don't you ask him?

I'm doing no such thing. I was merely talking about the article. But you knew that. You're starting to flail.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Yes...

Why DON'T we ask him and the other parties what actually happened?

That's my point and it's hardy "flailing".

[Pithlet]

91. You're starting to argue with me like I've taken a side on the story.

I haven't. I'm merely defending the DUers who dared to have an opinion you don't agree with.

[Pithlet]

90. It depends on what the freeper did and what you're defending them for.

I'm not trivializing anything. I'm defending posters from having the gall of forming an opinion you don't agree with.

[SDuderstadt]

94. You're totally missing the point...

It's not the opinion, which may be entirely correct when the dust settles. It's totally abandoning fundamental fairnessin the process, which is precisely what they are doing.

Funny. I always thought open-mindedness was a progressive value.

[Pithlet]

96. No, you are.

No news article is fully accurate. If anyone is going to make an opinion and go forth and make it known, there is a high risk that they are making an error in judgement because the facts may be innaccurate. Therefore, if you are going to point your finger if judgment at anyone, anytime, for any opinion they make, I say it is ridiculous to do so, as well as pointless. If you want to hold someone in judgement for doing so, then you might as well make the pronouncement that it is ALWAYS wrong to form opinions based on news articles. If it's SO UNFAIR to judge someone's guilt or innocense based on a news article, then it is ALWAYS wrong to do so. In other words, your coming into this thread and wailing away at everyone makes no sense. It is pointless. They aren't being unfair any more then all the people screeching about the botox mom, who ended up being a hoax. It doesn't matter. They aren't being unprogressive. They're just blathering away on a message board just like everyone else is today, about all the topics here.

[SDuderstadt]

98. Excuse me for having higher expectatations of...

ourselves.

And, I am not going to waste time trying to reason with someone who minimizes the importance of fundamental fairness and who can't recognize the difference between a merely "inaccurate" article and a wholly one-sided one.

[Pithlet]

100. All I can say is, oh well.

People like to talk about stuff and have opinions.

[Pithlet]

99. And because it isn't a jury, and because it doesn't affect anyone's lives

and because people like to be social and gossip and talk about their opinions and talk about news stories and stuff, it's going to happen. If it bothers you to hear people talking about news stories and forming opinions on them, I'd advise you to stay out of posts about news stories.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

63. Some cops save lives, some are chronically disconnected human beings who suck ass...vigorously.

:grr:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

101. No opinion.

Rightfully so.