Andrew Glover, 60, of New Britain, Connecticut is a bit unhappy with the local police. He alleges that he was sitting at home when the police broke into his apartment illegally, ripped out his catheter, tosses the apartment, and generally assaulted him. They had the wrong apartment in a search of child pornography.
Glover, wisely, has filed notice of an intended federal civil rights action. He was recovering from intestinal surgery when the police came calling. The police did not have a search warrant, according to his lawyer. His neighbors, Harold Spurling and Jeffrey Brisson, were charged with sexual assault and other crimes.
But they are not Glover, who would do a public service in bringing this action. Such stories, as discussed here, seem to be increasingly common. There obviously needs to be greater deterrence of such conduct. Even on a proper search, the removal of a catheter under these circumstances and without medical personnel would be abusive. While we have yet to hear the side of the officers, this is an outrageous case if even half of these facts are proven.
For the latest story, click here
Dunder,
Why do you patrol this site when you know that actual facts are going to be discussed? Has there ever been an illegal and abusive arrest in your opinion? Maybe if you were the recipient of this kind of alleged brutality, you might be singing a different tune.
Dunder or Blunder or whatever your name is – who puts more unsubstantiated manure in print that you?
C’mon – are you really Kevin James ?
dunder:
It always just allegations until some judge or jury says otherwise.
an “IF” and 50 cents used to get you a cup of coffee. Why is this even up for discussion when NOBODY KNOWS THE FACTS. I find it disturbing that this stuff gets in print when it is all just plain allegations.
dunder:
I agree that we should hear both sides, but if it is true that the cops, without provocation, pulled the man’s catheter out, is there some plausible scenario that would justify this conduct in the execution of a search without a warrant?
“While we have yet to hear the side of the officers, this is an outrageous case if even 1/2 of these facts are proven.”
Is it still outrageous if even 1/3 of the facts are proven?
How about 1/4?
How about 1/10?
How about when none are factual and it turns out it is all made up by a guy seeing dollar signs waiving in front of him….
Susan:
I am sure some will argue that the cops, despite their unnecessary brutality against a sick man, had a good faith basis to search. Some file clerk’s mistake will go unpunished, and the “law and order” crowd will dismiss the plight of another innocent citizen as the price to be paid for the “War on Crime”. Toleration for other people’s misery is the watchword for the rigth-wing. You see, it’s “results” that matter, and “due process”, well that’s just a phrase for pointy-headed professors and defense lawyers. Their faith in the power structure is absolute, and Juvenal’s eternal question — Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?* — falls deaf on their ears. Ironic, if it weren’t so pathetic.
*Who will watch the watchmen?
I’d love to hear the “probable cause” the police had for ripping out this innocent man’s catheter, which definitely can be called TORTURE in my book! I don’t believe such a crime is called for in ANY search or arrest warrant.