It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cops Beat Up Old Man For Accelerating Slightly

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:39 PM
Or you get your head slammed into the concrete, even if you are 67 years old.

Louisiana: Cops Beat Up Old Man For Accelerating Slightly
What he was stopped for :

Miller had been driving his big rig logging truck home to Florien on US Highway 171 at 5:30pm on July 13, 2007. As he passed through the Village of Hornbeck, Officers Kenneth Hatchett, Jr., and Andy Mitchell, 19, pulled him over because he began speeding up "about 100 feet" before the limit changed from 45 to 55 MPH. Having driven the road for the past forty-seven years, Miller was quite familiar with the speed limit.

Totally ridiculous.

The cop were totally arrogant :

"I can see right now you're going to need an attitude adjustment," Officer Hatchett said to the five foot, six inch tall elderly man.

Knowing this was total BS and those cops were total thugs, he just decided to get out of that dangerous, yet ridiculous situation :

Miller then turned his back on the officers and began walking away.

Big mistake :

They threw him to the ground, deliberately slamming his head into the concrete so he could be handcuffed tightly. After Miller's wife bailed him out, Miller went to Byrd Regional Hospital where physicians documented the gash on Miller's forehead, the swelling and bruises and the injury to his wrist and arms. His missed two weeks of work after the incident.

At least the guy will receive SOME money..

The state court of appeals ruled May 11 that Calvin D. Miller's injuries were only worth $25,000 in compensation.

Nice job right?

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:10 PM
The best part of this story is:

Beasley found the officers entirely at fault for Miller's injuries and awarded him $25,000 in damages. The officers appealed the ruling, insisting they had full immunity from prosecution. A three-judge appellate panel rejected the claim and upheld the judgment in full, declining to adjust the damages up or down.

Once again, "The officers appealed the ruling, insisting they had full immunity from prosecution."

So these piglets think that they can do anything they want, including hurting the populace because they would be immune to prosecution? WTF???

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:12 PM
Well these cops are correct about one thing...

"You don't turn your back on a cop," Officer Hatchett explained.

You never, ever, turn your back on the enemy for any reason. Just as these cowards that we call cops proved, you turn your back and they attack. It is real easy to attack a man who is not looking. It is what cowards do.

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:47 PM
It is hard to make a rational decision of this incident as there is no video (no fault of the OP, I tried searching for dash-cam footage). I will say that based on the fact that the court ruled in Miller's favor, it is clear that in the courts' eyes the officers were in the wrong.

Please don't misinterpret the officers claiming that they could not be prosecuted. This does not necessarily mean that they can't be prosecuted for anything that they do, but more likely, they were attempting to fight any sort of civil liability in relation to this incident.

Further research showed that Miller contested the courts ruling feeling that the monies awarded to him was insufficient based on this incident during the appeals process. This could be part of the reason why the cops involved were arguing to avoid additional prosecution on the matter.

Miller v Village of Hornbeck Case No. 10-1539 (LA Ct. App., 3rd Circ., May. 11, 2011)

The defendants, Village of Hornbeck, Kenneth Hatchett, Jr., and Andy Mitchell, appeal the trial court’s judgment awarding the plaintiff, Calvin Miller, $25,000 in damages for violating his civil liberties and personal injury following a traffic stop for speeding. Miller answered the appeal, arguing that the damage award was abusively low and requesting an award for frivolous appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, deny any increase in general damages, and deny damages for frivolous appeal.

Direct Link

new topics

top topics

log in