Pennsylvania Officers Sued for Flashlight Beating

nice to see a chief actually stick up for his officers, even after a lawsuit is filed

Chief Wiehagen said that the officers were not carrying flashlights that night.

Did they eat a lot of carrots for lunch?

The chief said at that point, the other officer threw Mr. Irvin to the ground and arrested him and Officer Kraly, not Officer Laeuricia, zapped Mr. Hicks.

Sounds a little lame, chief.

With all that smoke, there has to be a fire somewhere.

"The chief said at that point, the other officer threw Mr. Irvin to the ground and arrested him and Officer Kraly, not Officer Laeuricia, zapped Mr. Hicks."

First of all your mixing two different incidents into one sentence/statement. The zapping incident refers to a prior case.

Second of all, the Chief DID NOT say anything about Mr Hicks getting "zapped." That statement was made by Hicks own attorney - duh!

And finally, since the incident occurred in July when it gets dark later in the evening, and fireworks usually get going fairly early, it's very possible the officers were not carrying large flashlights in hand at the time of that incident.

Actually, many departments don't even allow their officers to carry the large flashlights anymore. Our officers are issued Streamlight Stinger XTs or Sure-Fire "belt carried" flashlights. They provide plenty of light and eliminate the weight of the large lights while making sure he has a flashlight with him when he needs it - and no claims of being struck with a big heavy "assault" flashlight.

"Irvin said when he was trying to speak to one of the firefighters at the scene, one of the officers struck him in the face with a flashlight, then grabbed him, threw him to the ground and handcuffed him, at which point he lost consciousness."

And yet he pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Why does our judiciary system even entertain these claims? What a waste of time and money!

I had a trial once where suspect claimed I tased him "for no reason" (of course) while effecting an arrest. It was a jury trial and he and his defense attorney were really playing it up making me look like a baboon.

What really bothered me was not his blatant lie, though, but the look on the jury members' faces as he was spouting it out. It was obvious they were buying it and had already presumed me guilty (let's divert the focus from the criminal shall we).

It was quite amusing then to see everyone's faces when I took the stand again (in uniform with no taser) and calmly informed the court that I did not carry a taser and that his claim was bogus. Thank goodness for witnesses!

If Shawn is right why is this allowed?!!! It is hard enough for us who try to do the job right without having these kind of BOZOS around.It appears this whole Dept needs to be looked at.

I guess the injuries he suffered were also imaginary.

The best Officer is one that has never completed a shift!!

trainingsgt1, what do you mean by your comment? I dont understand it and t seems to have no relavence to the article.

It will be a cold day in hell before I form a judgment based on a newspaper story. I would expect other officers would know better too but I guess not. Maybe these guys were right, maybe not. I also would not listen much to a self-identified "resident" of the town. For all we know he is a frequent flier, or maybe his wife now lives with an officer. Also true that he could be speaking the gospel truth, but WE DON'T KNOW. Lawsuits can say whatever they want, and sometimes they do allege injuries that didn't happen. One of mine claimed I beat this guy so hard he was going progressively blind in both eyes after his incarceration for life at an FCI. On the stand his doctor stated he had a degenerative retinal disease and was going blind, but not from anything done during his arrest. All this crap went into the papers smearing me even though the whole event from start to finish (bank robbery of a bank ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PD) was on video from the start, including the arrest, transport, and booking at the jail. The video showed no contact other than the handcuffing and a hand on the arm walking to the car. Did the paper report the factually not guilty (a rare verdict in a trial) verdict in the civil trial? I will let you guess the answer to that. If you believe more than 5 percent of what is in the paper you are a damn fool. The ads for "natural male enhancement" usually carry more truth than the reporting.