Posted on 12/31/2013 6:22:25 PM PST by null and void
A Pittsburgh woman is suing authorities after she had to have her arm amputated because police officers used ‘excessive force’ while they arrested her and refused to give her access to a doctor.
The mother-of-three, Amy Needham, 35, of Ross, says the officers entered her home to execute an arrest warrant for failing to show up to a preliminary hearing.
When sheriff's office employees arrived, Needham said she was using the bathroom, but they broke down the bathroom door.
Rough arrest: Police officers shocked Amy Needham, 35, with a Taser, applied arm bars and wrist locks, and put on handcuffs 'that were too tight' before taking her to Allegheny County Jail
According to her attorney, Marvin Leibowitz, the tight handcuffs caused her to suffer compartment syndrome, a limb- and life-threatening condition that occurs after an injury.
Leibowitz says while Needham sat in jail, she made 16 requests to see a doctor for treatment but was denied.
‘They never sent her a doctor. Never took her to the doctor. She developed a septic shock and she almost died and they had to take off her arm
Asked for help: The victim's attorney, Marvin Leibowitz, says while Needham sat in jail she made 16 requests to see a doctor for treatment which were denied
Needham, who had previously worked in a restaurant, is now waiting for a prosthesis.
‘I think she’s been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. She doesn’t have an arm. How is she going to get a job?’
Deputies had arrested her for failing to show up at a preliminary hearing on a charge that was eventually reduced to disorderly conduct.
She is now suing the deputies in question and the Allegheny County Jail and seeks $75,000 in damages.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
A slap on the wrist in most courts for lowly charges.The judge will usually ask you to explain and if you have a good enough excuse he’ll forgive you and move on.
Even running a ‘clean ship’ sometimes isn’t enough.
You got that right. She should be suing them for an arm and a leg.
Welcome to FR.
/johnny
LEO’s are different beasts than the rest of us. If you doubt me wait until the SHTF and watch as they let you die while they help each other first.
LEO’s are the police force for the 1% because they know which side of the bread pays for their early pensions and total disability with full pay while working full time for money under the table.
I agree.Her situation became acute and they ignored her.
And really, the only difference between ten years ago and now is...
The ubiquitous cell phone camera.
Things Americans for decades dismissed as criminals trying to pin things on our protectors ... show up on YouTube an Vmeo all the time. They can’t be dismissed out of hand anymore.
When the SHTF, the most dangerous groups will be wandering gangs. The most dangerous of those gangs will be wearing blue, and I think they will be the first ones targeted by citizens who want to survive.
By the time the Attorney takes his third she would only get $50,000 dollars. That is not bear enough for a person who has lost an arm because cops pout handcuffs on too tight because they were in a mean mood that day.
Only $75k for losing an arm??
And this woman must not have been some kind of angel if she needed all kinds of restraints.
Somehow I'll bet the cops didn't break down the door over a traffic ticket.
Being contrary here. If she wants big bucks, she'd have an airtight case worth much more than 75K.
Because her attorney asked for such a pittance, I'm suspicious of the reporting. Too many unanswered questions.
“Tort reform.” Your masters delivered lies with their anecdotes. Welcome to the new paradigm of vengeance. Have fun. Enjoy the slide.
The article appears to present her story only, and she initiated the unfortunate series of events by not showing up to the preliminary hearing. That was very foolish of her regardless of what came next.
So I have to wonder why the police Tasered her and treated her the way they did. Assuming everything reported is entirely true, the police used excessive force, and she’ll win her case. However, the police don’t generally act like this towards cooperative people. Do you really believe the police treated her like this for no reason whatsoever? Remember. We’re getting her lawyer’s point of view but not the police’s.
The moral of this story? Show up for court when you’re scheduled to appear, and peacefully submit to the police if you foolishly decide not to show. That’s sage advice regardless.
The article is written from the lady’s point of view only. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to deal with the crap that many police put up with on a daily basis, and we don’t know what the police point of view is here. My comment was simply that it’s unwise to ignore the justice system by not showing up for a preliminary hearing. The lady might be entirely innocent. Maybe she didn’t even know she was supposed to appear. If she did know and refused to appear, then it makes me question the rest of her story. The type of person who would blow off a hearing like that would also likely give police a hard time.
“I can only assume that you are advocating for extra-judicial punishment.”
You assume wrong. You can read my explanation in reply to others. The lady was foolish to not show up when she was supposed to. She created the series of unfortunate events, and we only have her side of the story.
And just who the hell are you to judge my Christianity?
I make a comment imply the woman was foolish for blowing off a hearing and now some FReepers are claiming I’m an advocate for extra-judicial punishment AND questioning my Christianity. Some FReepers are idiots. Just my point of view.
I don’t think it’s right to deny her medical treatment. My original comment was simply directed toward the foolishness of tangling with the legal system in the first place. That doesn’t justify police brutality and a lack of care, but someone who blows off a preliminary hearing doesn’t sound like a very cooperative person to start with. We also ONLY have her side of this story, and everyone should pretty much understand that means it’s only going to be framed in a way that helps her legal case. There’s so much more left unsaid here, and I can’t believe some FReepers are ready to believe everything reported like it’s the gospel truth.
“Because her attorney asked for such a pittance, I’m suspicious of the reporting. Too many unanswered questions.”
Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.