Posted on 03/06/2013 10:59:58 AM PST by Altariel
CHICAGO (CN) - Chicago police terrorized six children in the wrong apartment, demanding at gunpoint that an 11-month-old show his hands, and telling one child, "This is what happens when your grandma sells crack," the family claims in court. Lead plaintiffs Charlene and Samuel Holly sued Chicago, police Officer Patrick Kinney and eight John Does in Federal Court, on their own behalves and for their children and children. The six children were 11 months to 13 years old at the time. Plaintiffs Connie and Michelle Robinson are Charlene Holly's daughters. The complaint states: "On November 29, 2012 in the early evening hours Charlene Holly was in the first floor apartment at 10640 S. Prairie in the front room helping minor Child #1, Child #2, Child #4, and Child #5 rehearse songs for their church choir. Charlene was also caring for Child #3, who was 11 months old. Child #6 was in the upstairs apartment alone. "Charlene and the children heard a loud boom outside and a voice cry out 'Across the street!' "Defendant Officers John Doe 1-8 burst through the door to the first floor apartment dressed in army fatigues and pointing guns at Charlene and the children. The officers yelled at Charlene and the children to 'Get on the ground!' The officers referred to Charlene and the children as 'm---f---ers' numerous times. "Afraid of the guns being pointed at them, Children #1, 2, 4, and 5 ran to a back bedroom in fear of the officers. In response to the defendants' order to 'Get on the ground!,' Charlene got down on the floor. A defendant Officer told Charlene to 'Put the baby down' so Charlene set Child #3 down beside her. The officers yelled at Charlene to get Child #3's hands where they could see them. "After attempting to show the officers that the eleven-month-old's hands were empty, Charlene asked the officers 'What is this about?' To which they replied 'Shut the f--- up.'" Samuel Holly says he asked the police what they were doing, and called the 111th Street police station asking for a "white shirt" to come explain the situation, but no supervisor ever came to the house. "Charlene continually asked what the purpose of the detention was," the complaint states. "Finally, an officer produced a warrant and handed it to Charlene. The warrant was for an individual named 'Sedgwick M. Reavers' and the premises listed was 'The second floor apartment located at 10640 S. Prairie Ave. A yellow brick two flat building with the numbers 10640 on the front of the building.' In other words, the warrant clearly identified the proper location as the second floor apartment. Charlene, Samuel, and the children were in the first floor apartment. "As the officers were detaining Charlene, Samuel, and Children #1-5 in the first floor apartment, they also proceeded to the second floor apartment, where Child #6 was home alone. Child #6 was 13 years old at the time of the incident. "The officers approached Child #6 in a bedroom and turned out the lights. They began flashing red lights at the child, calling him 'm-f---er,' placing him in plastic handcuffs and telling him 'I started to Tase your grandmother and cousins' and 'This is what happens when your grandma sells crack.' Child #6 begged the police not to hurt his family in the apartment below and stated that his grandmother did not sell crack." The man named in the warrant, Sedgwick Reavers, "was sitting in a squad car outside of 10640 S. Prairie throughout the entire incident," according to the complaint. The family claims that "the following day Charlene discovered the family dog, Samson, not in the basement where the family kept him, but in an upstairs laundry room. Samson could not have reached the laundry room without human assistance. On information and belief, defendant Officers dragged and choked Samson from the basement with the dog pole and left him in the upstairs laundry room unattended, where he died." Samuel Holly also went to the police station the day after the warrantless search to complain, but "despite his numerous calls the night before, was told that he could not make a complaint and he 'should have made a complaint last night," the family says. They seek punitive damages for unlawful detention, unreasonable seizure, excessive force, conspiracy, unlawful search, assault and battery, and emotional distress. They are represented by Theresa Kleinhaus with the Law Office of Standish Willis.
The address is on the far South Side. If you go to Google Maps and click Street View, all visible residents are black: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=10640+S.+Prairie,+chicago,+il
The progressive states of Indiana and Texas empower their citizens to resist illegal acts by law enforcement and to do so with lethal force.
Illinois obviously could benefit from such a law to help keep their thugs-with-badges in check.
The officers have immunity. Not jack is what’s going to happen to them. Nothing ever does.
Indeed.
BECOMING? Where have you been?
Where the heck are the editors these days?
Well, Sheriff Andy and Deputy Fife haven’t militarized yet.
Eventually, the tide will change; people are more vocal about this sort of abuse than they have been in years back.
The thugs simply haven’t figured that out yet.
And I speak as someone who has and celebrated 23 years clean and sober last month. I agree with you opinion. The end result of protecting people from their folly is a world full of fools.
Nicely put!
It is perhaps relevant that this story is not reporting facts.
It is reporting claims in a lawsuit by people who have been coached by attorneys. And we all know attorneys and their clients are always entirely truthful.
Do I believe this could have happened exactly as claimed? Sure, and I also believe it could be greatly exaggerated or even invented completely.
There is no way to form an opinion just from this story.
Well, one fact seams certain. They raided the wrong house.
You are correct. The lawyers and family will spin this any way that will benefit them. Potentially, there could be a lot of money on the line.
But these days I have doubts about taking the word of the cops. Unless they have non-cop corroborating witnesses or video and recordings, I wouldn’t believe darn thing they say.
At least they didn’t shoot any dogs or stomp any cats.
I don’t believe the cops always tell the truth either. Way too much “us against them” there for me. The isolation of cops from the general populace is a really bad thing for both groups.
But I don’t think we should accept the claims of a plaintiff in lawsuit as the complete truth either.
I have to wonder why good cops tolerate the bad ones and the stupid ones (can’t tell what floor the warrant is supposed to be served on? C’mon. Even Chicago cops can’t be that illiterate.). Do they have any idea how much of their credibility is being compromised here?
It’s the whole notion of closing ranks to protect your “brothers.”
A feelings that is absolutely essential to men doing dangerous work, BTW, but one that seems to be getting increasingly out of hand, IMO.
I am in a line of work where there are crooks, as in most lines of work, and I am more offended by them and want to see them punished than the average person is. They make me and the other good guys look bad. I have no idea why so many cops don’t seem to feel the same way about bad cops.
In an early scene of the excellent movie The Big Easy Dennis Quade explains that it’s very simple on the street, it’s the good guys versus the bad guys.
Of course the rest of the movie demonstrates conclusively that good guys can very easily morph into bad guys, sometimes without even fully realizing what they are doing.
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.