Cop Who Wasn't Fired For Pushing Wheelchair-Bound Man Now Being Sued

stop resistingscreencapA police officer in Lafayette, Indiana is facing a federal lawsuit for shoving a wheelchair-bound man for running over his foot last October in an incident caught on dashcam video. While internal affairs investigators recommended Lt. Tom Davidson be fired, a commission apparently made up of five civilians disagreed, opting to demote him instead. The wheelchair-bound, Nicholas Kincade, was charged with assaulting officer, or as The Indy Channel put it:

An investigation into the incident recommended termination for Davidson, but a commission declined to terminate him. On the other side of the coin, the man in the wheelchair was subsequently charged with battery against an officer (felony) for rolling over Davidson's foot, but that was dropped as well.

On the other side of the coin, no one seems to have investigated the possible false charges brought up against Kincade. You can watch the dashcam video here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hyperion||

    The cop should have just tried to 'help' the poor guy instead, and then accidentally let him go down a steep hill, like that episode of Seinfeld with Kramer and the poor wheelchair bound woman...

    Oh wait, there aren't any hills in Lafayette, ner mind.... Ok, he could have pushed him into the nearest mosquito infested swamp to help him, of which there are no shortage of there.

  • BuSab Agent||

    There ARE indeed hills in Lafayette. Not all flyover country is flat you know.

  • Sevo||

    Depends on how you define "hill". Lafayette is 'way north of the moraine line.

  • BuSab Agent||

    I define hill as tricky to stop at a light on while driving a stick shift when the moron behind you is right on your bumper.

  • Almanian!||

    Flat as a pancake from Michigan to Chicago. That I know.

  • BuSab Agent||

    And you would be wrong. For example doesn't look so flat to me.

  • Paul.||

    I remember a similar discussion about Kansas. Someone on a biking forum talked about how flat Kansas was. Someone from Kansas became indignant about how unflat Kansas was by saying they should do the something something bike run!

    Then someone from my neck of the woods stepped in and said "Anyone who thinks Kansas isn't flat should the Mt. Rainier to [doesn't matter where] bike run" and that pretty much shut the whole forum down.

    For comparison purposes, not flat: Not flat.

  • Paul.||

    And, not to be a dick, but to be a dick, I believe you have taken a cleverly framed shot of the Pines Peak Family Ski area of Valparaiso, Indiana.

    A wide shot.

    Here's a place where I snowboard regularly because it's close. For serious snow sports people, it's graded at a C+ to B-

  • Almanian!||

    Yeah - I've driven from Michigan to Chicago approximately...too many times. F. L. A. T.

    Nice try, though.

    Oh - it's also flat down around Indiana Polis and Crawfordsville and environs. Very pretty down there. And it's even flatter as you cross into IL. Flat, flat, flat....

  • BuSab Agent||

    Which means you drove 80/90...which is cleverly run along the flattest of the flat almost like the highway builders meant to do that or something. I've lived here for more than 20 years, and yes there is a lot of low lying areas which tend to swampiness, but there are also lots of rolling hilly areas especially up by the Dunes and along the Wabash. Not anything to people whose hills are mountains, of course.

  • sasob||

    They got swamps in Indiana? Who knew?

  • BuSab Agent||

    Oh we DEFINITELY got swamps. Basically all of northern Indiana is a swamp with occasional hills in between the swamps.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    I guess nobody at Reason can be arsed to actually look at the statutes when somebody catches a bogus charge. Which is a shame, because doing so usually reveals that elements of the crime aren't even close to being present, and highlights the bogosity of the charge. And finding statutes is easily done via Google.

    For example, felony battery of an officer requires the following:

    A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery,

    Bang. Right out of the gate, one searches in vain for the rude, insolent or angry manner of touching the poor, poor cop.

    http://www.in.gov/legislative/.....2/ch2.html

    Watch the video. The cop is blocking his path, with his foot out, and has plenty of time to move his foot. He shoves the guy the instant the wheel touches his foot. It was a setup, confirmed by the way the cop makes no effort to help the guy after he hits the fucking pavement.

    There's an assault on that video, make no mistake.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    He got his foot run over and then he was demoted. Hasn't this poor man suffered enough?

  • SIV||

    He has runover by a knife-wielding assailant who had threatened a school with a gun. The demotion is well-deserved for endangering the community by not responding with deadly force.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That makes more sense.

  • wef||

    You're onto something there. What with no gun, and only a pocket knife - the obese cop was justifiably incensed that he had no credible reason to blow the guy's head off.

  • wef||

    Looking at these rotund thugs, one wonders why it's called the thin, blue line.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    +10 donuts

  • BuSab Agent||

    Really it should be called the fat yellow line...

  • Duke||

    Thank goodness for those five knowledgable, level-headed civilians who had the power to veto the clearly partisan and ignorant internal affairs folks.

  • Paul.||

    Davidson be fired, a commission apparently made up of five civilians disagreed, opting to demote him instead.

    this is why the much vaunted civilian oversight committees aren't any kind of panacea in stopping police brutality. And in fact, are sometimes enablers of it.

    The only real civilian oversight committee is an armed populace.

    Boom.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Anyone want to take bets on how many relatives/former police officers are on that "civilian" panel?

  • Jerryskids||

    Just do a google search for Lafayette Police Civil Service Commission. The Commission is also known as the merit board, put into place to make sure police are hired and promoted for reasons other than that they know the right people.

    The sworn officers of the police department elect two members of the commission, two are appointed by the city council and the mayor appoints one.

  • Irish||

  • See Double You||

    a commission apparently made up of five civilians disagreed

    Does this case involve military personnel? No?

    There's got to be a better term to use when identifying non-police-officers.

  • Christophe||

    Or maybe they're actually police officers, and are using civilian in the strict sense, just to confuse critics.

  • See Double You||

    That would be pretty damn sleazy, even for the average mainstream media publication.

  • pogi||

    [I]There's got to be a better term to use when identifying non-police-officers.[/I]

    Non-dickheads?

  • pogi||

    Where the heck did that come from?

  • Warrren||

    Don't know how many folks are still here but I still need to share this. Cracked did an article on PR campaigns that backfired, on of the was Obamacare's Bro campaign.

    In the comments was this absolute gem from a guy named Thar who I think nailed just who are the majority of enlistees.

    My wife and I have 4 kids. The kids are on medicare in case of emergencies and I do without insurance. Then ACA comes along and gives a fine for not having insurance. So I look through the options, find that they give a refund to poor people who don't have insurance and I accept that. So now I pay 300 a month for insurance that has a $6000 deductible (so there's no way I'm ever going to use it), but my grant covers 299, so I pay like 1.50 or so a month for insurance I can' t afford to use and the government pays Blue Cross 299 a month for nothing. So I guess you could say I technically have more insurance than before, but if you're being realistic all ACA is doing for me is making it to where I forget to pay a tiny bill each month.

    Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article.....z37ERaTl2u

  • RishJoMo||

    Here we go man, lets makre it all happen for the good.

    www.AnonToolz.tk

  • ||

    What.

    An.

    ASSHOLE. This cop is. I don't have big enough font to make 'asshole' big enough.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement