Police Abuse

Connecticut Police Department Tries to Arrest One of Its Own For Brutality, State's Attorney Says Nope, Too Complicated

|

witness, no crime
Enfield P.D.

Police in Enfield, Connecticut, were ready to arrest one of their own, Matthew Worden, for punching a suspect when it was "neither necessary nor needed." They prepared a 7-page arrest warrant where it sounded like the cop's excuse was that his victim got in the way of his punches, but the state's attorney in Hartford rejected the application because, well, the incident was too complicated to follow.

The cops' allegations against Worden and the state's attorney explanation for rejecting them, via The Courant:

According to the arrest warrant application, Worden told [Lt. Lawrence] Curtis that he hit [suspect Mark] Maher twice in the shoulder area because he was resisting arrest and that Maher was "tensing his arm" and "clenching his fists" while Worden was patting him down on the hood of a cruiser.

Worden told Curtis that he delivered two closed fist punches aimed at Maher's upper right arm "to disrupt the nerves and incapacitate the muscles so the arms could be controlled." Worden said Maher was thrashing on the ground after officers took him down and that "this thrashing caused one of the punches to hit Maher in the right side of his forehead above the eye," the application states.

The application states Curtis concluded that the video did not show Maher resisting arrest and that at one point it shows Worden, while Maher is on the ground with one arm pinned behind him, stopping to adjust the glove on his right hand before delivering two of the four punches he threw.

In her letter rejecting the arrest warrant [state's attorney Gail] Hardy said the video "depicts many moving parts where it is extremely difficult to keep up with everything that is going on with all parties."

Hardy was appointed state's attorney for Hartford in 2007 after working for the state's Division of Criminal Justice for 11 years. She is the chief law enforcement officer for the judicial district of Hartford.

h/t Tim M.

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.

59 responses to “Connecticut Police Department Tries to Arrest One of Its Own For Brutality, State's Attorney Says Nope, Too Complicated

  1. That punk cop needs a good beating!

    http://www.AnonToolz.tk

    1. I would welcome my Anonbot overlords… Too bad my people will will show up instead.

      1. Damn he’s good.

  2. So even when some cops actually try to arrest one of their own for illegal behavior, the DA/SA covers for the cop anyway. What, is she a fucking board member of the police union?

    Unreal.

    1. The only thing worse than a cop is an elected prosecutor.

      Cause NOT SOFT ON CRIME! hurr durr hurr!

      1. Well, remember:

        She is the chief law enforcement officer for the judicial district of Hartfrod [sic]

        Prosecutors are usually legally considered to be law enforcement. They can almost always carry guns and do most things cops can do, and they are often considered (as here) to be the chief LEO for their jurisdiction. So they’re almost like a Police Commissioner or something.

        Of course they’re worse than cops most of the time.

        1. She’s a cop and lawyer – Oh, the horror!

      2. not all cops are bad but there are bad cops just like in any profession. If ever need one you change your tune very quickly.

        1. This is the weakest of many weak badge-licking straw men.

        2. Not only is this not relevant to the point that was made, but the problem with “bad cops” is that your interactions with them are not dictated by your needs but rather by their whims.

          Also, as you may gather, many people on this site hold a high enough regard for their own ability to protect life, liberty, and property that they don’t have much “need” for the police.

        3. If you ever need one, he won’t be there.

        4. We “need” one because we’re forced to “need” one because the government has pretty much emasculated people by making it very hard to A) own a firearm and B) defend themselves on their property as they’ve created laws that are stacked against the victim. Too often we hear stories of free and law-abiding citizens get attacked only to be arrested by the police for protecting their family.

    2. Professional courtesy is a helluva drug.

      The SA has to work with cops to do her job, and she also wants to get home from that job without traffic unfortunate accidents.

    3. I’m trying to figure out what’s in it for the State’s Attorney.

  3. What is this, Nut Punch Week on Discovery or something? Geez.

    For a magazine called Nut Punch Weekly….

  4. the video “depicts many moving parts where it is extremely difficult to keep up with everything that is going on with all parties.”

    Hsst, Gail. You know you can slow it down, extract frames, all kinds of stuff.

    1. Why do we care? He would have had his conviction overturned after arbitration, with back pay plus damages X 4.

  5. Hardy said the video “depicts many moving parts where it is extremely difficult to keep up with everything that is going on with all parties.”

    Obvious rejoinder: I’m sure it would have been easy to keep with everything going if it was a civilian punching a cop.

  6. …”depicts many moving parts where it is extremely difficult to keep up with everything that is going on with all parties.”

    Translation: “Some cop union official made it clear that if I have any aspirations to a higher office and want the support – rather than active opposition – of the king’s men, I should find a flimsy pretense to reject this warrant.”

    1. I’m also guessing that Enfield Police wanted rid of this guy for some reason, hence the attempted arrest.

      1. Yep

  7. Time to start the #waronprosecutors

  8. Kudos to the department for trying to actually police itself. So, what happens now?

    1. Nothing.

      Once again, we see clearly that the system works.

    2. what should happen is that the next time the bad cop ask for back up all other cops will be busy at the donut shop.

  9. If Hardy can’t keep up with video evidence she might want to find a new line of work.

    1. If Hardy can’t keep up with video evidence she might want to find a new found the right line of work.

      FIFY

  10. No corruption here, no sirree, nothing to see here, just move along

  11. I eagarly (read not at all) await Mary’s ridiculous google+ post about this and how we are anti-cop bigots.

    1. Mary’s posts are not about rational objections. She’s an ultra-obsessed stalker who will take the opposite position of any position a large number of people here take. If we proposed a way of feeding all the hungry children in the world she’d have an objection to it. She’s not rational, and she’s fucking insane.

      And as you can see she reads this website every single day, all day.

      OBSESS MUCH?

      1. If we proposed a way of feeding all the hungry children in the world she’d have an objection to it

        That’s already happened with the ‘pro-science’ proggies. GMO you know.

      2. I got sucked in reading her insanity cause of the PM links thread. I think you’ve nailed it exactly.

      3. Oh my God, She’s doing it right now!

    2. People actually read that?

      1. She trolls a multitude of sites but Reason is her favorite by far. Just google Kizone Kaprow and be amazed at the sheer dedication, the single-mindedness, the Jolt Cola fueled ravings of a person who has declared war on libertarians.

        1. I’ve seen here site. She has a couple of my posts from here on her site. I forgot which ‘ism’ it is that she’s labeled me as.

          1. her/it

        2. I would say that it’s nice they send people to the site, but realize that few people probably visit her google+ hole.

  12. This shit will reach a tipping point. How far off that is, I don’t know, but it’s coming. But it’s going to get to the point that too many people know too many other people that have been affected by the out of control militarized thug state. I would say that it won’t happen suddenly, but it typically does. There will be an incident that will set off a chain reaction of public fury against this shit. It doesn’t even have to be as bad as any of the other shit that’s already happened, it just has to happen at the right time and place after so much slow build up. Watch and see, it’s going to happen.

    1. And, as someone pointed out on a thread the other day, the tipping point may well involve vigilante justice. I am NOT endorsing that, but if you make it clear there is no justice within the system then you encourage people to burn the system down.

      That was A (not THE factor) in a lot of the riots in the late 1960s.

      1. People are losing respect for the state in general, a respect that they really haven’t deserved in a long time. When you pass so many laws that no one even knows what most of them are, and most of them are so ambiguously defined that they can be interpreted however depending on who’s doing the interpreting, when everyone is potentially a criminal just for living, then people will stop respecting any law.

        1. I think that has already happened.

    2. “Hyperion”,

      I agree a great deal with what you’ve written about a tipping point and how/when it might happen.

      Do you think individuals in the state apparatus realize this (either at the local-police level, State level, or Federal level)?

      Have you speculated what their reaction will likely be if significant numbers of citizens suddenly defended their neighbors/themselves against law enforcement brutality?

      Like others have expressed; just because I can envision a violent reaction to ongoing brutality doesn’t mean that I agree with that reaction.

  13. On topic: Team Red is starting to catch on! They even mention The Nut Puncher Supreme (AKA BAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLKOOOOOOOO!!!!)

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..-j-delgado

    1. It’s Time for Conservatives to Stop Defending Police

      It’s time for them to stop supporting war mongering and the WOD also. But they don’t seem to be getting the message.

      1. I don’t have time to find the links right now, but there was fairly widespread conservative opposition to getting involved in Syria. Of course, the real test will come if/when Team Red gets the White House back.

        With the WOD again, there are bits and pieces of conservative push back against a lot of it. I wouldn’t say it’s a sea change but there is some support for at least de-criminalizing marijuana possession and for reducing sentences.

      2. It’s almost like they don’t actually care about limited government, just power and graft.

  14. If this shit continues, at some point in time the majority of the citizenry will fear the police. From a law-enforcement perspective, you don’t want this. There are roughly 1 million of you, and many tens-of-millions of us. We don’t want to be your enemy. We understand that most of you are trying to do good, and that many of our fellow citizens rely on you. When the citizenry begins to fear you more than they fear criminals, it only makes your job more difficult. Ostracize the shitbags and the bullies and drive them out. Refuse to work with them. Insist on proper training. Police your own. If you don’t, I’m certain that at some point someone will do it for you, and they’re not going to know or care who the good cops are, and who the bad cops are. I don’t want to see that happen, because it’s going to get ugly for everyone; police and citizen alike.

    1. didn’t that happen in LA where the former cop shot other cops and then the cops shot anyone in a pickup truck. More people should have been upset about that then were.

      1. Yes, they should have, and people should have been prosecuted. Alas, had the cops beaten two black women on video, the city would have been outraged. Unfortunately (or fortunately)it was just a gunshot wound or two.

  15. I’m sure this would how it would happen if things were reversed and a guy was suspected of hitting a cop like this, right?

  16. Normally I would say do not judge until you’ve walked in the officers shoes, but if the video shows the officer stopping to adjust his gloves, as an ex law enforcement officer I can say the individual was beyond resisting and the officer was beyond the necessary force to affect the arrest.

  17. So, how can incentives be created for different police agencies and police and prosecutors to have a more adversarial relationship? I think that is the only way to stop this kind of shit. State Police in a lot of places already seem to have a lot of disdain for locals. Maybe that would be a good place to start. Make it part of the Staties’ job to police the local guys and provide some sort of incentives for them to do a good job of it. Who knows if that could actually disrupt the poisonous police culture we have, but it seems like it is worth a shot. If enough people start to see the police in a worse light, it might even become politically possible, though at this point police are probably still too well regarded by the general public, for some reason.

    1. I saw a free market solution offered in the NRO article linked above – require police to carry liability insurance. If a civilian wins a lawsuit against the police, instead of the taxpayers footing the bill, have it paid by the offending officer’s insurance policy. Each time the officer is liable his premiums, paid out of his own pocket, go up. If it gets to a point where he doesn’t want to pay anymore, he has to resign from the police. Or, if the insurance company refuses to offer a policy to an officer, he is then fired.

  18. Where the fuck is Batman when you need him?

    hell, fuck Batman, where the fuck is Commissioner Gordon ?

    *facepalm*

    these pigs….

    -FFM

  19. Cops should be chargewd with regular assault first and formost, police brutality should simply be the crime of committing assault was an agent of the state. And we might as well call it aggravated assault, since the cops do these violent crimes while armed! That’s only if you think all laws should actually apply to everyone equally.

  20. I suspect state’s attorney is either fucking the cop, or she’s afraid he’ll do the same to her. Or both. Probably both.

  21. On a related note, today on his radio show, Mike Gallagher was defending the numerous cops who killed the obese man on the street in New York City this week. You know, the one who allegedly committed the horrible act of selling some individual cigarettes to people on the street who wanted to buy them.

    Gallagher glossed over the policeman choking his victim and ignoring him saying he couldn’t breath, and he summed it up by saying “The only thing that went wrong was he died.”

    Let me repeat that: “The only thing that went wrong was he died.”

    Isn’t that kind of like the old joke, “Except for that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

  22. Kafka is alive and well. It doesn’t help that Connecticut is effectively a one party state, where we have the Democrat party, and the Democrat-lite party (Republican).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.