Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

Lawsuit against Pennsylvania troopers accused of setting man on fire set to proceed

Published time: April 10, 2013 01:09
Image from flickr.com user@wcn247

Image from flickr.com user@wcn247

A federal judge has ruled that the trial of Pennsylvania trooper accused of using excessive force can go ahead, meaning the plaintiff does not have to “unequivocally” prove that other officers failed to intervene upon witnessing him set him on fire.

A federal judge has ruled that the trial of Pennsylvania trooper accused of using excessive force can go ahead, meaning plaintiff Allen Brown does not have to “unequivocally” prove that other officers failed to intervene upon witnessing him set him on fire.

In the early morning of August 24, 2008, Brown was spotted by Pennsylvania state patrol for driving an unlicensed scooter on the Schuylkill Expressway in eastern Pennsylvania. Troopers Justin LeMaire and Peter Burghart gave chase when Brown, who was driving without the legally required license plates or protective headgear, refused to pull over.

The low-speed pursuit ended when Brown drove into a cable blocking the entrance to the apartment complex he was attempting to flee into. When Brown fell off the scooter it started leaking gas, which leaked onto him as he lay in the street. Police say the suspect then failed to cooperate and was Tasered multiple times, at which point the electricity met with the gasoline and engulfed Brown in flames.

Burghart would later testify, according to Courthouse News, that Brown failed to recognize the officers’ commands and put himself at risk by resisting arrest. After Trooper LeMaire put out the flames with a fire extinguisher Brown again rose to his feet and allegedly began threatening the officers.

Brown would later plead guilty to driving under the influence and attempting to elude an officer but filed a lawsuit against LeMaire and Burghart in 2010 claiming that he suffered third-degree burns over about a third of his body. Both officers testified that they knew prior to the accident that a taser was capable of igniting gasoline, although they denied thinking of it at the time.

Judge Pratter previously ruled that LeMaire’s status in the case lacked clarity but denied an immunity request from Burghart, siding with Brown’s expectation that a routine traffic stop “surely would not conclude that conduct risking lighting that suspect on fire was an appropriate amount of force ,” she wrote.

Burghart is not entitled to qualified immunity because 'an officer familiar with legal precedent regarding the amount of force appropriate in the case of (1) an unarmed, but resisting suspect (2) who was not attempting to harm officers and, (3) aside from resisting arrest, had only committed traffic violations surely would not conclude that conduct risking lighting that suspect on fire was an appropriate amount of force ,” Judge Pratter continued.

Comments (4)

Anonymous user 12.07.2013 05:30

"...required... protective headgear?" No such thing; helmets are optional in Pennsylvania.

Anonymous user 10.04.2013 13:32

Jesus only in America .

Anonymous user 10.04.2013 06:06

America sounds more and more like a Police State everyday!

View all comments (4)
Add comment

Authorization required for adding comments

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

OK

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

X

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us