Does Anyone Actually Have Verification That Rev. Yearwood Broke His Ankle? Is It Just Made Up?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

I keep hearing these references to his receiving a broken leg or broken ankle from his arrest last night (see link below for a thread on the topic, if you've missed it). But I can't find ANY verification of this whatsoever or any article that actually says in a confirmed manner that it was.

So is this actually real or are people just repeating it blindly without any legitimacy whatsoever? Does it actually have merit or is it just something that was made up for sake of melodrama and sensationalizing the story to be more than it actually was?

I'm just curious, cause facts matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1777353

[tkmorris]

1. Apparently it's true

At least, if you are willing to accept the word of a representative of the Hip Hop Coalition, which the Reverend works with. They are stating that his leg was diagnosed as broken and that he is currently in a cast.

I'll try to get some firmer information and post a link when I get one.

[AlCzervik]

2. i didn't realize he's a retired air force officer.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. I Just Found This From David Swanson At AfterDowningStreet, With No Further Update:

"Also, they severely strained but did not break his ankle."

Guess it's still up in the air though maybe, since that was last night. I just haven't yet seen anything that confirms it or declares it outright, so I'm beginning to believe it's just being perpetuated for sake of false drama.

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. When I severely sprained (rolled) my ankle, the doctor told me I would have been better

off if I had broken it, that it was worse than a break and would take longer to heal with the pulled muscles, ligaments and tendons.

Sorry, I don't have the info you're looking for, but just passing along that sometimes a sprain is worse than a break.

Maybe they just say "broke" his ankle to show the severity of it... afterall, 'broke' does sound worse than 'severely sprained', doesn't it?

I can understand them doing that because I go through it myself. When I talk about my disabling accident at work, I just say "I fell off a roof and broke my neck", although I didn't really "break" my neck. It's just easier & quicker than to explain that I fell off a roof, tried to land on my feet, but went down hard on my ass, causing my spine to compress, which caused a tear in my spinal cord which allowed my cerebrospinal fluid to leak inside my spinal cord, causing a liquid filled cyst, also known as a syrinx, to form inside my spinal cord, destroying it from the inside out as it grew. They had to totally take my neck apart by cutting the vertebra, taking the tops off, lifting my spinal cord up so they could take the bottom pieces out and then shave the insides of my vertebra to make them wider because my spinal cord was so swollen that it was pressing against the insides of the vertebra, causing me partial paralysis. They also had to detach my spinal cord from the vertebra in a couple places where it had grown to the bone. Oh.. they also had to drain the syrinx... and *that* was just the first operation...

See, it's just easier to say "I fell and broke my neck"...

I understand your original reasonings for your question though...

[Catherine Vincent]

28. That sounds painful what happened to you.

Take care. :hi:

[Ghost in the Machine]

34. Thank you

I'm as good as I'm ever gonna get, and I've finally accepted it. I just had my disability determination appointment with the doctor today.

I tried to go back to work but it didn't work out... and that was working for myself at my own pace. I just don't have a pace that doesn't require frequent bed rest several times a day, every day. That's one thing I stressed on that doctor today. I told him "if I could handle working, don't you think I'd be working at my OWN business, paying MYSELF $600 - $700/week instead of paying someone else to do it for me? Don't you think I'd rather have *that* than the $980/mo I'm eligible for from disability?"

Meh... just another *something* I've learned to live with since I can't change it. I take it all in stride. Up until I was 30 and had kids, I lived like I had a death wish and/or didn't care if I didn't wake up tomorrow, which honestly, I didn't. I joke with my family now and tell them "yeah, now that I have chronic pain every day, I'll probably live to be 90!"

:hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

45. You're welcome.

I'm glad you have family with you for support.

[Bluerthanblue]

22. oh geez OMC

...."begining"......"to believe it's just being perpetuated for sake of false drama."

and you have the balls to claim you are OBJECTIVE?

Sorry man, you are entitled to hold any perspective you like- but if you want to claim that you alone hold the high ground, you gotta do better than that-



You want false drama- show me where on the VIDEO EVIDENCE the Rev. assaulted any police officer-

And watch the first tape again- tell me what the fella in the Desert Hat, shorts and big back-pack is doing 'cutting' ahead of everyone else- when he was CLEARLY standing behind Rev. Yearwood- and a few others-!

:shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Why Would You Find That Sentiment Unreasonable?

All day that has been put forth as if fact and as partial justification for the outrage and declarations of police brutality. Now this should've been fairly easy to verify. Since it keeps being put out there in such ways and very well (it appears such now, anyway) might not even be true whatsoever, then why is it not objective to wonder if it is simply a false statement and detail being put forth merely to embellish the story into something more than it was, for sake of manufacturing further outrage?

I mean seriously, that sounds far fetched to you or unreasonable to theorize? C'mon now. It actually is starting to appear incredibly obvious that's what in fact was going on. I'm not saying that definitively, since I still don't know for certain, but given the facts as they stand and the way in which this 'detail' has been put forth, it is not by any means unexpected to deduce that it may have been manufactured and repeated often solely for the purpose of embellishment.

But if you don't see it, then I don't know what to tell ya. :shrug:

And do you happen to have anything to verify one way or the other if he did or didn't break his ankle? Thanks. :hi:

[Bluerthanblue]

29. why would you assume

that the Police had any real reason to deny Rev. Yearwood admission to a public place where other people were allowed to enter without harrassment?

Perhaps objectivity is NOT really possible? I cannot claim to be without bias- well, i could claim that, but it wouldn't make it true.

:shrug:

(need to add, that i don't have a 'thing' against Police Officers- i DO have a thing against people using violence, and holding authority without being subject to scrutiny and being held ACCOUNTABLE- to behave 'justly'- "Power Corrupts- absolute power- (don't question the Police) corrupts absolutely".)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. At First I Kept An Open Mind About That And Had No Idea If They Did Or Didn't.

I started to assume there may be truth to it when I came across several posts in reference to eyewitnesses who said he had in fact cut in line. That along with the seeming absence of any real refutation to them, made me begin to feel comfortable in accepting that as possibly legitimate. I still don't know if it's factual though, nor have claimed it is.

[Bluerthanblue]

39. while not much

more 'reliable'... Seeing the footage of the incident available online offers a bit more credibility (in my belief) than gossip- and "heard it from someone who supposedly was there"- is gossip- IMO

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. I Mean, That's Great To Say And All, But Since There Conveniently Isn't Any Footage Of That, Then

your argument really doesn't have any validity. All we can then go by is eyewitness accounts.

[Bluerthanblue]

43. do you have

any verifiable 'eyewitness accounts'?

Or just hearsay that is more comfortable than the possibility that those you look to for protection are not infallable or corruptable?

(don't bother to answer- this is a circle game)

g'nite.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. Know What I Laugh At More Than Anything Else?

The fact that so many of you put forth in such a silly fashion that I worship cops somehow or find them above criticism or something. Yet if you actually knew the truth, you'd know that my entire life I've had huge difficulties with authority and have constantly gotten into bad situations because of it (mainly in my younger years). Hell, I even got into a top of the lungs shouting match with a judge, that ended with him having to publicly apologize to me the following week. I've been outright harassed by cops, I've been beaten by cops, arrested without due cause by cops, restrained unlawfully by cops, followed by cops, had spotlights shown in my bedroom at 3 in the morning by cops, my house raided by cops, my car impounded repeatedly by cops, and all sorts of other shit. In fact, you won't meet many who have mouthed off to cops with the balls I have at times. They fuckin hated me.

See, but I also know that the cops that wronged me were individuals. I know I brought much of it on myself and I know that the unfair bullshit and harassment from those in which the behavior wasn't warranted was limited to those cops that I witnessed do so directly. I have the capability to be objective enough to recognize that each incident is to be judged on its own merits. My experience with certain cops does not equate to all cops everywhere being such ways, and I'd be a narrow minded ignorant fool if I put forth such. I know full well how helpful, heroic and honorable so many cops are as well, along with how hard their jobs are and how tough it is to enforce. So I'm not EVER going to just knee jerk react to any given situation out of my own experience with DIFFERENT people, because that would make me an ignorant fool. Instead, I judge each instance on its own merits. I remember not long ago there was a video posted of a protest (immigration maybe?) in which the cops advanced a few protesters back towards the main crowd and then just started pelting people with rubber bullets and gas or whatever. The tactics, force and police demeanor on that video was nothing short of disgraceful. But this current video is altogether different. In this video, I see nothing more than the cops doing exactly what they were supposed to do and with the force that is standard and trained for that situation.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Because Facts Matter.

And eyewitnesses have said he cut in line as well, which means they very well may have been justified in stopping him. But I'm not interested in debating the rest of that here. That can be done in the other thread. I'm just curious if he did or didn't actually break anything, since so many keep saying so as if fact. And since facts matter, and since we should all have an interest in verifying if something is true or not, then this is absolutely a relevant question.

[Catherine Vincent]

6. Even if he did cut in line, that didn't warrant what those cops did to him.

They were looking for a scuffle if you ask me. And they didn't like the fact that the Rev. kept asking questions. It made them look bad.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Again, The Other Thread Is More For That. This Is Asking For Verification Of Something. Do You

have it?

[Catherine Vincent]

13. You are the one that mentioned the Rev. cutting in line.

I responded to that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Actually, If You Want To Be Accurate Here, You Didn't Respond To That.

You actually dismissed that point as possibly factual and then went on to debate the merits of the incident itself, of which I already stated was not the intent of this thread. You also shouldn't use such selective reasoning. You claim to have been responding to something in my post yet so conveniently fail to acknowledge that in the exact same post there was a clarification that those merits were not the intent of this thread and that they were more accurate to be debated in the other thread.

But you can't say you were responding to my cut in line comment, since you made no point on it whatsoever but instead merely used it as a springboard to debate the other aspects of the case in which I had already clarified would be better served in the other thread, since that's not what this one was about.

So do you have any information one way or the other as to whether he did or didn't break his leg or ankle? Thanks. :hi:

[mudesi]

7. Who cares?

Even if he did cut in line, there was zero justification for tackling him to the ground. Zero. Unless there's a law against cutting in line now, in which case I might have to conclude that America has officially become a fascist state.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. Do You Have Anything To Add One Way Or The Other As To Whether Or Not He Broke Anything?

If not, then I really don't have any interest in responding to you further.

[mudesi]

10. Your question is completely irrelevant

Period.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Facts Directly Related To An Event Are Never Irrelevant.

I'm a bit amazed you are trying to put forth the argument that they are.

[mudesi]

12. You're just Doing what you Usually Do

Everybody knows it.

If he broke his ankle, the police were unjustified in tackling him.

If he didn't brake his ankle, the police were unjustified in tackling him.

Stop playing games.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. The Game Is To Perpetuate Falsities In An Attempt To Lend Legitimacy To A Side Of An Argument.

There is no game in seeking facts.

Since the whole broken ankle/broken leg issue has been perpetuated by some as evidence of the excessive force, and being used to portray visually the amount of force necessary, then it is an ABSOLUTELY relevant detail as to whether it is or isn't factual. How can you possibly claim otherwise in a serious fashion?

I'm not the one playing games here. I just simply want verification as to whether that aspect is or isn't true.

Facts matter lyny skyny, facts matter.

[mudesi]

16. The FACT that there even was force makes it excessive

I think you know that. He was tackled to the ground for (allegedly!) cutting in line.

Cutting in line.

I didn't know that was justified. Ever.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. No, He Wasn't. Bye Now.

[mudesi]

19. Don't say bye unless you mean it!

:hi:

[Bluerthanblue]

24. does perpetuating falsities only go for civilians, or

can you for one second consider that one of the officers may have invented the "cutting in line" claim that began this stupid event?

Police officers are human beings too- and every bit as capable of being wrong/biased-

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. I Had Considered That. But I've Since Seen Posts Referencing Eye Witnesses Who Said He Had.

Still don't know if it's fact or not, but the fact that the video conveniently starts only after he's approached gives me further reason to believe that detail might be true. I'd love to see the video about 45 seconds prior. I'm sure they have it.

[Robb]

27. Not necessarily

If I had a camera, I probably wouldn't have it running unless something was going on. I expect I'd start when things started going pear-shaped.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Does anyone have any verification that OMC exists?

Is it just made up? I'm just curious, cause facts matter.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. Maybe I Don't.

Maybe, I'm just a figment of your imagination. Maybe, I'm just your own mind's voice of reason that has found a way for you to hear it, rather than just its screams of "Heyyyy!!! Heyyyy!!! Listen to me! Heyyyyy!! Hey!!!! Stop ignoring me!!!! Hello? Hello? Hellooooooo".

Either that, or maybe I do exist. :shrug:

:rofl:

(oh, and by the way, do you have any information one way or the other that he did or didn't break his leg or ankle? Ya know, context and all.)

[Balbus]

46. Hell yeah, it does!

[Robb]

26. Add me to the list of racist jackbooted nazi cop apologists

Who would also like to know what's up. So far only a PR person has described his condition.

Trouble is, a hospital can't tell reporters anything about his treatment (HIPAA laws) beyond whether or not he's still under their care.

If you know the name of a patient, presumably from a police accident report or similar agency not bound by HIPAA constraints, hospital spokespeople are allowed to give you the critical-guarded-stable-good condition thing. But nothing more.

Unfortunately, there is little chance of an objective report on details of a patient's care, unless things go to court and medical records are subpoenaed. And that's assuming his injury is critical to making the case he was treated unfairly, which it may or may not be. It certainly would help the claim.

So unless there's a solid argument his rights were broadly violated by being denied entry in the first place -- an unlikely legal argument given the setting inside a federal building -- all that's left for us spectators is the inference test: if it heads to court, I promise you Rev was seriously injured. If it doesn't, he probably wasn't.

[Buzz Clik]

30. Cannot see that anyone else has posted this:

Former lieutenant arrested at Petraeus hearing

A former Air Force officer and anti-war protester was arrested Monday for causing a disturbance outside the hearing room where Gen. David Petraeus testified on the state of progress in Iraq.

Rev. Lennox Yearwood was a lieutenant in the Individual Ready Reserve until his honorable discharge in mid-August. He has been speaking out against the war in Iraq since before it began because it is “immoral,” he told Air Force Times in August. Yearwood is the president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and activist group which opposes the war.

--snip--

After the police put Yearwood in handcuffs, he is heard to say his leg is broken on the video. He is then taken away in a wheelchair by medical officials. Havstad said Yearwood was treated at George Washington Hospital for a broken leg.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/09/airforce_yearwood_arrest_070911/

[Buzz Clik]

35. Another link (this from Alternet)

(Update: Liz from Hip Hop Caucus is at court and can't get online, but wanted people to know that Rev. Yearwood has a broken leg, he's in a cast and he's being arraigned for assaulting an officer and disorderly conduct. Updates as we get them -- JH)

http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/62293/

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Hmmm. Interesting.

Why wasn't this known last night? He was treated and released last night. Wouldn't they have known he was in a cast?

But at least I finally see a link saying something definitive on the manner. Thanks for that. I'll still look for additional sources of confirmation though.

[Buzz Clik]

37. You question the accuracy of a reported personal communication from Alternet?

Surely you jest!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

32. Yes, that is the salient fact of the incident, isn't it.

[Malikshah]

38. Yup...oh wait..

You don't mean to change the topic from trampling of rights, stifling debate, a government run rampant, Col. Flagg-type police officers in the Capitol with no accountability, rough-and-tumble take downs of non-violent protestors, but if they lay a hand on an officer its time to stick a muzzle to their temple or tazer their asses into next week?

I've got another salient question regarding the affair.

It was said the good Reverend was wearing polka-dotted socks, but in the scuffle, I distinctly saw that he was wearing...gasp...birkenstocks!

DISCREPANCY!!!

[rug]

40. I'd like to see verification of that birkenstock assertion.

[Malikshah]

42. I think Lil Boots will call for an Independent Investigation.

And they thought he Starr Chamber was long and drawn out...amateurs!

;)