Child badly injured when hit by truck; drug bust in Connersville

The blaring of sirens from emergency vehicles is never a good thing, and that was the situation in Connersville Wednesday.


Emergency personnel from all agencies were dispatched to the 2200 block of Virginia Avenue after a young boy was seriously injured after being struck by a truck.



Authorities say KeeShawn Thomas was hurt badly after he was hit by a pickup truck he ran in front of that was being driven by Jamie Houze, of the 200 block of South Center Street Reports indicate the youth was transferred to Dayton Children’s Hospital by a CareFlight helicopter.


Witnesses said Houze could not have avoided the mishap, but because test results reportedly indicated he had THC (marijuana) and opiates in his system, he was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated (Class C misdemeanor) and incarcerated in Fayette County Jail.


On the south side of Connersville, residents and passersby were no doubt jolted by the sight of the CPD SWAT Team and other law enforcement personnel in action near the intersection of 3rd Street and Eastern Avenue.


Authorities say Dustin A. Venable, 31, and Echo S. Styles, 27, both of 304 Eastern Ave., were arrested after more than two pounds of marijuana, a quantity of oxycodone and a small aresenal of weapons were discovered in the residence.


Venable reportedly was charged with dealing in a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of public park (a class A felony), dealing in marijuana within 1,000 feet of a public park (a class C felony), and maintaining a common nuisance (a class D felony). Venable was jailed without bond.


Styles, who was charged with maintaining a common nuisance (a Class D felony) and possession of marijuana (a class A misdemeanor), was jailed under $11,500 bond.


The pair were not arrested for illegal possession of the numerous weapons found in the dwelling because the guns were determined to be legally-owned. An investigation is continuing. — kh

ISP: 6 Connersville residents arrested after meth lab discovered

Indiana State Police say six Connersville residents were arrested Monday afternoon after a meth lab operation was discovered in a residence at 127 W. 7th Street.

According to authorities, Brittany Weston, 33, and Aaron Weston, 24, are charged with possession of and conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine  and other charges, all felonies.

Derek Gaddis, 22, is charged with conspiracy to manufacture meth, and Natasha Gaddis, 30, is charged with visiting a common nuisance.

Milford Angel, 52, and Tina Angel, 48, are charged with maintaining a common nuisance (felony).

Investigating reports of “suspected illegal activity,” ISP Troopers from the Meth Suppression Section served a search warrant on the dwelling and reportedly found methamphetamine and chemicals used to make meth inside the structure.

All six suspects were lodged in Fayette County Jail. Bond amounts were not available.

An investigation is continuing with additional charges pending. Authorities ask anyone with information about meth lab operations to call the state’s drug tip line — 1-800-453-4756.

Connersville police officer and his wife face jail time for saving a deer

It seems ridiculous that a Connersville police officer and his wife could face serious jail time for trying to save the life a young deer, but that’s exactly what’s happening to Jeff and Jennifer Counceller.


Thanks to social media — particularly Facebook and Twitter — the story of the Councellers’ plight involving “Dani” is making the rounds. To say the couple is receiving an outpouring of public support would be a serious understatement.


Peppered with comments such as “embarrassing,” “preposterous” and “outraged,” hundreds of people — possibly more — have expressed their displeasure and dissatisfaction about the situation and upcoming trial. A pretrial hearing is set for 9 a.m. on Feb. 20 at the Union County Courthouse, 26 W. Union St. in Liberty.


A Facebook ’cause / petition’ that was created — ‘Drop Charges Against Connersville Police Officer’ — had nearly 2,600 likes by 11 p.m. on Saturday.


Also, thanks to John Waudby via, individuals have the opportunity to sign a petition on Facebook that will be electronically delivered to special prosecutor Brian Clark, who has been assigned to the case.


Fayette County Prosecutor Ken Faw is not involved with the case in any way, according to officials.


Click the following link to visit the site: “Petitioning Prosecuting Attorneys Council … Brian A Clark: Drop Charges against Connersville Police Officer and his wife.


Eric Angeles is one of many Connersville residents who has expressed strong support for the Councellers. “Jeff and Jennifer Counceller … are the kind of people known for their kindness and willingness to help anyone in time of need,” Angeles wrote on Facebook. “… they are what I think of when someone uses the saying, “pillars of the community.”


Below is the WTHR Channel 13 video and story about the Councellers.
13 WTHR Indianapolis


Connersville police officer and his wife face jail time for saving a deer

CONNERSVILLE – A central Indiana couple faces criminal charges tonight for trying to save an injured deer.

“I’ve caught a guy that’s killed three people,” explained Connersville police officer Jeff Counceller.

Counceller has spent his 14 year career as a police officer, locking up the bad guys.

“We’ve never had any criminal convictions. We’re good people,” added his wife Jennifer.

The Councellers though, have found themselves on the other side of the law recently. The couple may face 60 days behind bars.

The reason comes down to a little deer Jeff rescued two years ago, after he found it injured on a porch during a police call.

“I was gonna put her back in the woods, but I seen the injuries and I knew they were life threatening so I called Jennifer,” recalled Jeff.

Jennifer, a nurse, thought she could help.

“I couldn’t let her just die there,” said Jennifer.

“We called her little orphan Dani. She’s definitely changed our lives,” she added.

The couple nursed Dani back to health, even bottle feeding her.

“I had to set my alarm every two hours. We just kind of took turns. Every two hours we had to feed her and irrigate her wounds and spray more medicine on it,” explained Jennifer.

“I had her standing up on the second day that I got her back and she was you know, walking and I knew she was making improvements,” said Jennifer.

Not enough though, said the Councellers to just release the fawn back into the wild quickly.

“She was just too small to survive,” Jennifer explained.

At one point, the Councellers said they called several deer habitats across the state to see if one of them could take Dani. The couple said they were told that they were too full at that point.

So the Councellers built a pen for Dani in their backyard, right near the woods, until the deer could grow bigger and stronger.

“She would run around. She would play. We would feed her crack cord and deer chow and other things. Again, we knew someday that we needed to turn her loose,” explained Jeff.

“It was never a secret that we had the deer. Everybody knew we had the deer. We never kept it a secret. We talked about it openly,” said Jennifer.

Last summer, the Councellers said they were getting ready to let Dani go, but were waiting for the corn crops to mature so she would have something to eat when they released her.

“We had already started decreasing our contact with her, trying to kind of dehumanize her and you know, get her used to us not being there,” explained Jennifer.

“We were about six weeks away from turning her loose,” added Jeff.

Last July though, the Councellers said they got a visit from an officer with the Department of Natural Resources.

“He asked me if we still had the deer and I told him I did,” recalled Jennifer.

“He told me that I could maybe call Indianapolis and maybe get a rescue permit until you know, we could get her released back into the wild. So that’s what I tried to do,” Jennifer continued.

Jennifer said when she called the DNR’s state office, she was turned down.

“She basically just told me that I was in illegal possession of the deer and that they would not give me a rescue permit,” recalled Jennifer.

“It just kind of all went downhill from there,” she continued.

According to the Councellers, DNR officers told them they would have to put Dani down because she had been around humans too long. .

“She was a threat to society is what they said,” recalled Jeff.

“Their original plan was to shoot her with a rifle,” said Jennifer.

“Then they found a vet that was going to euthanize her and we had to pay the fee and they was going to let us bury her on our property,” she continued.

The day officers were supposed to come and euthanize Dani though, someone left the gate to her pen open and Dani escaped.

The Councellers said they did not open the pen that day, but believe someone who knew what was going to happen to Dani, did.

The affidavit of probable cause charge the couple with harboring a wild animal said that DNR officers questioned Jennifer’s father about Dani getting loose. He was never charged though.

The Counsellers can’t be sure what had become of Dani. They think she might be one of the many deer who come around their property from time to time.

“If I’m out there and the others run quick, there’s one that won’t,” explained Jennifer.

“In my heart, I know it’s her. But I’m happy that it’s her and I’m happy she’s with the other deer and that’s getting to live her life,” she added.

While Dani, the deer may be free, a jury must decide if the Councellers share the same fate.

“I’d rather go to trial. I feel like I’m gonna stand up for what I know is right,” said Jennifer.

“It’s a complete waste of taxpayer’s money. What they should have done is write us a ticket,” added Jeff.

A special prosecutor from Decatur County has been called in to prosecute the case, along with a special judge from Union County.

The Councellers said they believe that’s to avoid a conflict of interest because Jeff is a Connersville police officer and Jennifer works part time as a jail nurse in Fayette County.

“There’s less paperwork on felonies that what they’ve done in this process,” said Jeff.

“There was no criminal intent here. We didn’t go out and poach a deer. We didn’t kill a deer without a tag. We didn’t, you know, go out and steal her from the woods and plan on keeping her as a pet,” added Jennifer.

“She deserved a chance to live,” said Jeff about Dani.

The Councellers said they just wanted to give the deer a fighting chance. They never counted on Dani’s fighting chance, leading to a legal fight for them.


Connersville man arrested after allegedly trying to run over ISP trooper

Authorities say a Connersville man was arrested on several charges early Saturday after fleeing police and allegedly trying to run over an Indiana State Trooper who fired his weapon at the vehicle.


Police say Chad Neukam, 39, was arrested on initial charges of resisting law enforcement (fleeing, a Class D felony) being an habitual traffic violator (also a Class D felony) and possession of marijuana (a Class A misdemeanor).


According to an ISP news release, while on routine patrol about 12:40 a.m. Trooper Aaron Edwards observed Neukam driving a pickup truck near 3rd Street and Western Avenue that did not have its headlights on.


Edwards attempted to stop the truck, but Neukam reportedly fled the scene and drove west out of the city limits on Indiana 44-West, with Edwards in pursuit.


Connersville police reportedly assisted Edwards in trying to stop Neukam’s truck, which turned south onto Columbia Road and eventually struck a tree.


As Edwards approached the truck, Neukam reportedly got his vehicle running and attempted to run over Edwards, who was able to avoid being hit. Edwards then fired a shot at the truck with his handgun. Neukam stopped the vehicle and surrendered, the release said.


Neukam was transported to Fayette Regional Health Systems for treatment of injuries sustained in the crash and to undergo toxicology tests. Authorities say he was not injured by the gunfire.


After he was released from FRHS, Neukam was lodged in Fayette County Jail.


Police are continuing an investigation; more charges could be filed against Neukam.  — kh

Guidelines for Saying No to Police Searches

One of the main powers that law enforcement officers carry is the power to intimidate citizens into voluntarily giving up their rights. Police are trained to believe in their authority and trained to perform their interactions with private citizens with confidence. It is their job to deal with problems and they learn to manage uncomfortable situations through strength. Most people, when confronted by police get a mild panic reaction, become anxious, and try to do whatever they can to minimize the time spent with the officer. Because of the imbalance of power between citizen and officer, when a law enforcement officer makes a strongly worded request, most people consent without realizing that they are giving up constitutional protections against improper meddling by the State in the private affairs of citizens.

A common situation is that of the traffic stop. A person is pulled over for a real or perceived vehicle violation and, after checking the driver’s license and registration, the officer asks the driver if they have any weapons or illegal drugs in their car. When the citizen answers “no”, the police officer asks (in the strongest language he can without demanding) to check that for himself. “Then you wouldn’t mind if I took a look in your trunk.” or “Why don’t you step out of your car.” Most people acquiesce to the ‘requests’ because they don’t realize they have the right to say no.


The Federal Supreme Court has ruled that as long as the police do not force an individual to do something, the individual is acting voluntarily, even if a normal person would feel very intimidated and would not reasonably feel they could say no. (see Florida v. Bostick, 1991) If you do what a policeman tells you to do before you are arrested, you are ‘voluntarily’ complying with their ‘requests’.

Unfortunately police will often try to push citizens to accept a search, to the point of ignoring when you say “no”. Its important to say very clearly “I do not consent to a warrantless search.” Or “This is a private event/home/place, you may not enter without a warrant.” Don’t simply answer questions about searches with a simple “yes” or “no”. See this case where drug police asked a confusing question and claimed they misunderstand the answer “yes” to mean they could search (October 24, 2000. Gregg County CODE officers, defendant Dockens, judge Steger, federal court, east district Texas).

Until you say “No, I don’t think I’d like to do that.” you are cooperating as a peer with the law enforcement officer who is trying to make the world safer. When you say “no” to a request by a police officer, you are asserting your lawful rights as a private citizen. If the officer demands you comply, then in most cases you have little choice. Usually, however, the officer is likely to try to convince you to comply voluntarily. Until and unless you say “no” and stick to it, the police don’t even need any real authority to tell you what to do.


What a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) can demand of a citizen depends heavily on the context of the order. Most generally, police are allowed by the courts to act as any reasonable private citizen would. They may ask questions, look through windows that they happen to be near, walk or drive in public areas, etc. Without a warrant or any suspicion of illegal activity, they are allowed to interact with other citizens, but they have a limited amount of authority to demand compliance, search, or detain people or things.

In highly volatile or dangerous situations, a LEO’s authority to require compliance is much higher than in non-threatening contexts. The Supreme Court has ruled (with Terry v. Ohio being one of the primary cases) that the police are allowed to protect themselves from potentially dangerous people or situations. Under the umbrella of “concern for safety” or “search for weapons” the police have wide latitude to do what they want and to order citizens to comply with their demands.

The Terry v. Ohio case created the “weapons search”, “terry search”, or “terry pat” exception to the 4th Amendment ‘probable cause requirement’ for searches. The court ruled that if a police officer “[has] reasonable cause to believe that [someone] might be armed” they can require they submit to a quick patdown. What this has meant is that it is now standard practice to pat down anyone that a LEO wants to, without the need for arrest, probable cause, or even suspicion of a crime.

Many police use weapons pats as a way to intimidate and harass citizens, since it is a power the courts have allowed them to use with little justification. Often a LEO will find something during their patdown which is clearly not a weapon which they would like to see, but this is beyond their Court-approved authority.

Also under the ‘concern for safety’ umbrella, police are given wide latitude by courts to ask individuals to comply with simple non-intrusive commands such as “stand over there” or “wait here for a moment”, but the line between order and request becomes very fuzzy when an officer starts telling people where to go unless the situation is volatile / dangerous. There are many stories of two (or more) individuals confronted by police ( one example ) whom the police intentionally separate to try to intimidate or to compare stories. This is generally a ‘fishing’ maneuver which would not fall under the ‘concern for safety’ umbrella.

During a stop for a traffic violation, police have the power to demand a proper driver’s license and other state-required documentation (registration, insurance). In most [ed-all?] states they also have the power to demand sobriety tests [ed - do they need reasonable suspicion of intoxication ?]. The courts have also given police the power to frisk a driver based on the Terry v. Ohio decision (the police should have some reason to think there is danger) and some decisions have even allowed an officer (with no suspicion or cause) to search the area around the driver’s seat. [ed-citation for this?]

When a private, law abiding citizen encounters police, the amount of intrusion a Law Enforcement Officer is allowed to demand is limited. Some areas have laws against “disobeying a police officer” or “obstructing an officer from their duties”, but the bounds of what officers can reasonably require someone not suspected of any other criminal activity in a peaceful situation have not been clearly drawn by the courts. If someone interferes with a police officer engaged in an arrest or investigation, police tend to have very little patience and will quickly threaten or implement detainment or arrest. Generally, courts give police wide latitude in executing their duties and disobeying a “reasonable” direct order from an officer could be prosecuted in most jurisdictions.

As an encounter proceeds, the police gather data that they can use to formulate ‘reasonable, articulable suspicion’ or (stronger) ‘probable cause’ that the individual has contraband or is involved in a crime. As the level of suspicion rises, so does the LEO’s authority to intrude into a person’s affairs. Once the level rises to ‘probable cause’ to believe that there is contraband in a vehicle, the Supreme Court has made some very disturbing decisions allowing the police broad power to search in certain cases, including the power to search closed containers without a warrant. (see United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) )

In a recent decision (Wyoming v. Houghton, April 1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even passengers’ belongings, if left in the car, may be searched thoroughly if the driver is suspected of a crime.

In most states, you are not required to identify yourself or show the police your ID (unless you are in a vehicle). We have been unable to confirm that in Nevada that police try to charge people with obstruction of justice for people who refuse to identify themselves to police. However, if you choose to identify yourself, you are required to tell the truth. It is a crime to lie to federal police agents and it is a crime to give false identification to police in many areas [ed- find a cite for this?].

The Supreme Court has said: “A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972).

If you want to avoid long and unpleasant interactions with police, do not give them any reasons to suspect you of criminal activity. Courteously decline to participate in ‘fishing expeditions’ or any other actions you do not wish to perform.

Police may search you ‘incident to arrest’: after or while arresting someone, police are allowed to search the body of the person being arrested. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court have also allowed the police to do exhaustive searches of any vehicle the arrestee was in and any containers therein. The Supreme Court held “that the police may examine the contents of any open or closed container found within the passenger compartment, ‘for if the passenger compartment is within the reach of the arrestee, so will containers in it be within his reach.’” 453 U.S., at 460 (footnote omitted). See also Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702 (1981).

In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), the Supreme Court “held that police Officers may order persons out of [463 U.S. 1032, 1048] an automobile during a stop for a traffic violation, and may frisk those persons for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that they are armed and dangerous.”


  • Police are not allowed to frisk for anything except weapons. If, during a weapons pat, an officer discovers something ‘suspicious’ you don’t have to show it to them.Although the police have been given a lot of leeway to ‘check for weapons’, the Supreme Court has ruled (in the key decision Minnesota v Dickerson, 1993) that a weapons search may not be used as a pretext for a more general search. In Minnesota v Dickerson, a man was stopped coming out of a ‘notorious crack house’ and was patted down in a ‘Terry Stop’. The officer noticed something in the man’s pocket which he said ‘felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane’. He reached in the defendant’s pocket and found some crack-cocaine. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to determine whether the item was crack or not required a further, unwarranted search was necessary which was not acceptable by 4th Amendment standards.
  • Police are not allowed to search everyone (see Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979).In Ybarra v. Illinois, a man was patted down in a bar where the police were arresting a bar owner for selling heroin. An officer identified “a cigarette pack with objects in it” in the man’s pocket during the pat down and decided to search Ybarra. The High Court ruled that the officer overstepped his authority by searching everyone in the bar, even though they had a warrant to arrest the bartender and search the bar for evidence of drug sales.A common situation where police attempt to search many individuals without probable cause is a raided party. Sometimes police tell people to ‘empty your pockets’ or they pat everyone down as they are leaving or they target a few people based on appearance for a full blown search. Most raids on parties are done without a judge-issued warrant and are based on noise complaints, city ordainances about event sizes, etc. In these cases, most searches will be citizens ‘voluntarily’ complying with requests except in the case of violence, extreme intoxication, or obvious criminal activity. Be polite and considerate of the difficult job the LEO’s have, but do not consent to any warrantless search and do not offer information to the police regarding any criminal activity they suspect you of.


So, when a policeman says “Empty your pockets for me?” or “Why don’t you step over here for a moment?” What does a reasonable, law abiding citizen say if s/he doesn’t want to? Unfortunately there may be no simple answer to this. Because of the nature of most police-citizen interactions, tensions can be high and LEO’s may interpret any dissent as hostility or ‘suspicious behaviour’.

  1. Stay Calm. Speak calmly and slowly and don’t be surprised if the officer becomes irritated, angry, or belligerent. Move slowly.
  2. Ask Questions. One way to Say No is to ask questions in return: “Is that a request or an order?” “Am I under arrest?” “Am I free to go?” “Why do you want me to *whatever*?” “Am I a suspect in a crime?”
  3. Say No. Another way to Say No is to very clearly say no: “No, I would like to leave.” “No, I do not consent to any warrantless searches.” “You do not have my permission to search me / my car / my belongings.”
  4. Defuse Tensions. Do everything you can to defuse the tensions and seem peaceful. If an LEO thinks you might be dangerous, the courts have ruled that they have a greater authority to force you to comply.
  5. Do not Resist. Do not Argue with a Cop. Do not Touch a cop. Don’t Run. Don’t complain or threaten an officer legally.
  6. Comply when Required. Knowing when you are required to comply can be difficult (see What You Must Do and What You Don’t Have to Do ) The moment an LEO pulls a gun, do what they say. If they make you do something through force, your Constitutional Rights are not as important as staying healthy and alive. You can challenge the arrest in court if your rights are violated.
  7. Give the Cop a Break. Remember that police have a very difficult job to do and most cops are doing their best to try to keep their communities safe. When it comes to dealing with unusual or strange individuals or confronting drug issues, officers (and many people in the world) make some bad snap judgements. But most cops think of themselves as the Good Guys, so try to let em know you’re on their side.
  8. Ask for a Lawyer. As soon as its clear you will be arrested, ask for a lawyer and then keep quiet. Police will try to get you to talk. Don’t.


The short answer to this is, of course, yes and no. A lot is dependent on your rapport with the individual officer(s). Saying No to a police officer should be done gently to avoid enraging them so you don’t get beaten up. Saying No to a warrantless search may cause a police officer to harass you further to try to get you to comply. Saying No, however, is always the best idea when it gets to the point of arrest and prosecution. It is never in your interest to cooperate with the police in helping them collect evidence against you. If you do say No and a policeman searches anyway, evidence can sometimes be suppressed (thrown out). If you agree to a search, you have no grounds to dispute the evidence.

It is common to have an officer ‘ask’ forcefully first and if the suspect gives any indication of saying No, they threaten to arrest them and take them to the station. They say things like “if you don’t open your trunk/pocket/whatever for me, I can arrest you and we can open it up down at the station”. Often officers will imply that if the suspect cooperates, the cop will go easier on them. While it is true that a police officer controls whether you are arrested or not, very few police officers will overlook anything illegal they find in a search (including very small amounts of cannabis).

Neighborhoods still being ignored

Hey city officials … residence of the community have noticed your street department employees chopping down the tall and thriving weed population growing in the cracks of the streets along the route of the upcoming Fayette County Fair parade. Nothing like some last-minute, boy-we-look-good-now cosmetic work.

Some of those residents are wondering: did you forget about the neighborhoods and houses like the one pictured? It seems like officials are only concerned about what other-people think.

So … if you don’t happen to live along a main road in town or don’t live near a local city official your neighbors home might end up looking like this one at 3317 Richmond Ave. — a property that had previously been mowed by the City (numerous times) but is now being ignored.

It’s who you know …


It was reported that he city recently hired former police chief Dick O’Neal as the new “ordinance enforcer.”  With O’Neal’s people skills (or lack-there-of) all we can say is
… expect more and more rundown properties.



CPD High-speed police chases questioned

Two chases have occurred in recent months involving Connersville Police with both ending in car crashes on Park Road – one resulting in VERY serious injuries and a local resident being lifelined with life threatening injuries.

While exciting for Connersville police officers, high speed police chases within the city are ridiculous and EXTREMELY dangerous for the people who live within the community.

Why risk hurting innocent people?

Especially over NON-violent situations when the culprits  identity and address are known, which was the case  two weeks ago with Mathew C. Farmer, 28, 2683 S. Indiana 121.

CPD Officer Kevin Perry, went to Farmers place of business (reportedly without backup police officers) to arrest him for a probation violation stemming from a failed drug screening violation.

Who could have guessed – Farmer apparently didn’t want to go to jail.  He reportedly ran to his car when the officer tried to arrest him and the chase was on with numerous police cruisers joining in prior to a crash on Park Road.  CPD Sgt. Mike McCreary crashed into the rear of the fleeing vehicle  where the concrete wall begins near the middle entrance of Roberts Park.

Policy about police pursuits?   Police Policy Database

Is their one?  Who Knows … Should their be one? Absolutely.

One CPD officer who wished to remain anonymous told Towncow, “not that I know of” when asked about a policy.  Should the CPD continue to chase down “bad-guys”  on city streets especially when they can just go pick up the person at a later date at home?

What do you think?

 Connersville Police Pursuit Crash

Above is a recent Police “pursuit” crash in Connersville -
Below is a deadly crash that happened in Newark, New Jersey.  Click picture to watch video …

Video description …
Police chase a jeep through the streets of Newark, New Jersey. When it collides with a van, the van driver is ejected and becomes trapped under the jeep. Despite this, the getaway driver still carries on and now has a loose front bumper from the collision. The jeep drags the van driver along the road and approaches an intersection. The jeep charges straight through and the man trapped under it finally breaks free and is spun across the road. If you look closely you can see that the police car actually runs over him as well. The suspect gets away as the police attend to the injured man. You can see him moving at the end but its unclear is he actually survived this. This clip was taken from the documentary, Banned From Television (1998).

Note: Despite what it says in the video, there is no pedestrian that gets hit. You can clearly see that no one is crossing the road when the jeep charges through. It is the van driver who the police attend to at the end.


Connersville police searching for man

Connersville police were searching an area in the 2700 block of Virginia Avenue and that vicinity for a white male suspect who eluded police in a vehicle and then fled on foot.

A chase began about 4:40 p.m. when the suspect, described as having dark hair, exited an alley, northbound, onto 27th Street. A police SUV that had been patroling the area immediately began pursuing the black Honda, which sped north on Ohio Avenue.

The driver fled on foot in the 2700 block of Ohio and was last seen running toward Virginia Avenue. Police searched the area with the help of a K9 dog but as of 5 p.m., the man had not been located. Police know who the suspect is. State police and Fayete County Sheriff’s Department vehicles also were on the scene.

“It seems like there’s always something going on around here to worry about,” said a female resident of the area who asked that her name not be used.

Information will be updated when it’s available from police. – kimball hendrix