POLICE ANSWER TO MASK LAWSUIT SIGNALS PITCHER’S DUEL IN UPCOMING FED COURT CIVIL RIGHTS RUMBLE

by Jim Parks “Legendary”

A Waco cop says he is shielded by federal case law from having to answer a civil rights complaint before a jury regarding his authority to seize a man’s belongings and detain him forcibly over an alleged violation of a non-existent city ordinance.

On the day the incident occurred in September, 2020, video of the incident reveals, the officer became enraged when a veteran of 32 years employment as an emergency medical technician objected to his orders because the Governor of Texas had reversed his previous emergency order requiring the use of masks.

He aimed his electronic restraint device at McCain and fairly shouted, “I will drop you” if he did not immediately comply with his orders.

“I don’t care about the Governor’s order,” he stated in elevated tones of outrage.

Officer Fabian Flecka allegedly claimed falsely that a Waco City Ordinance required persons to wear a mask as a precaution against spread of Covid 19 virus infection, though Gov. Greg Abbott had previously relaxed his order requiring the use of masks; furthermore, an investigation by lawyers retained by Brent McCain revealed that no such ordinance in fact exists.

As a law-abiding citizen armed with a holstered pistol, McCain alleges in the lawsuit, he was detained and all of the policeman’s actions were taken in order to deny him his lawful right to shop for a bottle of water and a snack in a filling station unmolested by police presence or demands.

Flecka’s attorneys claim in their answer to the lawsuit that a raft of U.S. District Court and federal appeals court rulings require that before a police officer may be sued for violation of civil rights both in personal and official capacity, certain pleadings must first be heard and the Court must rule favorably on the arguments before a jury may hear evidence and testimony.

According to Flecka’s initial pleading, “…Klecka alleges that his conduct was not a violation of any clearly established right held by Plaintiff and was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct…

“To the extent that Plaintiff is making a claim against Klecka in his official capacity, such claim is no more than a claim against the City of Waco itself…Thus, in response to all of Plaintiff’s claims, Klecka asserts sovereign governmental immunity.”

According to Klecka and his lawyers, McCain should look no further than his rear-view mirror to place the blame for his misfortunes, their answer states.

“In response to all of Plaintiff’s claims for damages, Klecka alleges that Plaintiff’s own unlawful and/or negligent conduct, rather than any act or omission of Klecka is the sole cause, or in the alternative a proximate cause, of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and of Plaintiff’s alleged damages.”

Close Menu