Anthony Coleman and Shaneece Flax brought the suit Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging civil rights violations, battery, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages against the county and punitive damages against the deputies. The suit does not state the relationships between the plaintiffs and the decedent, Derrick Flax. Their lawyer, Jonathon Kaplan, could not be immediately reached.
“Defendants’ conduct … was intentional and was based on plaintiffs’ race, color, political affiliation and their perceptions thereof, and in retaliation for plaintiffs’ speech and expression,” the suit alleges. An LASD representative said Saturday that the department may have a comment later.
Family members of Derrick Flax found him not breathing in a bedroom of his Lancaster home on July 4, 2020, so his relatives called 911 and a brother began performing CPR, the suit states.
A deputy who arrived shortly after 1 a.m. “immediately identified Derrick Flax and his family as Black and subscribing to certain political affiliations,” the suit states. “Rather than rendering aid to Derrick Flax, comforting the family or taking steps to ease the family’s tension, (the deputy) escalated the situation and antagonized the distraught family by, among other things, herding several of them into a bedroom where they were detained against their will.”
Other deputies arrived and detained the remaining relatives in the kitchen, according to the suit.
“Despite their repeated cries for help, to the family’s horror the deputies rendered no aid to Derrick Flax, who remained breathless and motionless,” according to the suit.
Deputies continued to detain the family members after emergency personnel arrived until they finally released Derrick Flax’s mother, Shannon Hunsaker, then later the rest of his relatives, the suit states.
But instead of comforting the family or inquiring about Derrick Flax’s condition, the deputies “chased down and gang tackled Coleman, pinned him face down to the street with knees and legs pressed into his back, restrained his arms and shot him multiple times with a stun gun,” the suit alleges.
Meanwhile, Derrick Flax was taken to the Antelope Valley Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead, the suit states.
Coleman and Shaneece Flax were both arrested. Coleman was charged with resisting a peace officer and other allegations and Shaneece Flax with battery on a peace officer, but all charges against both were later dismissed, according to the suit.
–
Taliban says
“…a Lancaster man who was having trouble breathing at a home in 2020 and who died later at a hospital.”
Drug overdose?
Fasten your seatbelts says
After reading this article, I can see how important it is in every case, to wait for the facts from all parties involved. Since I wasn’t there, I see that making a snap decision blaming law enforcement or labeling people gang bangers only adds to the problem we have in our society.
Tim Scott says
lololol…of course when the cops are the accused there is a blather of “well let’s wait and see here….”
Color me astonished.
By the way, when the cops tell their tale are you aware that you are going to say “okay, NOW we have the facts,” or are you just unconscious about your prejudgements?
Fasten your seatbelts says
Maybe you’re the one unconscious about your prejudgments. You have already prejudged this outcome based on this article alone, I haven’t. I say wait and see on all matters whether it’s the fault of law enforcement or whether the accuser is at fault.
Tim Scott says
Good for you…if true.
As to me, I haven’t made a judgement, more like a prediction.
There is only one line of defense available to the cops, so whether it is true or not it is what they ate going to say. Cops, unfortunately, deal with crimes, evidence, testimony, and the making of a case every day on the job, so when they are accused (and even when they are just routinely filing their reports) they know exactly how to avoid prosecution. So the cops are going to say something in the line of “unruly crowd, risk to ourselves, possible crime, secured the scene.”
Ultimately that story from two cops will be balanced against the very different point of view on the same basic actions that will come from however many citizens were in attendance. I’ve gone head to head with a perjuring deputy and was told by a judge that “law enforcement are trained observers, you aren’t” with the obvious implication that if I persisted and he had to decide which of us was committing perjury he was gonna side with the cop so I acknowledged that I might have been mistaken and took my lumps. How many citizens does it take to counter two “trained observers”? I have no idea.
But the point really is that there will NEVER be ‘facts.’ Your whole “well wait for the facts” perspective is based on “the cops testimony will be FACTS, so far all we have is a STORY.” The fact that you can’t see how prejudicial that is is disappointing, but not surprising.
Fasten your seatbelts says
The fact that you can’t see how prejudicial you are, Tim, is very disappointing to me, but not surprising. Your personal experiences cloud your mind, you are not the only one that has encountered corrupt cops, as I have as well. I have also seen the harm prejudicial thinking causes, and it saddens me that you pass judgment on all law enforcement.
Tim Scott says
What judgement have I passed here that has you so up in arms?
I made a prediction regarding the line of defense I expect the cops to take. I expect them to take it because it looks like the only workable line, and have offered no opinion on whether they will take it truthfully or not. Note that while you and the rest of the usual suspects have ranted and raved about my prejudice the only actual difference between out positions is that I make it very clear I have no predisposition to believe the cops will “produce the facts.” They are gonna say what they say and no one but them will ever really know if they told the truth…though I anticipate that you will assume they did.
I have repeatedly said that since there is really only one thing they can say there is not really a huge reason to wait for them to say it. We can assume they will, and assume that some segment of the population who we can refer to colloquially as “the baton polishers” will assume that since a cop said it it is true. Similarly there will be people (I’m not one) who will just assume “well, cops, they are lying.” There will also be people who will look at the plaintiffs and say “oh black people, they are lying.” That’s just the reality of the community, and the community is where any jury will be drawn from.
Ultimately, I predict that the county will settle, because cops in general and the LASD specifically have so eroded their credibility that the county will recognize that taking their chances with a jury would be a bad bet. That settlement will not mean “the cops were guilty and I knew it all along.” The facts are never going to be established here unless some home security video pops up out of the woodwork and maybe not even then. Cases in court establish a result, not a fact.
But no mater how responsibility falls in a court of law, one clear fact is that there is a man dead, and people who called for MEDICAL assistance got cops instead and a bad result. I have said many times that there is no situation so bad that calling in cops won’t make it worse, and this case seems to support that pretty handily even though it appears the cops weren’t really even called.
Fasten your seatbelts says
To vilify and denigrate all law enforcement as you do Tim is dangerous to society. As I have said before, with anti-law enforcement sentiment growing in this country we are going to see anarchy abound, whether it’s lawlessness justified for political reasons, racial reasons, or just for an opportunity. Officers are being ambushed answering 911 calls, or during traffic stops. This society is becoming seriously jacked up when open season on law enforcement is the new normal.
Tim Scott says
Was it really better when only law enforcement was killing with impunity?
Shannon Hunsaker says
Thank you for your comments. The body cam will show how it went.
TomThumb says
The last name of “Hunsaker” speaks volumes. Just sayin.
Shannon Hunsaker says
It was my son who died Tom thumb.. What does my last name have to do with it? My son had a different last name. It was Flax. So what does that say? I have been hated on for the last 30 years because I had a black husband, and mixed children. Your comment makes no sense. Please keep it to yourself. Thank you
Tim Scott says
This might be the most disgraceful comment ever made on the AVTimes. All you people who are busy being disappointed in me are letting this pass. Live with yourselves.
Stinger says
Huh? Where the hell did that come from? In fact, what is that even supposed to mean?
Have you got some sort of ancient clan issue with that family?… or is it more of a ‘Klan’ issue?
Trumpist#1 says
I didn”t grok what he meant by that comment either.
Tim Scott says
Pretty sure Stinger is on the right track.
Matt says
Racist much?
Kathi McWhorter says
For those who claim to want the entire story. You don’t need it. If someone is in distress, they are to be taken to the hospital. Period. End of story. The police allow paramedics to take serial killers to the hospital. They do not get to delay medical treatment for anyone regardless of why they are at the scene. It’s in humane. It is also against the law.
Stinger says
It is not inappropriate to want to hear the other side of the story. It IS inappropriate to make snap judgements without all the facts at hand. Shame on you.
Tim Scott says
What “facts” are you going to get Stinger? You are going to get the cops statements. Are you making a judgement that those statements will be factual? It is a dead certainty that their statements will contradict the statements already given, is it not?
The cop line here is totally predictable, because there is only one line that stands a chance of working as a defense. They are going to go with some iteration of “unruly mob, possible crime, risk to our lives, secured the scene, that’s procedure.” The fact that it is the only line of defense doesn’t mean that it isn’t the truth, but it also means that if they are going to lie that is what they are going to say.
So it is going to come down to who you choose to believe, whether you choose now or later isn’t really going to make much difference.
Stinger says
Your prejudicial position is rather disappointing and does not represent you well, Tim.
Tim Scott says
How not? And how prejudicial?
Do you see ANYTHING else for the cops to say other than “dangerous mob, possible crime, protected ourselves, secured the scene”? I’m not saying, and have never said, that when they say it it will be a bald faced lie, but we both know they are going to say that they followed policy to the letter (and yet again, I am not saying and have never said that they did not).
The only thing I have done here, throughout, is react to the widespread assumption that “there are facts still to come in,” because that presupposes that the deputies will provide facts, ie it assumes that what they say will be true. We already know that they will provide a contradictory report (I mean, they are not gonna look at this lawsuit and say “yeah that’s us,” right?).
So this is going to come down to two deputies saying “we followed policy to the letter and secured the scene in as safe a manner as we could,” against however many people were in the house saying basically what the lawsuit alleges. I have rendered no opinion on what actually happened, other than “sounds plausible,” and I personally never expect to know “what really happened.” I predict that other than the people who were there the only people who will EVER claim to know what happened are the ones who “back the badge” and accept what the deputies say as the unmitigated gospel of facts as if they had seen it with their own eyes.
Stinger says
Tim, it has become clear that you hold a deep anger towards law enforcement that precludes your otherwise good judgment. This makes it obvious that this can not be discussed rationally with you, as you have abandoned such in this case.
I truly expected better of you.
Tim Scott says
Anger? Not really. I have nothing personal to be angry about. My perjuring deputy got me unfairly convicted…of a traffic violation. Hardly a matter of life and death. It did make me aware though. If a deputy will perjure themselves to get a conviction on a traffic ticket, where do you think they draw the line?
If I were ever to get actually angry about these issues I would get angry at the baton polishers. The people who say “well we have heard the story, now wait for the facts,” ie the deputy’s version which in their mind is predetermined to be true; factual; the valid basis for action. I do fight with those people, and I fight in kind. When they want a polite debate I give them one, and when they start throwing mud I throw back with the best of them and better. When they try to play tough guy I offer to meet them and give them the chance. But don’t mistake my willingness to meet them head on in the mud, or the street, as anger…I just enjoy the mud.
Beecee says
“My perjuring deputy got me unfairly convicted…of a traffic violation. Hardly a matter of life and death“
Says the guy who admittedly bombed down Sierra highway at 100mph back in the 20’s,
Lol
Tim Scott says
Not Sierra Highway…and it was the 80’s. And I never got a ticket for that.
I got a ticket in a school zone from a deputy that just stood in the street waving in cars. In court he claimed to have been using a radar gun to verify speed, which was a bald faced lie. The judge said “you may not have seen him do it,” which was inarguable, but the guy stepped out and waved over his next victim while I was signing my ticket and I KNOW that he didn’t gun that guy, so it’s reasonable to say he probably didn’t gun me as he claimed either. He was pretty obviously just meeting his quota and couldn’t care less whether people were actually speeding.
Stinger says
Obviously, Tim, I can’t speak directly to your recollections, but I have an interesting recollection from back in the very early ’80’s with a Ventura motor deputy doing much the same thing; standing out in the street and just waving cars over for speeding by my old alma mater. He also used radar. It was fascinating to watch, because he was, in fact, using a function on his radar unit that allowed for him to set it at certain speeds and had an audible tone that would vary with the target vehicle’s speed until reaching a preset speed, when an alarm would go off. All the deputy had to do was listen for the tone and alarm and, voila, another speeding ticket to be written.
Tim Scott says
Radar unit, car mounted? I remember those.
I specifically asked the deputy in court how he used his radar when he wasn’t near his car. He explained it was a hand held unit. I asked what it looked like, and was told “like a handgun on steroids…point and shoot.” Now, I ask you, do I strike you as a guy who wouldn’t notice if a deputy drew a “handgun on steroids” while standing at my car window?
Stinger says
Sorry, Tim – I said a motor unit. It was a handheld unit that he would set on the handlebars in the correct direction.
It always amazed me how many cars he would catch.
Shannon Hunsaker says
Thank you so much for your comments. The body cam clearly shows our statements, and facts are true. The body cams also go against what these lying law enforcement say.
David says
I mean you could judge the fact that the people named in the article assaulted the cops while they were trying to help. Or how one of them slapped a sheriff in the face for not helping enough. It’s BS but these people named don’t care, they’re money hungry.
Tim Scott says
“Assaulted the officers while they were trying to help”…is a FACT? WTF are you talking about here David? If anyone assaulted the officers THAT PERSON WOULD BE IN JAIL David. The cops didn’t develop a sympathetic streak and drop charges that they had a shot in hell of making stick. Get a grip you baton polisher.
Tim Scott says
Okay, my response there got flagged and likely won’t pass. David, you are citing “facts” that cannot be supported. Do you know that?
Tim Scott says
Fact?
Shannon Hunsaker says
What a dumb comment to make. Did you not read the part where the charges were dismissed? My family did not attack, assault, or abuse the sheriffs. They let my son die, and did not show any compassion or give any condolences to a grieving family.
Imthenutt says
I am very sorry about the kiss if your son. I also apologize for the insensitive idiots on this post. May your son walk with the Angels…
A_95 says
I went to middle school with him and he was always such a sweet guy he didn’t deserve this! LETS GET JUSTICE FOR DERRICK! My deepest condolences to momma Shannon
Fasten your seatbelts says
Kathi…It also depends on what was going on in this house that might have prompted the officers to respond as they did.
Tim Scott says
Apparently “what was going on in the house” was a guy dying on the floor and someone doing CPR…until the cops got there. If that wasn’t deemed the most important “thing going on” by the cops then maybe we need better cops.
Fasten your seatbelts says
Neither you or I have the full story, Tim. You prejudge every single article that involves law enforcement. Your emotions override any sensibilities regarding all law enforcement. I am well aware of injustice within law enforcement, but I refuse to take on the attitude and anarchy of the BLM movement or or 1/6/21.
Tim Scott says
Neither of us has “the full story.” The difference is that you think that the deputies will “bring the facts” and I just know what they are going to say, whether what they say is true or not. So you have a much greater interest in waiting for them to have their say than I do. Which is fine, except that it reinforces the misconception that “facts come from law enforcement and of course criminals contradict them but they should be disregarded because anyone who contradicts the facts is just a criminal.”
The county is going to settle here, because there is no way they put two deputies accounts up against what sounds like a dozen witness accounts and expect to win.
Fasten your seatbelts says
A dozen witness accounts? If the dozen witness accounts are credible maybe the county will settle. You said they were criminals, not me. so read my first comment instead of going off with your usual histrionics.
Tim Scott says
“If the dozen witness accounts are credible”…okay, what are your criteria for credibility?
They are going to contradict sworn testimony of law enforcement officers. That’s a given. In your estimation is that going to make them automatically “not credible”?
They are going to be accusatory towards law enforcement, not just specifically against these officers but will be in terms of longstanding conflicts between themselves and law enforcement prejudices they have experienced. That is almost certain. Does that long term conflict in your estimation establish them as “not credible”?
Most or all of them will be minorities. Does that in your estimation count against their credibility? And before you go off on an angry tangent at me for asking, please recognize that in any jury pool there will be people who if they were honest would say yes there.
Apparently two of them were arrested at the time. In your estimation does that make them less likely to be credible? Bear in mind here that there were never any charges filed.
What I’m trying to sort out here is what miraculous “clearing evidence” you are expecting to appear here, other than the assumption I am making about you, which is that in the end you are gonna wind up at “back the badge, the cops say this so that’s what happened.”
Shannon Hunsaker says
My son was dying. His brother was giving him CPR, not the certified CPR expert deputy that showed up at the scene. We were racially profiled, and im white. The deputy never tried to help my dying son.
Shannon Hunsaker says
My son was lying on the floor dying. There were 5 of us in the house. We were sleeping. It was 4 months into Covid, and the deputy didn’t want to give CPR to my son. He saw vomit,, and didn’t want to perform CPR. It’s that simple.
Fasten your seatbelts says
I see how different news articles give conflicting stories by those involved telling their version. There are comments that there were 12 people involved and two officers, now it’s five people sleeping. Mouth to mouth CPR isn’t given anymore, so I hope the truth will prevail. No one commenting is qualified to assess this case truthfully.
Tim Scott says
A dozen was a guess based on the fact that neighbors would be out for the wrestling the guy down in the street part. Nice diversion onto that detail though rather than just acknowledging that there is only one story the deputies are going to be able to tell here whether it is true or not, and your mind is already made up that when they get around to telling it you are going to say “okay now we have the facts.”
OKFine says
I’m this man’s mother. Don’t comment on things you know nothing about. My son was not a gang member, but was racially profiled by the sheriffs department
Chago says
I am sorry for your lost. I would also like to apologize for all my ignorant humans who act like animals. I don’t know what is wrong with our species. May GOD see you through your heartache. To Live and Die in LA….
Shannon Hunsaker says
Thank you so much
Shannon Hunsaker says
Thank you so much for your kind words
Stinger says
I think I’d like to hear the other side of the story on this one.
Tim Scott says
Well, sure. Problem being that no matter what actually happened the two cops are gonna swear to one thing and the large group of family members is gonna swear to the other. One side is going to be exaggerating a bit, and the other is gonna be bald faced lying. So at the end of the day it is going to come down to believe the two cops, or believe the large group of not cops.
So I have no problem saying where I am most likely going to be standing. I find it very credible that the cops, as usual, put their personal safety absolutely miles ahead of any other concern and ignored the guy dying on the floor so they “didn’t have to turn their backs to the dangerous mob” that existed in their minds, because I have no doubt that in their minds a black family in their own home is “a dangerous mob.” I think that makes the family indirectly correct; the cops did let the guy die “because he was black,” in that if it had been a white guy with a white family in the house the cops wouldn’t have been “can’t turn our backs” paranoids and would have done their jobs (put another way, would have just done the right thing that ANYONE should have done) and rendered aid.
The exaggeration will come in in that the cops probably didn’t come right out and us racial slurs in explaining why they were letting the guy die. While it was undoubtedly very obvious to the people involved, it was most likely unsaid.
Old Spice says
Just because there’s a lawsuit doesn’t mean the claims are truthful.
Tim Scott says
Just because you are going to side with the police over the black people while claiming you aren’t a racist doesn’t mean they are false.
They are certainly credible.
It appears there are going to be a large number of witnesses.
The county will settle.
Teetee says
Why did they drop their charges then old spice
FatWhiteBob says
just another night in the Antelope Valley,
Tim Scott says
Hey it says “protect and serve” on the door of the car, but it doesn’t specify WHO. Silly to think it would include ALL the citizens rather than just some arbitrary few.
Joe says
As usual, you’re mistaken. The Sheriff cars say “a tradition of service”. The police cars in LA city say “to protect and serve.” Take your racist comments somewhere else.
Tim Scott says
Sooooo…let you die on the floor after dragging off the person who was giving you CPR is “traditional”?