City to assist with costs of former police chief's defense
Following closed session Thursday, the Eureka City Council announced its approval of up to $75,000 in defense costs for former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas...
...The resolution passed by the council states that available information indicates Douglas was acting within the scope of his employment during the events that led to the indictment and acted in good faith without actual malice in apparent interests of the city.
“The decision was a difficult one to make,” Councilmember Jeff Leonard said.
It wasn’t the problem of stepping up to defend Douglas that made the decision difficult, he said, but a lack of available city funds in a case where defense fees could top more than $250,000.
“That’s the kind of rainy day that could deplete our general fund reserve,” Leonard said.
If costs approach the $75,000 limit before the case is resolved, the matter will return to the City Council for further consideration.
In addition to the appropriation of funds, a special fund is being established to aid in the payment of legal fees for Douglas’ defense. Donations can be sent to the city of Eureka.
“The city is definitely going to need some help on this one,” Councilmember Larry Glass said.
TS Ex-chief garners $75K for his defense 12/21/2007
And WTF would Larry Glass know about how much this is going to cost the city? It's Glass' good buddy Paul Gallegos who started this one.
ReplyDeleteHow much did Glass' boondoggle with Arkely cost.
6:56,
ReplyDeleteso because larry was threatened by arkley, he shouldn't ask for donations to the fund to defend Douglas? im not following the logic of your post....please enlighten me.....
For God's sake, otherme, RELAX.
ReplyDeleteby for god's sake, you mean for Rob's sake. By relax you mean take plenty of meds like Rob. i get it.
ReplyDeleteGiven the facts of the Cheri Moore case, as well as other recent Eureka Police Department atrocities (including the needless killing of a 17-year-old boy, just a few months after officers killed Ms. Moore, a mentally ill woman), no one should be surprised that the City is, once again, poised to pay dearly for the brutality of our police department.
ReplyDeleteBoth cases are perhaps best summed up in three words "Fools Rush In."
In both cases, the problem was that police went for the shoot-first-ask-questions-late r approach, in both cases the foolish rush to deadly force had predicatably deadly consequences.
In both cases the rationale that was avanced after the fact was that the police HAD TO corner the boy, and HAD TO storm the woman's apartment, not because of what the subject HAD done, not because of what they WERE doing, not because of what they were ABOUT to do, but because of what they MIGHT do, at some later point. So the Foolish decision was made to go ahead and Rush In.
Then, after creating a deadly crisis by cornering the unstable person, the police open fire and later say that they "had no choice" and that it was "self-defense."
So the qustion is: HAVE WE REALLY BECOME SUCH A SOCIETY OF COWARDS that now we actually WANT our police officers to needlessly gun down mentally ill people -- even children, just to keep the rest of safe from the POTENTIAL harm they MIGHT possibly cause if not immediately apprehended by the police?
Apparently, for some the answer is a resounding, cowardly "YES!" I pity those of you living in such fear of your fellow citizens that you stoop to endorsing this sort of "preventative" killing.[You would have loved the old Soviet Union, where these sorts of "preventive" police actions kept the majority of Russians very "safe" from crime...but at a hell of a cost.]
Perhaps for the system as a whole, violent police intervention was simply the most convenient way of disposing of these inconvenient people with their inconvenient mental illnesses and social problems -- bodybags are cheaper than therapy and social services?
If so, maybe a multi-million dollar lawsuit with million-dollar legal bills (along with the costs of defending the former chief in the criminal case) might change the arithmatic a little bit, and encourage us to do right by our most vulnerable citizens. It's sad that it has to come to that, but apparently fear of costly litigation and criminal charges may be the only deterrent to similar police atrocities in the future.
Remember, it took an expensive and lengthy lawsuit to stop the county and city's barbaric and sadistic practice of swabbing pepper spray directly into the eyes of peaceful protesters(another example where violence seemed like the "convenient" way to treat marginalized people, but in the long run it ended up costing the taxpayers bigtime in legal fees).
Yes, perhaps criminal charges and expensive lawsuits are just the sort of bitter medicine this sick system needs right now.
Thank you 5:50, I had not yet reached my daily allotment of drivel. Indeed, your contribution serves to put me over the daily recommended requirements of poppycock, balderdash, and horsefeathers as well. I may be good for a week in fact. Merry Christmas, you ignorant git.
ReplyDeleteI just feel sorry for you, 5:50.
ReplyDelete5:50 would probably be happy if the officers simply remained in the station and did not respond at all because then they would not "be creating a deadly crisis" by showing up to do the job they are paid to do. Nevermind, the people threating to burn down buildings, people threatening probation officers with knives, or wanted sex offenders blocading themselves in motel rooms.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you find an intruder in your house, please people, DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT call the police because 5:50 says that by simply showing up to assist you they are "creating a deadly crisis." Nevermind if they person is out of their mind on meth, or threatening your life. It is the police "creating a deadly crisis" by responding that is wrong. It is the police protecting the community and their lives that is wrong. The dangerous mentally ill and drug addicts should be left to rob convenience stores, threaten arson, go free even with warrants out for their arrest, and use weapons to escape from law enforcement.
Good one.