That's what I heard in the news report. That city of riverside was deciding yesterday how to make the payment. The final amount wasn't mentioned.
Ahh, OK, I didn't understand you were referring to a settlement agreement. Apparently it isn't finalized yet, but I did find what it sounds like you are talking about, at least a written version of it. Interestingly, it's from the "
Insurance News Network" website, which is covering the settlement from the insurance carrier's (for the City) perspective. It says the City has already voted to allot the $5,000 needed for their deductible, and they're negotiating with Call's attorney on the terms of payment for the rest, but how much the rest is won't be disclosed until after the details have been agreed to (I'll add "if ever" to what the story says about that). Couple of interesting tidbits from the story:
According to the resolution, the city will be required to provide the police department with training on second amendment rights by Dec. 31 of this year.
Where's the requirement for training on consequences for trumped up charges and lying on official Police Reports (and most likely in sworn depositions too)? Sgt. Jones said in his own report that he was fully aware of Call's rights and knew he hadn't done anything illegal, so he went beyond Terry's allowances (which favor cops by a wide margin) and trumped up the charge of Obstruction of Justice just because he doesn't like OC'ers, even though he does know their rights under the law. Which leads to another rather troubling tidbit from the story:
It also states the settlement is "not an admission of liability; rather the City expressly denies liability and affirms that it is settling solely to avoid incurring additional costs in defending the pending claim."
After close to two years fighting City Hall, I get why Mr. Call is willing to settle, but not so much as an apology is going to be forthcoming to him, which pretty much leaves Call's abuse unaccounted for, the City's tax-payers holding the bag, and the two cops who cost them the money getting off scot-free. As per usual.
And I'm not and was not criticizing the victim or anyone for that matter.
Really? How did I misunderstand this then?
I guess it's the attorney that comes up with these figures for damages & restitution. Sounds a little exorbitant to me since he was released and gun returned. If say it could have been handled better by ALL parties involved
Do rights turn into pumpkins like Cinderella's chariot at midnight or something? Should Call have "handled it better" by not OC'ing at 4:30 am? Or should he have "handled it better" by answering questions that he
knew Sgt. Jones had no legal authority to ask in the first place, much less demand answers of him for under threat of false charges under color of law?
Sorry, you criticized the victim, Roy Call, for somehow not handling it "better." You criticized his attorney for setting a punitive damages number that you say was "exorbitant." It sounds like you want Jones and Jackson to get a pass,
"...since he was released and gun returned." I don't see anything more than that that's critical of the cops, and as far as I can tell, they are the
only ones who could've "handled it better" by
any rational scrutiny of the case.
I wasn't there, and there's usually always more to the story.
So what's the "more to the story" that Call could've done to have "handled it better?" Try to answer that without saying he should've relinquished his right to not answer questions, or he shouldn't have been out at 4:30 am, or that he and his lawyer shouldn't have decided between them what damages to ask for instead of consulting with you and all the other gun owners who seem just fine with the cops' actions, but critical of Call and/or his attorney for acting 100% legally in an open carry state. Best of luck with that.
I'm very familiar with area where this happened. 3 -4 miles from me, but hadn't heard anything about it till two days ago
So now you know the "rest of the story." Thank me. I'm welcome.
Blues
