...

"Not reported widely in the local press is the fact that the settlement agreement also contained clauses to provide for a memorial bench and a meeting with the Chief of Police to discuss training issues."

David -- I don't know how it works in Davis but people here in Woodland can actually meet with the Police Chief of Woodland to talk about training issues without a lawsuit.

Additionally -- a memorial bench is not the kind of thing I consider to be change.

If this is what the family was seeking by the lawsuit then there were much less expensive ways for them to accomplish this.

Finally, as you should know YCPARMIA will get this money from the taxpayers of Woodland when they set their rates. It absolutely will come from the taxpayers of Woodland. This is not free money. Please take a look at the agencies that use YCPARMIA. This is an agency that uses joint powers to insure the members. I repeat -- this is about $6 for every single person in Woodland.

Matt Rexroad
662-5184

...

As Mr. Rexroad should know, the money is coming from YCPARMIA, the agency that insures local agencies against such legal action, rather than the taxpayers in Woodland.

Total nonsense, David. Where the heck do you think the YCPARMIA gets its money?

I mostly agree with Matt. However, I don't think it's fair to say the family's only motivation "was all about the money." It seems more likely to me that the family also was very angry and very sad that Ricardo Abrahams died; and they wanted (civilly) to take revenge on the party they believe caused his death. By winning $300,000 from the taxpayers of Woodland, they got their pound of flesh.

What residents of Woodland -- heck, what residents of the entire United States -- need to realize is that this is a perfect example of how dysfunctional our legal system is; and how lawsuits (and settlements) like this one are impoverishing our entire country. There is not another country in the entire world which so encourages people to sue police, doctors, grocery stores, stock brokers, manufacturers, etc., etc., like ours. And to what benefit?

Save the attorneys who file these assinine lawsuits and the clients they represent, no one could argue there is any kind of societal benefit from these lawsuits. No one (with a brain) really thinks that this Abrahams lawsuit will result in a change in policy by the WPD (or by any other law enforcement agency).

The death of Abrahams was undoubtedly tragic for him and his family. However, exactly what did the WPD do wrong in this case that they can systemically avoid in the future? For those of you without a brain I will give you the answer: Nothing!

These nonsense lawsuits -- where parties settle because A) it is too expensive in most cases to keep paying lawyers to defend against the lawsuit and B) juries are filled with morons* and C) we statutorily permit huge rewards for winning in court -- are a big part of the reason medical care in the U.S. is so unbelievably expensive.

As readers of my column know, I am in favor of a single-payer system (like Canada's), which is divorced from one's employment. However, single-payer won't solve everything which is wrong with our medical system. I read not too long ago that 90% of the MRIs ordered for patients 90 and older are in the United States. (Keep in mind that our population is younger than most countries in Europe and younger than the population of Japan.) So why are doctors in the U.S. ordering all of these very expensive tests for their very elderly patients? Is it to find some problem which will make the patients' lives better? Of course not. The reason they order these extremely expensive tests is partly to enrich radiologists and mostly to prevent lawsuits. If a 92-year-old dies of brain cancer and his oncologist didn't order an expensive series of radiological exams -- which the doctor knew would not extend or improve the life of his patient -- some lawyer would sue his ass and very likely the doctor would lose. So our doctors and hospitals and clinics are put in a very tough bind: They are either run out of business by voracious lawsuits; or they cover-their-butts by ordering tests which double the cost of medicine in the United States, yet do nothing to improve the care for their patients.

It's much the same with cities and other public agencies having to protect themselves against nonsense lawsuits.

*I was reading recently about a famous lawsuit won by former Sen. John Edwards in which he won millions of dollars from a hospital and three of its OB/GYNs (one of whom later committed) in a case over whether the doctors' decisions to allow vaginal births (as opposed to a Caesarean) caused an increase in cerebral palsy cases at the hospital. The story noted that not one of the jurors had graduated from high school. Not one. The case centered around a complex set of arguments about statistics and medical science. The morons on the jury were empowered to decide which set of scientists was right. Great idea. (It should also be noted that judges in NC are elected; and they raise campaign money from attorneys like John Edwards.)

...

Typo: "... and three of its OB/GYNs (one of whom later committed suicide. This was the third time a baby she had delivered developed cerebral palsy and the third time she had been sued for millions of dollars. The medical licensing board in North Carolina knew she had done nothing wrong in any case. However, she could no longer practice medicine because she could no longer get malpractice insurance.)

...

I'm no expect, but as I understand it from my days with the county, YCPARMIA is like an insurance pool. The agencies that participate pay a premium into the pool and then have to pay something like a deductible and the rest comes out of the pool. But the pool is not just coming from Woodland residents, so Davis residents are actually paying every bit as much for this as Woodland residents.

...

I am very glad to see that training issues are part of the settlement. As the spouse of a very overweight man, I am very aware of how hard it is for big folks to breathe while lying face down. After Ricardo's death, my research into medical and medical-legal literature taught me that the big folks handcuffed and face down can die suddenly and that this may not be widely known among police departments. Anyone who says that if the person in custody can talk then he is ok does not know how suddenly it can go from difficulty breathing to death with the big folks. I would like to see all area law enforcement be well informed on the increased risk of sudden death from positional asphyxiation in overweight people.

...

David -- I don't know how it works in Davis but people here in Woodland can actually meet with the Police Chief of Woodland to talk about training issues without a lawsuit. 

I'm from Woodland....maybe if you're a county supervisor, otherwise sullivan wont meet.

Additionally -- a memorial bench is not the kind of thing I consider to be change. 

If this is what the family was seeking by the lawsuit then there were much less expensive ways for them to accomplish this

. 

If you are implying that money will not change anything, I think you are completely wrong.

First of all, the family needs to pay for funeral arrangements, and should rightly received monetary compensation for pain and suffering. Mr. Abrahams was wrongfully killed because the WPD did not know how to detain mentally ill suspects.

Secondly, a $300k dent will make change. If chief Sullivan never mentioned the risks of detaining mentally ill individuals, he will now. Improper training is a liability to Woodland taxpayers, not the Woodlanders killed as a result.

As long as WPD officers cant do their job correctly, the Woodland tax payer will keep dishing out money. One of the officers involved had less than 6 months in the police force.

...

Suing YCCC because staff were concerned enough about someone to call the police to ask for a welfare check? This is a frivolous lawsuit and I hope YCCC fights it to the end with the community's support. The family is seeing dollar signs and is clearly not receiving sound advice from their lawyer.

What if they didn't make that call and the man hurt himself? Would the family sue then as well?

It seems that this death was an accident. The settlement with the police tells me that the family concedes this point.

...

"If you are implying that money will not change anything, I think you are completely wrong. First of all, the family needs to pay for funeral arrangements."

That's about $7,000, not $300,000. And it presumes the police did something wrong and something avoidable, neither of which is at all certain. According to the Enterprise, "The state Attorney General's Office ruled in October that there was no criminal conduct by the officers involved, backing the police department's own internal investigation."

"... and should rightly received monetary compensation for pain and suffering.

This really gets to Matt's point -- it's about the money. Giving Mr. Abrahams' family $293,000 on top of the funeral costs does not change anyone's pain or suffering. If a cop illegally bashes you over the head with his billyclub and your pain from that lingers, then you might be justified in receiving compensation for pain and suffering. Otherwise, it's about making money off of a tragedy (and trying to harm the party you believe caused the tragedy).

Mr. Abrahams was wrongfully killed because the WPD did not know how to detain mentally ill suspects.

There may be truth in that. However, that does not mean that paying $300,000 to his family will change that. It may simply be the case that it's impossible to detain a terribly overweight mentally ill person in a perfectly safe manner when the person is combatting the police. They did not shoot him with a firearm. They took him down with a Taser (which was found to have played no part in his death). He died in large part (according to the coroner) because he was terribly fat and thus in poor physical condition. Are the police to be blamed for his weight problem?

Secondly, a $300k dent will make change. If chief Sullivan never mentioned the risks of detaining mentally ill individuals, he will now. Improper training is a liability to Woodland taxpayers, not the Woodlanders killed as a result.

This again presupposes that there is some "right way" to handle a case like this. There may be. But what is it when a giant, mentally disturbed man is "acting aggressively and refused to follow commands"? (Granted, his aggressive behavior is the characterization of the police.)

As long as WPD officers can't do their job correctly, the Woodland tax payer will keep dishing out money.

At least you concede this will cost the taxpayers of Woodland money. (That contrasts with Greenwald and others who seem to think the money appears out of thin air.) Yet I'm unconvinced that this lawsuit will cause "WPD officers to do their job correctly," because AFAIK there is no real correct course of action here. This could have happened in Davis (where Abrahams' family lives) or Winters or West Sac or Dixon, and AFAIK the police would have made the same decision. (If that is wrong, please show me evidence of it.)

One of the officers involved had less than 6 months in the police force.

So a $300,000 lawsuit will cause Woodland to no longer have rookie cops on their force? I realize you are trying to claim that the fault was with the rookie's lack of training. But the rookie was not in charge, so that (to me) is totally irrelevant. There were four police officers involved -- Sgt. Anthony Cucchi and officers Omar Flores, John Perez and Amanda Waldeck -- and combined they had many years of training and experience. No doubt they had dealt with combative, mentally ill people before. Yet just because their actions resulted in Mr. Abrahams's death does not mean that they did not follow the best procedure. It seems to me that there was nothing else they could have done in this case. His weight, his mental disorder and their need to protect the public combined for a tragic outcome that likely could not have been avoided.

...

"It seems that this death was an accident."

There's no doubt the death was an accident, but it seems to have been avoidable.

...

The problem with all of these reasons for suing the police department is that the police now have an incentive to do nothing when they receive a complaint from someone being harassed and stalked by a mentally ill person. Since the community has come to the aid of the criminally insane people stalking and harassing regular citizens, why would you expect the police to do anything but "look the other way" when confronted with similar situations in the future?

I know a single woman in Davis who is being watched, stalked, and physically abused by a person who is could be mentally unstable. The victim can't get the police to stop the stalker. The stalker has followed her home and around town. He has grabbed her and held her until she has a bruised arm while he is praying for her.

She went to Yolo Superior Court to get a restraining order, but was told that she needs to first obtain a police report about her complaint, but she can't get the police to write a police report; they just say that they are still working on it. When it was complete, the Davis police department says that the report is not available because it was sent to the Yolo DA's office. A call to the Yolo DA's office gets the same answer: the police report has not yet arrived, but the DA's office promises to telephone when the report is available.

David, your continual attacks on the police agencies in Yolo County have resulted in criminals having police protection! The police are no longer confronting wrong-doers because of your defense of them. The police are apparently waiting for a witnessed event with physical injuries before acting. This one-sided reporting is endangering the community.

...

One of the jury trials I have been on was a civil case involving the death of a young man. The case revolved around partial responsibility. Nobody questioned that the incident was an accident and that the young man's behavior had contributed to his death.
Our job was to assess whether other individuals had some responsibility. If so, we were to determine what the young man's life was worth to his survivors, and we heard detailed testimony from separate expert witnesses about that very complicated subject. Then, if we agreed that there was partial responsibility, and agreed on a value, we were to assess how much of the loss of value the survivors were entitled to. It was a little surreal hearing expert witnesses tell us exactly how to monetize what you are worth.

Based on what I've heard about this case, the settlement is well within the range of what a jury might hand out. Not because juries are stupid, but because it is a complicated issue that is not as simple as you might think. The possibility of a jury assessing the actions of various agencies in managing the situation probably was a big factor. I suspect that the insurance agency and the county did a cost-benefit analysis and that this is a compromise.

Rich: "This again presupposes that there is some "right way" to handle a case like this. There may be." Indeed. I'm sure several days of expert witnesses could review that, that their testimony would conflict, and that the jury would have to sort it out. That was my experience.

Monetary rewards are not intended to "change" the pain or suffering; nothing does that. They are intended to compensate for it. We aren't privy to the family's finances or emotional condition, so we don't know what they need, or what bills they are left with after this ordeal.

...

The problem with all of these reasons for suing the police department is that the police now have an incentive to do nothing when they receive a complaint from someone being harassed and stalked by a mentally ill person. Since the community has come to the aid of the criminally insane people stalking and harassing regular citizens, why would you expect the police to do anything but "look the other way" when confronted with similar situations in the future?

You think police have an incentive to do nothing? How has the community come to the aid of criminals? Mr. Abrahams was not a criminal and no one is saying the WPD is a criminal organization. I dont know what you are referring to.

I expect the police to do something because I pay them to do so. If certain cops do not feel like they can handle the job, they should quit.

I know a single woman in Davis who is being watched, stalked, and physically abused by a person who is could be mentally unstable. The victim can't get the police to stop the stalker. The stalker has followed her home and around town. He has grabbed her and held her until she has a bruised arm while he is praying for her.

She went to Yolo Superior Court to get a restraining order, but was told that she needs to first obtain a police report about her complaint, but she can't get the police to write a police report; they just say that they are still working on it. When it was complete, the Davis police department says that the report is not available because it was sent to the Yolo DA's office. A call to the Yolo DA's office gets the same answer: the police report has not yet arrived, but the DA's office promises to telephone when the report is available.

So you are saying the Davis PD and the Yolo D.A have not done anything, right? This seems like the Yolo D.A and the Davis Police department are not doing their jobs. Maybe, those agencies should be investigated?

David, your continual attacks on the police agencies in Yolo County have resulted in criminals having police protection! The police are no longer confronting wrong-doers because of your defense of them. The police are apparently waiting for a witnessed event with physical injuries before acting. This one-sided reporting is endangering the community.

I think you are over the line here. Part of maintaining a democratic society is the freedom of speech and protection of dissent.

If this news service has been able to pressure the Yolo D.A and Davis Police Department to remain idle (as you claim)--then I'm confident both agencies are incompetent.

...

Matt Rexroad,
You are disgusting and hypocritical. If it was your child that was tazered to death, you'd be the first one at the court house trying to get some financial retribution. If the sherriffs were not fired or didn't receive proper training on how to deal with someone without killing them, then the sherriff's should pay. If we can't figure out how to hold them accountable, then the tax payers will always be paying. Ps. 300,000 is small cookies for someone's death. They should have paid at least a million. They deserve it, and YOU MATT REXROAD, should not be talking about something that you have no clue on. You haven't lost a child due to the mishandling of police, so if I were you I wouldn't talk.
I wish I lived in woodland so I could vote you out.

...

Ps.
Tazers should be illegal for cops and everyone. We can't go around shocking people into submission. Isn't that the same thing as torture?
Sounds ominously close. Only difference is, we're not shocking someone that's strapped to a chair, we're electrocuting a free person, so somehow this precludes the definition of torture being applied to the use of tazering. It's the same thing. Torture and we need to outlaw it completely.
There have been too many deaths due to tazering and it needs to STOP!!!!

...

Miss Melanie,

The only alternatives to the use of a tazer are pepper spray which can be effective but is not a sure thing, officers putting themselves at great risk to fight a suspect using hand to hand methods, and the use of firearms (deadly force). The tazer allows law enforcement to safely subdue people that they otherwise would be forced to shoot when the fistfight goes bad. The tazer has saved FAR MORE LIVES of both suspects and law enforcement than it has taken.

I'll bet that if the Woodland PD had not had a tazer, been unable to physically restrain the man in question, and had been forced to shoot him when he gained a position of advantage on one of the officers you'd still be calling for their heads.

...

Mister nvn8v
if it was so bloody "safe" then why is it that hundreds of people have died due to tazering and related complications. It's NOT SAFE!!!!!! And it's a form of torture. There ought to be other ways to "safely" subdue people without KILLING THEM!!!!

...

And I'm not some queen mary going around saying "off with their heads"

...

MELANIE: "You are disgusting and hypocritical."

Good to see the terms of service are being enforced.

MELANIE: "If it was your child who was Tasered to death, you'd be the first one at the court house trying to get some financial retribution."

Good point, except no one was Tasered to death in this case. No one. Mr. Abrahams's death, according to the coroner was unrelated to the Taser. He died because he suffocated when he was restrained, largely because he was morbidly obese.

MELANIE: "If the sheriffs were not fired or didn't receive proper training on how to deal with someone without killing them, then the sheriff's should pay."

There were no sheriffs involved in this case. None.

...

MELANIE: "You are disgusting and hypocritical."
Rich: "Good to see the terms of service are being enforced."

Sorry, missed that one. Melanie, no direct attacks on other individuals, please.

...

The other alternative to a Taser would have been to called in people experienced dealing with mental illness to try to calm the individual down.

You mean like the experts in mental illness at Safe Harbor Crisis House who called the police? According to the newspaper accounts I read, the Safe Harbor director, Jennifer Welch, called the police because Mr. Abrahams was terribly agitated and they could not calm him down.

...

Family claims that Jennifer Welch should've known that this would lead to more agitation.

"Safe Harbor staff knew that Ricardo's stress and anxiety, combined with his difficulty communicating and following instructions, would likely lead to a confrontation between Ricardo and police."

and that they should have called the family rather than the police.

The question is whether or not this would have made a difference? And are the police the best people to handle a mentally ill individual. What would NAMI say about this?

...

I don't know if I entirely agree with the conclusions of Supervisor Rexroad, and I definitely don't agree with anything Melanie's saying (by the way, it's the Woodland Police Department, Sheriff would be the county)... but the fact is, these situations happen.

I used to work with abused children in group homes. Quite frankly, it was the hardest job I've ever had. Working with individuals that behave dangerously and often irrationally is extremely unpredictable and often dangerous. I'm sure I made more than a few mistakes in handling complex situations, but did the best I could.

The situation sounds extremely complex and difficult, and unfortunately that ended in the loss of Ricardo's life. While I agree that it's an incident that should be investigated, given the circumstances, the behavior of the police seems reasonable; even a minor settlement to cover expenses and such. $300,000 is excessive and unfortunately punitive to the County.

...

I also wanted to add - having to make quick decisions is part of the job of police. They're not always going to be 100% correct, but they do the best they can on the fly. It's easy to come in after seeing the results and say it should have been done differently.