Clark County settles with family of motorist shot and killed by deputy in 2021
This story was originally published on MyNorthwest.com
Clark County has reached a $3.5 million settlement with the family of Jenoah Donald, an unarmed Black motorist who was shot and killed by a sheriff's deputy in February 2021.
Deputies pulled him over for a defective taillight. His attorneys said a deputy shot him in the head during a struggle as they tried to get him out of the vehicle. Donald's family has said he was on the autism spectrum.
'Jenoah's family wanted accountability,' Mark Lindquist, one of the attorneys representing the family, said. 'This settlement provides accountability and closure.'
Family attorney Angus Lee said the settlement sends a broader message.
'This outcome honors Jenoah Donald's life and underscores a simple truth: When officers ignore their training and resort to needless lethal force, they will be held accountable,' Lee said. 'The family's determination ensures their story will not be forgotten.'
In a news release announcing the settlement, Lee and Lindquist alleged that 'not only did the deputy use unnecessary deadly force, but that Clark County's policies and practices on deadly force were constitutionally deficient.'
'Our hope is that accountability will result in better training and more prudent use of deadly force going forward,' Lindquist said.
In 2021, five prosecuting attorneys from around the state conducted an independent review of the case.
'The reviewing members cannot say the outcome would have been different, but it does not appear Mr. Donald was ever asked to step out of the vehicle or had it explained to him why the request was being made,' the review said. 'The command to exit the vehicle appears to have been lawful (officer safety). Mr. Donald's refusal to exit the vehicle quickly escalated, and Deputy Boyle, unable to reach his Taser, drew his weapon and shot Mr. Donald to protect himself and other deputies.'
The review went on to say, 'The use of force in this instance by Deputy Boyle was done in 'good faith.''
In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Clark County confirmed the settlement but maintained that it 'continues to deny liability for this unfortunate incident.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
41 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots
The images of cars set ablaze, protesters tossing rocks at police and officers firing nonlethal rounds and tear gas at protesters hearkens back to the last time a president sent the National Guard to respond to violence on Los Angeles streets. But the unrest during several days of protests over immigration enforcement is far different in scale from the 1992 riots that followed the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to call in the National Guard after requests from Mayor Tom Bradley and Gov. Pete Wilson. After the current protests began Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines despite strident opposition from Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump cited a legal provision to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Monday saying Trump had overstepped his authority. On Tuesday, Newsom filed an emergency motion in federal court to block the troops from assisting with immigration raids in Los Angeles. Unlike the 1992 riots, protests have mainly been peaceful and been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny patch in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people. No one has died. There's been vandalism and some cars set on fire but no homes or buildings have burned. More than 100 people have been arrested over the past several days of protests. The vast majority of arrests were for failing to disperse, while a few others were for assault with a deadly weapon, looting, vandalism and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Several officers have had minor injuries and protesters and some journalists have been struck by some of the more than 600 rubber bullets and other 'less-lethal' munitions fired by police. Outrage over the verdicts on April 29, 1992 led to nearly a week of widespread violence that was one of the deadliest riots in American history. Hundreds of businesses were looted. Entire blocks of homes and stores were torched. More than 60 people died in shootings and other violence, mostly in South Los Angeles, an area with a heavily Black population at the time. The 1992 uprising took many by surprise, including the Los Angeles Police Department, but the King verdict was a catalyst for racial tensions that had been building in the city for years. In addition to frustration with their treatment by police, some directed their anger at Korean merchants who owned many of the local stores. Black residents felt the owners treated them more like shoplifters than shoppers. As looting and fires spread toward Koreatown, some merchants protected their stores with shotguns and rifles.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Conservative outlet says WNBA denied them press passes to games
Anti-trans 'activist' Riley Gaines and the Fox-owned sports news outlet OutKick claim they are being unfairly targeted by the WNBA. Gaines and OutKick insist they were denied press credentials for two recent Atlanta Dream games and allege that the WNBA is trying to suppress their reporting. Advertisement Gaines, who never became a professional swimmer after leaving college, rose to fame among Republicans after publicly targeting trans former NCAA swimmer Lia Thomas and now has an OutKick podcast where she frequently talks about trans athletes in women's sports. Recently, she has been laser-focused on the WNBA's Brittney Griner, claiming that the Atlanta Dream star center called Indiana Fever point guard Caitlin Clark 'trash' and a 'f*cking white girl' based on Gaines' lip-reading from footage of the game where Griner's statements couldn't be heard. Gaines also implied that Griner didn't deserve to be rescued from a Russian prison back in 2022, Them reported. It's this allegation that Gaines says the WNBA is trying to cover up by keeping her from attending games as press. In an Instagram post over the weekend, Gaines claimed that the WNBA was 'self-imploding' and was attempting to 'suppress any uncomfortable inquiries.' Advertisement Sports writer Jemele Hill disputed Gaines' version of the game, writing on X that Clark wasn't even part of the play Griner was seemingly frustrated by, and that she was actually talking about the referee and said 'trash' and 'f*cking wack call.' 'I get that your whole personality is caught up in stuff like this, so you don't care about spreading misinformation,' she wrote. Gaines and OutKick, which is owned by the Fox Corporation that also owns Fox News, claim that the WNBA is targeting them because they are the only ones reporting on the supposed things Griner said about Clark. The meritless claims about Griner made by Gaines and OutKick have fueled the flames of hate that Black players like Griner and Angel Reese have experienced from right-wing commentators, social media, and even WNBA fans who have been heard making racist comments at a game . Advertisement OutKick attempted to gain press credentials for the Dream's game against the Los Angeles Sparks on May 27 and a second game against the Connecticut Sun. The outlet told Fox News that they were denied access in an email from the Sun, where they were told, "Unfortunately, we cannot accommodate your request for a media credential for Connecticut Sun vs. Atlanta Dream on Friday, June 6. Due to very limited space, priority is given to those that are associated with outlets that have consistently covered the organization for previous seasons." Gaines has turned her ultra-conservative views into a career, becoming a paid 'culture war' speaker. According to GLAAD , Gaines' anti-trans hate is well-documented. She has declared a 'Real Women's Day' holiday, was part of a lawsuit to challenge trans eligibility in college sports, launched the Project BOYcott campaign to 'celebrate' female athletes who refuse to compete against trans women and girls, and travels nationwide speaking at panels advocating against trans people. She is also currently embroiled in a controversy with Simon Biles, after Biles defended trans athletes in the face of Gaines' misgendering and criticizing a trans high school athlete.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Las Vegas restaurant operator ordered to pay more than $215K for alleged racial slurs against Black line cook
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. Olives, Inc., must pay $215,688 after a Black line cook at its Las Vegas restaurant, The Beast, was allegedly racially harassed, and it allegedly took no disciplinary or remedial action in response, according to a June 3 default judgment against the company. Per a federal court order in Scott v. Olives, Inc., over an extended time and for the majority of the line cook's shifts, two co-workers allegedly called him racial slurs and made racially offensive jokes in front of other employees and the supervisor. At the company's Christmas party, they made similarly insulting racist jokes in front of the cook's family, according to the allegations. Based on emails between the line cook and HR, the court found the cook reported the harassment to an HR manager and filled out a written complaint form detailing the co-workers' behavior. The court said the emails showed the HR manager conducted a 'cursory' investigation and, despite clear evidence to the contrary, determined there was no 'malicious intent' in the racially derogatory conduct. Olives allegedly took no other action. In his allegations, the line cook asserted that the harassment got worse after the investigation. When he complained again, Olives allegedly did nothing, and he felt compelled to resign. The line cook sued Olives on a number of grounds, including for subjecting him to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A federal court in Nevada ruled that default judgment was proper because Olives did not respond to any documents filed in the case — including the cook's motion for default judgment and the court's motion for a hearing on damages — or make any other attempt to defend the action, and there was no evidence this was due to excusable neglect, the court said. Also, because Olives failed to defend the action, the line cook's 'well-pleaded' allegations could be taken as true, and they showed the co-workers' actions rose to the level of an unlawful hostile work environment under Title VII, the court held. That is, the line cook established his work environment was subjectively hostile — he reported the slurs and jokes to Olives and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to the court. The line cook also established his work environment was objectively hostile. In this regard, although harassment violates the law when it is either sufficiently severe or sufficiently pervasive, the record indicated the co-workers' alleged actions were both, the court pointed out. The court held that Olives could be held liable for their conduct because it failed to take remedial actions 'proportionate to the seriousness of the crime.' In this case, the email exchange between the line cook and HR established that Olives knew of the harassment but decided not to intervene based on the 'spurious conclusion' the co-workers' slurs and jokes were made without malicious intent, the court pointed out. The inadequacy of this response was especially clear given the allegations that the co-workers 'seemed more emboldened after the conclusion of the investigation, and the harassment not only continued but intensified,' the court noted. It awarded the line cook $100,000 in compensatory damages, $100,000 in punitive damages, and the remaining amount for attorneys' fees and costs. Recommended Reading Muslim officer allegedly forced to remove hijab in front of male boss has Title VII claim, 2nd Circuit says Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
