Some readers may have missed a fascinating thread here yesterday on the matter of Officer AJ Blake's comments regarding Officer Christopher Schultheis. Recall that Blake was reinstated by Interim City Manager Bob Morgan last week.
Blake had held a press conference with gang leader Jorge Cornell and the Rev. Nelson Johnson. During that press conference, he made negative comments about a tragic incident of which Schultheis was part.
Schultheis was involved in pursuing and apprehending a suspect. Unfortunately, he felt compelled to use lethal force and discharge his firearm, killing the suspect. This type of incident typically is associated with some considerable emotional weight for a police officer. In addition, it automatically triggers certain types of investigation both at the state level and also within the local police department. These painstaking processes cleared Schultheis of any wrong-doing.
During his press conference, Blake suggested that Schultheis had acted wrongly during this incident. That was a very serious accusation, and it also appears to be untrue.
But here is the fascinating twist. Recall the police party during which Blake became intoxicated and was alleged to have assaulted his girlfriend and one other woman. It turns out that Officer Schultheis attended that party, and was a witness to the incident. And in fact, Schultheis later testifed against Blake during the jury trial that took place.
The implications of this are fairly obvious. One important fact came out during yesterday's thread here. Wendy Raines, the former head of the police union, suggested that when Blake took his gratuitous shot at Schultheis, he would have known that Schultheis was a witness against him, and would be testifying at his trial.
That is a significant revelation, if true. Blake not only has made false accusations against fellow officers, but has also apparently attempted in a public venue to diminish one important witness against him-- even though that witness was a police officer, and even though he was on trial in a criminal matter.
And yet, Bob Morgan reinstated Blake in spite of it.
Joe,
There is supposed to be a special meeting at 2:00 pm on Friday for the City Council to hear about the Blake decision. I have it on good authority that only one council member is said to be showing up. What do you think of that?
Posted by: Wendy S. Raines | September 30, 2009 at 09:48 PM
Am posting about that separately, Wendy.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | September 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Wendy/Joe:
Who is the lone Council member that has agreed to show up?
Cyndy
Posted by: Cyndy Hayworth | October 01, 2009 at 06:20 AM
What I am hearing, Cyndy, is that Mary Rakestraw is planning to show up. I suppose there may be one or two others at this point-- but it is not entirely clear.
It is amazing that council members are planning days in advance not to show; and that there is discussion days in advance of not having enough members attending to achieve a quorum.
The rest of the council members appear to be abdicating their responsibilities in a blatant way, if my sources are correct.
This is a craven, cowardly, self-interested, collective punt in evolution-- again, if the scuttlebutt is accurate. And one cannot help but wonder whether it is orchestrated.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | October 01, 2009 at 06:56 AM
Your source is accurate Joe. Anyone who does not show up to this meeting should be re-elected.
Posted by: Wendy S. Raines | October 01, 2009 at 08:00 AM