City Council upholds LAFD $2.7 Million Veto

Yesterday I told you that City Council was voting again to decide if they should uphold or override the Mayor’s veto of the settlement. Today, with all 15 members voting, the veto was upheld overturning the previous settlement agreement. 10 votes were needed to override, but it failed with 9-6. I’d still like to hear from the Council members who supported this settlement, but more importantly, who supported that $2.7 million figure. From UPI:

During meeting Tuesday, the council’s three black members said they would vote to override the veto because the act could be seen as racist, and because the city could lose more money if Pierce were to succeed in a lawsuit against the city. Other members said they had come to see the matter as a firehouse prank — especially after photos appeared showing Pierce participating in department-banned hazing rituals.

The council postponed a decision on overriding the veto until all Wednesday, so all members could be present.

During his appearance before the council Tuesday, Pierce said: “This is wrong. If four black firemen did it to a white fireman, I would stand up (with) the white fireman and say it was wrong.”

6 thoughts on “City Council upholds LAFD $2.7 Million Veto”

  1. I think its journalistically flat out stupid for the main stream press to quote Pierce on this – he’s the one who would have earned nearly $3 million of his fellow citizen’s money for eating non-toxic food made for dogs. What a leech.

    The United States settled to pay $2 million dollars to a go who was falsely accused and imprisoned for the Madrid train bombings. Maybe if he could have made this an issue of race he could have received more of a payout. Regardless, his reputation was scarred worldwide, he had to eat PRISON FOOD, and he was associated with the murder of dozens of people. His name will forever be associated with the incident. I’d say he MIGHT deserve to payout.

    But Pierce? He chose to make this a big issue. He cried and justified the reason he deserves millions of dollars for a stupid prank, and somehow got city leaders to buy into this crap… at least for a time.

    I think the citizens of LA should countersue Pierce for the time and money he’s cost our legal system.

  2. I just read the LA Times article on this today, and not once did it mention the fact that Pierce participated in humiliating hazing rituals against other firefighters. Aren’t the pictures of that the reason why some city councilmembers opposed the settlement? The LA Times motto should be “You’ll Never Know”.

  3. Another reason in the long list why Eric Garcetti is a useless pile of crap.
    The guy beaten with a flashlight got less than 500k. Yeah, eatin’ dogfood when you call yourself “the Big Dog” after almost 20 years of pranking others is worth 2.7 mill.
    Fuck you, Pierce.

  4. i think you’re misunderstanding the council’s job. it’s not to decide how much money it’s worth to eat dog food. it’s to decide how to best protect the city. a jury of tennie pierce’s peers, hearing about racism in the LAFD and about how his superiors ignored his requests for help, wouldn’t blink at awarding five times the settlement amount. the city council’s job is to swallow the medicine of paying out now versus risking a trial.

  5. I’d prefer our City Council have the balls to stand up for what is right and not what makes for good PR. If a jury decides Pierce deserves more money, then we can hold them accountable and pay, at least we can do so knowing we stood up for what was right.

  6. J.P., yes, you are entitled to your opinion. My response, blah, blah, blah.

    David, very well put. YOU PAYING ATTENTION GARCETTI?

    Mr. Mayor, Once again, thank you for having the “balls” (can I say that to a mayor) and standing up for what is right. If you lost any votes you can count on mine to replace at least one!

Comments are closed.