Updated 07/30/2010 05:16 PM
Council denies Sanders settlement offer, federal trial now expected
To view our videos, you need to
enable JavaScript. Learn how.
install Adobe Flash 9 or above. Install now.
Then come back here and refresh the page.
In a close and contentious 4-3 vote, the Austin City Council voted against settling a lawsuit with the family of Nathaniel Sanders over their 18-year-old son’s death.
The controversy surrounds the Austin Police Department's criminal and internal investigation into the shooting death of Sanders by former Austin police officer Leonardo Quintana in May 2009.
Quintana and fellow officers were out on patrol, looking for suspects after a call reporting shots fired in the area, and were investigating the vehicle Sanders was in as being "suspicious."
A grand jury decided not to indict Quintana, however he was later fired over a drunken driving charge he received in January in Leander.
Nathaniel Sanders
The decision caused a public stir in the council chambers. Many people expecting the city to sign off on the proposed $750,000 to be awarded to the Sanders family, stormed out of the public meeting after hearing the City Council make it's decision.
"Leffingwell stuck his head between his legs, he is a coward!"
NAACP Chapter President Nelson Linder stormed out of the Council meeting, blasting the Mayor's decision to vote against settling with the family.
"It's an insult to black people," Linder attacked the Mayor Leffingwell as well as Mayor Pro-Tem Mike Martinez outside council chambers. "Leffingwell is a two-faced liar. He and Martinez have worked together on this plot since day one. They are unworthy of public office."
Mayor Leffingwell addressed the public perception that if the Sanders case were settled without a public trial, their decision would send a message the Council admits to an 'justified shooting', "That geanie is very, very hard to put back in that bottle".
While council members were making comments regarding their voting decision, some citizens were yelling, expressing discontent, for not paying out the $750,000 to the Sanders family.
Leffingwell warned those yelling during the council meeting, they would be ejected if the outbursts continued.
Before the final vote came down, Council Member Randi Shade proposed to offer the Sanders family $500,000 shaving off $250,000 off the offer. That proposal was quickly shot down.
Earlier Thursday, a group called the Austin Police Accountability Coalition rallied outside City Hall, voicing anger over the way the department handled the Sanders case.
The group, made up of citizens and civic organizations, has asked for greater transparency and accountability at APD. Organizers also want city council to reorganize the Office of the Police Monitor and move it under the city auditor's office, which answers to the mayor and city council. The group also demands random drug tests for police officers and public access to police misconduct files.
"I don't believe there were 'no mistakes' made," Mayor Pro-Tem Mike Martinez has been vocal for weeks about moving the Sanders case into Federal Court, "In fact there were many mistakes made on all sides of this.
A trial date has not been set.
Last night the Austin City Council voted 4-3 to allow the legal case surrounding the death of Nathaniel Sanders II to proceed to trial. I joined the majority in voting against the proposed settlement.
This was perhaps the most difficult decision that this Council has faced over the past year, and it’s easy for me to see how reasonable people would disagree about the best path forward. I don’t condemn anyone's point of view, or their vote.
This was a tragedy for the Sanders family, and a tragedy for Austin as a whole. Unfortunately, nothing that we do is going to change that. That much is simple.
But the facts of the case are complex, as evidenced by the different conclusions that different people and groups have reached after reviewing the facts as we know them.
I think it was reasonable, from the taxpayer's perspective, for the city’s legal team to have recommended a settlement that they believed could be less than the possible cost to taxpayers to move forward with litigating the case. I understood the business case.
I also understood the emotional appeal of settling. Some have argued passionately that this settlement would have helped to heal the Sanders family, and I do not discount the importance of that. My heart goes out to this family. If there was something meaningful that I could do to make this situation better for them, I would do it.
But ultimately, after thinking and talking about it for many months, I believe that what's most important in all of this is to understand as best we can exactly what happened that night, so that we can then do everything possible to prevent it from happening again.
It would be a huge failure on our part not to learn from this tragedy. That should begin with determining, as completely and as impartially as possible, exactly what happened. I believe the most appropriate place to do that is in the courtroom, in front of a jury.
I’m fully aware that my decision was hurtful to some in the community, and I regret that. I would like to have been able to make a decision last night that would have perhaps provided some immediate relief to people who I know are suffering.
But I believe that our larger and longer-term responsibility – as difficult as it may be emotionally – is to make a full, fair and final determination about exactly what happened, so that we can then get on to the work of trying to keep it from happening again.