VIDEO: Lawsuit filed in fatal police shooting
This article was originally published October 17, 2011 at 11:44 a.m. Updated October 17, 2011 at 2:47 p.m.
PHOTO BY LITTLE ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT
Eugene Ellison's apartment.
- Comments (21)
- aAFont Size
Lawsuit filed in Ellison shooting
A federal lawsuit was filed Monday in the fatal police shooting of a 67-year-old Little Rock man.
LITTLE ROCK — An attorney for the family of a man fatally shot by police at a Little Rock apartment complex last year says he has filed a federal lawsuit in the death.
Michael Laux said at a news conference Monday that he is seeking a substantial amount of damages in the death of Eugene Ellison, who was shot Dec. 9, 2010 during a scuffle at his apartment.
Laux said the shooting is part of a pattern at the Little Rock Police Department of ignoring citizen complaints of excessive force and warrantless entry.
"Eugene Ellison did not deserve to die. Period," Laux said.
Officer Donna Lesher shot the 67-year-old Ellison twice after he fought with her and another off-duty officer. The incident started after they noticed his door was open and went into the apartment to check on him.
No criminal charges were filed and no evidence of wrongdoing was found in an internal police investigation into the incident.
But Laux said the officers didn't have a right to go inside. He said they chose to do so "for no legitimate reason."
"If these officers had acted reasonably, responsibly and within the confines of the constitution, we surely would not be here today," Laux said. "Instead, this was the beginning of a series of reckless and poorly-thought-out actions taken by these officers."
Spencer Ellison, Eugene Ellison's son who is a former Little Rock police officer, read a statement on behalf of the family.
"In spite of the circumstances surrounding my father's untimely death, I want the city of Little Rock and the nation as a whole to know that his death was senseless and that a vital chapter of our lives was taken forever," he said. "... It is our desire and hope that no other family will have to experience the pain and emotions that we have endured for the last 10 months."
The lawsuit names as defendants the two officers - Lesher and Tabitha McCrillis - along with Police Chief Stuart Thomas, the city of Little Rock and the apartment complex.
Laux would not specify how much money he is seeking in damages. Laux, of Chicago, also declined to elaborate on why he is representing the family other than to say he has background in civil rights lawsuits, including those surrounding excessive force by police officers.
The lawsuit was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Comments on: VIDEO: Lawsuit filed in fatal police shooting
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
i_lay_hardwood_yahoo.com says... October 17, 2011 at 12:40 p.m.
F-in cops should mind their own business sometimes. If I had my door open and they just walked in I would call the cops on them. The Rev. Al Sharpton and any other black leaders need to get in on this one. A little free pub, seeeum sayinz playa.
( permalink | suggest removal )
mikieboy says... October 17, 2011 at 1:12 p.m.
IF YOU WERE NOT THERE JUST SHUT THE F_ _ _ UP!
( permalink | suggest removal )
i_lay_hardwood_yahoo.com says... October 17, 2011 at 1:42 p.m.
mikieboy, temper,temper, the cops might shoot you next if you don't invite them in.
( permalink | suggest removal )
HawgFan says... October 17, 2011 at 1:59 p.m.
I wasn't there and I don't know what took place, but I've learned over the years that it's never a good idea to get into a fight with cops carrying weapons.
( permalink | suggest removal )
wolfman says... October 17, 2011 at 2:13 p.m.
Someone just after money..and just what is winning the lawsuit and getting tons of money gonna prove. folks should be thankful that the police want to make sure everyone is ok. gee whiz.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NoUserName says... October 17, 2011 at 2:26 p.m.
"what is winning the lawsuit and getting tons of money gonna prove"
If the cops were in the wrong, what is doing nothing going to fix?
There are enough questions in my opinion. From the LRPD not asking for another agency to investigate for over a week (and that agency subsequently declined due to the delay) to the officer who fired the shot riding with her detective husband to the station which should have been a big no-no.
And then you wonder why off-duty security guards use city issued equipment - which puts the city at a liability risk in the event something were to happen.
( permalink | suggest removal )
rx1 says... October 17, 2011 at 3:29 p.m.
Good god...they were NOT off duty "security guards" - they were off duty POLICE OFFICERS. That's just insulting. Police officers are on duty 24/7 whether they are working security at an apartment complex or buying their groceries...of course they use city issued equipment....they wear it on the way to work, they sometimes wear it off duty - why? Because we all stumble up on a bad situation at some time...gawd. And they were working, make no mistake. if the "security guard" you speak of sees a robbery in progress they are supposed to do.......what again? These officers checked the welfare. It went to s--- in a hurry. Remember, they were there - they were HIRED - by the complex because of problems. That complex has been a problem for at least 30 years, they've always had off duty police - these officers didn't just wander onto the property and start shooting. My god, people - would YOU want their job?
Have some friggin' respect. You weren't there, none of us were, no one knows exactly what happened.
I totally find it interesting that the person reading the statement was a former LRPD officer. Betcha he might have felt differently about a lawsuit if he'd ended up in a bad ol' deal when he was an officer...but there's money to be made, so let's trash talk the police and file a suit...
( permalink | suggest removal )
ToGQ4U says... October 17, 2011 at 3:44 p.m.
The murders were under the employment of the apartment complex therefor surrendering their police powers. Thus they had to follow guide lines as Mall Cops for a phase, but just the same, they were just "security guards" in regards as the run of the mill civilians, acting as security.
~
The plaintiffs have a very good claim on those grounds.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NoUserName says... October 17, 2011 at 4:08 p.m.
"Have some friggin' respect. You weren't there, none of us were, no one knows exactly what happened. "
And I'm advocating the lawsuit as an investigation by someone other than the LRPD. Or did you miss that? Perhaps you don't agree? I pointed out things I thought were odd.
"Police officers are on duty 24/7 whether they are working security at an apartment complex or buying their groceries...of course they use city issued equipment"
Does the complex or the officers reimburse the city for off-duty usage? Who pays for upkeep of all the equipment? The officers? Or the city?
I also seem to recall a report of an off-duty officer refusing to help during the last Riverfest. Whatever happened to that guy?
And my point about city liability is fair. If the plaintiff's win, who pays? I do. You do. For two people working security at an apartment complex. Perhaps officers who work side jobs should be required to carry extra insurance. There are plenty of unanswered questions here.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jason2010 says... October 17, 2011 at 4:46 p.m.
Actually, Maddjack, you don't know what you're talking about. Police Officers are empowered by the state and don't cede their power by being on or off duty. Further, all moonlighting in the LRPD has to be approved by the department. They're Police Officers, even if the city isn't footing the bill, and are capable to arresting, pursuing, etc. Frankly, if someone in a police uniform steps into your house the last thing you should do is try to fight them. That's got stupid written all over it, as does this lawsuit which is clearly aimed at getting a pay day.
( permalink | suggest removal )
ToGQ4U says... October 17, 2011 at 5:59 p.m.
One time in my past, a uniformed civilian enter my home without warrant or cause, he was shot. Let me say that again he was shot. If a police officer(s) are in my yard or home and they have no cause or warrant, and I direct them to leave, yes that is the same as telling them, they must leave.
~
Jason you sound just like that officer of the law I sent to the emergence room. I was found to be in my right, in that incident. (Unlawful home intrusion)
~
Dose the city bond cover that, that moon lighting ...?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jason2010 says... October 17, 2011 at 6:22 p.m.
Maddjack, you sounds like a total nut job, and I'm betting you're full of crap, to be honest. Oh, and a uniformed civilian (whatever that is) is not a sworn officer of the law. But frankly, read the law for yourself. Police must feel a threat to their life must be present to use deadly force (which is the same standard that applies to ordinary citizens), but they don't have a requirement to retreat. Again, sounds like they didn't pick a fight or anything, but asked if the guy was OK, considering the scene, and then he fought them randomly.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NoUserName says... October 17, 2011 at 6:34 p.m.
Always good for a recap:
w w w. arkansasonline .c o m/news/2011/jul/03/one-deadly-night-20110703
as an aside, it's dumb that we can't post hyperlinks. Real dumb.
Some highlights:
"“When he got mouthy with me I ... I walked in and asked him what his problem was, and that’s when he got mad,” McCrillis told investigators."
"Lesher’s [the shooter's] husband isn’t a run-of-the-mill spouse. Sgt. James Lesher supervises the homicide division.
For any other homicide, Sgt. Lesher would assign detectives and supervise their investigation. He would be the man in charge inside the police tape."
"Donna and James Lesher drove alone to police headquarters after the shooting and before she was questioned by investigators."
"Because of the crowd at police headquarters that night, supervisors decided not to show interviews of Lesher and McCrillis on a television that’s routinely placed in the detective division when interviews in other investigations take place.
Some officers objected to that, concerned that supervisors were giving the women special consideration."
"The day after the shooting, new questions and criticism surfaced. Some city leaders wanted to know if an independent agency, such as the Arkansas State Police, would conduct a more impartial investigation.
About a week after the shooting, Thomas explored inviting outside investigators, but state police leaders said too much time had passed."
"Also in the aftermath, former Pulaski County Coroner Garland Camper was quoted by various media outlets as saying he saw no signs of pepper spray on Ellison’s body.
Detectives requested additional testing for pepper spray and found evidence of the chemicals on the clothing Lesher wore that night."
We needed an outside investigation into this thing and didn't get it. The lawsuit is all that is left.
( permalink | suggest removal )
ToGQ4U says... October 17, 2011 at 7:12 p.m.
Thanks NoUserName for this information!
~
Jason now I know your waaay out of your league.
~
The walking cane, must have been a high caliber one, or very sharp.
( permalink | suggest removal )
ToGQ4U says... October 17, 2011 at 7:31 p.m.
www(DOT)arkansasonline(DOT)com/news/2010/dec/11/lr-door-ajar-leads-deadly-encounter-20101211/#c48095
~
A lot of inconsistency's
( permalink | suggest removal )
rx1 says... October 17, 2011 at 9:11 p.m.
Maddjack, who kicked a stick up your butt about the police? Something tells me you've had more than one run in, and it wasn't with a "uniformed civilian".
NoName or whatever, the city pays for upkeep of city property for city employees - guns, ammo, vests, tasers, whatever. The city owns the guns, the nightsticks, the ammo, the tasers, the cars, the ticket books, the forms that are filled out, the radios...Do the math...
Jason2010, don't know you - but thank you for having good sense.
( permalink | suggest removal )
rx1 says... October 17, 2011 at 9:13 p.m.
Statement from LRPD Chief Stuart Thomas, Oct. 17:
"The Department has received a copy of the complaint filed today by Troy Ellison, plaintiff, against Officer Donna Lesher, Detective Tabitha McGrillis, myself, the City of Little Rock, and Big Country Chateau, LLC. While a response on behalf of the City and its named employees will be filed in the proper venue in a timely manner, I will at this time state that this incident has undergone intense Departmental review and that the actions of the officers were exonerated by both the Prosecuting Attorney and the Department. Further, I do not believe that the proof will ultimately support the allegations of unlawful customs or practices by this Department, and I have been assured of a vigorous defense by the City Attorney's Office."
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jason2010 says... October 17, 2011 at 9:41 p.m.
Maddjack, here's a little English lesson for you. Your is possessive. You're means you are and is a conjunction. And I stand by what I've said.
( permalink | suggest removal )
ToGQ4U says... October 18, 2011 at 11:57 a.m.
Well English major, you are correct ... thanks, but that is the only thing of this matter.
~
rx1 I've worked with local LEO's in the past ... most think they are a God of sorts.
~
So now the City admits that the Officers in question were using city property at tax payers expense for personal gain.
~
"I will at this time state that this incident has undergone intense Departmental review and that the actions of the officers were exonerated by both the Prosecuting Attorney and the Department." This is saying in so many words that the the cover up continue. But wait, And now the ASP is not going to soil themselves on this.....cover-up, as "He explained that he decided to ask the state police to get involved “in an abundance of caution.”", a week later the Arkansas State Police will not touch this case!
~
"Further, I do not believe that the proof will ultimately support the allegations of unlawful customs or practices by this Department, ...", when he says "I do not believe" he has doubts.
~
The following is as noted from a post as dated.
~
Looks to me those two if not one got "Heavy Badged" and got into more than their training could handle, and panicked hence the on going cover up. So now this will become a Legitimate Homicide.
~
And now the ASP is not going to soil themselves on this.....cover-up, as "He explained that he decided to ask the state police to get involved “in an abundance of caution.”"
~
December 16, 2010 at 12:41 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NoUserName says... October 18, 2011 at 12:53 p.m.
"NoName or whatever, the city pays for upkeep of city property for city employees - guns, ammo, vests, tasers, whatever. The city owns the guns, the nightsticks, the ammo, the tasers, the cars, the ticket books, the forms that are filled out, the radios...Do the math..."
Or whatever? What's with the attitude? I simply want a separate entity to investigate. If it takes a lawsuit for that, so be it. There is enough oddity that I think it needs investigation. I've seen enough corruption with law enforcement (and government, for that matter). Geez, didn't they just pick up 4 officers in Helena?
As to the rest, I don't need to do the math. You simply confirmed what I suspected. That being the case, in my opinion then, either the officers or more likely the secondary place of employment should contribute to the cost of equipment. The taxpayers should not be on the hook for equipment used by an officer at a side job.
And depending on the outcome of this lawsuit, it could cost you and me a bundle. I have a problem with that. And its not because I think it is a frivolous lawsuit. Or, as I said before, the officers should be required to carry supplemental insurance that covers liability for side jobs. Not off-duty, happen to see a crime thing. But an actual side job - which is what this was.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NoUserName says... October 18, 2011 at 12:56 p.m.
"Jason2010, don't know you - but thank you for having good sense. "
I do hope you are not implying that I do not.
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.