The Chattanooga Human Rights Commission also concluded that police officers were blameless in Leslie’s death. Their information and interviews were all connected to the Chattanooga Police Department, including the commission’s leadership. The chairperson of that citizens’ advisory group was on the police chief’s executive team. His serving in that role was a clear conflict of interest. Again, the cards were stacked against us. In their official capacity, the local human rights group only reviewed materials provided by the police department. One of the members expressed sympathy to me, as one mother to another. She also said, “I believe there was a problem with the officers’ training.” Procedures like these confirm why citizens feel helpless in trying to get justice. I must raise the question: “Is there a conspiracy against victims and their families?”
There were other disturbing activities initiated by the city’s attorneys. In their attitude of cold calculation, or perhaps in an effort to further discredit Leslie as a human being, the city hired a faculty member from the Department of Economics at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) to determine the monetary value of Leslie’s life. Of course, I was angry and disgusted that the professor would accept such a soulless consultant’s job, all in the name of money. I have no idea what variables were used. I suppose he developed some magical valuation formula, as if Leslie were merely a commodity or tradable asset rather than a human being. The outcome was that he determined Leslie’s life to be worth between $70,000 and $80,000. I often wondered whether his life would have been worth more if he had not been an African American, had been married with children, or had kept a big bank account. I was especially saddened because I knew this professor and had previously had positive interactions with him as a former faculty colleague at UTC. I sent him an e-mail and told him how I felt. I asked him, “What price would you put on your child’s life?” If nothing else, I hope he felt some shame when he cashed his check.
For most of 2006, our attorneys continued to prepare to go to trial and, as it appeared to us, the city attorneys were preparing to avoid going to trial. We were able to complete some depositions and secure some documents requested while being challenged by the city’s slow response time. In June 2006, before all of the anticipated depositions were completed, the city’s special counsel, Philip A. Noblett, sent a letter with an offer to settle the lawsuit. The document stated that the City of Chattanooga offered the plaintiffs a judgment of $1,500,000 in full and final settlement of all claims of all plaintiffs against all defendants. It was interesting that the judge who earlier had recused himself was still listed on the document. There was one paragraph in that letter that demonstrated a bullying tactic:
As I explained in my earlier letter, an Offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgement finally obtained by the Offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the Offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the Offer. This could be a significant monetary risk for your clients based upon any contingent fee agreement you have with them in this case and for your firm based upon Marek v. Chesny and the applicable Sixth Circuit authorities.
For clarification, I researched Marek v. Chesny. This is a case that was argued before the United States Supreme Court and decided on June 27, 1985. The original lawsuit involved a wrongful death claim resulting from police officers answering a domestic disturbance; the respondent’s adult son was shot and killed by officers. A timely offer of settlement of $100,000, including costs and attorney’s fees, was rejected. The case went to trial and the award totaled $60,000 but did not include attorney’s fees and other costs. The court’s decision referred to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. In plain language, if a pretrial settlement is not accepted and the judgment resulting from a trial is less than the offer of settlement, the plaintiffs are responsible for attorney’s fees. Obviously, the purpose of Rule 68 is to encourage settlement and avoid litigation.21
Even with Noblett’s threat, we did not accept that offer. We discussed the situation with our attorneys and decided to counter with demands referred to collectively as injunctive relief. This is a legal remedy that may be sought in a civil lawsuit in addition to (or in place of) monetary damages. Rather than offering money as payment for a wrong in a civil action, injunctive relief is a court order for the defendant to stop a specified act or behavior.22 Prior to our lawsuit, I was unfamiliar with the term, but I knew that we wanted changes within the police department’s policies and procedures. After praying and engaging in further discussions with our attorneys, we decided to settle, but only if our demands for injunctive relief were honored. I also recalled a conversation with my friend Emma, who went to court with her case. She told me to avoid the court route if possible. She explained the years of ongoing stress, reliving Malik’s killing over and over in courtroom settings. She also cautioned me that even if we received a favorable court ruling in the initial trial, the city would most likely appeal. That process could go on for years, which is what she experienced. The years of a possible open legal wound is something I wanted to avoid. Of course, I later discovered that nothing could bring complete closure.
What we really wanted was for those four officers to be indicted and convicted of second-degree murder and serve time in prison. We realized that was not going to happen, especially not in Chattanooga. The next best thing was to seek changes to help someone else’s child to remain alive. There were four demands. We felt that an external investigation of the Chattanooga Police Department was warranted; this was our first demand. The outcome of the Internal Affairs investigations favored police officers in accusations of officer-involved assaults on citizens and wrongful deaths. Outcomes that went against officers usually occurred in non-life-threatening situations. For example, a Chattanooga officer shoplifted a $10.88 watch from Walmart; the outcome of the Internal Affairs investigation was that the officer resigned to avoid termination.23 But if an officer steals someone’s life, instead of an inexpensive watch, nothing is likely to happen. We demanded that they reinstate the academy training to avoid the death sentence of positional asphyxia, our second demand. An important component of effective police training is sensitivity education in the prevention of these wrongful deaths. Our third demand was for sensitivity training workshops, taught by me, to be presented to cadets at the Chattanooga Police Academy. I felt that the best place for sensitivity intervention was prior to persons becoming police officers, and not after they were possibly tainted by seasoned officers. Most people were amazed that I volunteered to do this training. Our fourth demand was that the four police officers must meet with Leslie’s immediate family.
Our attorneys received a letter from Mr. Noblett dated July 14, 2006, regarding our case, in relation to our nonmonetary demands. Our four demands were addressed. It was reported that the city was in agreement with an audit of its Internal Affairs division to be conducted by an independent expert and that the city would assume the costs of such an audit. The cost of the audit was $30,000. According to the letter, the Chattanooga Police Department had already implemented training to avoid positional asphyxia. The city council was not averse to my providing an approved presentation, whether in person or on videotape to future police officers. The impact of in-custody death would be the subject, and I would not receive compensation for the presentations. I never expected or requested compensation. The fourth demand was the one of highest importance to us. The demand was for the four officers who had hands-on contact with Leslie on January 2, 2004, to meet with Dwight, and Stefan, and me. We were amazed and angered that the response letter included the following statement:
The City Council is willing to encourage but does not feel it can compel these officers to attend any meeting, if they do not desire to attend for their own personal reasons. Any such meeting should be accomplished in a manner where neither party to the meeting feels threatened to attend. I do believe such a meeting could provid
e important closure for the officers and your clients if it is closely monitored and the parties remain civil to one another. Any such meeting could be conducted with the assistance of the mediator, if advisable, after a Release of All Claims and a Final Order dismissing this case has been entered with the court.
That statement was especially infuriating to us because it seems that considerations are always targeted to the desires and comfort of the police officers, without primary concern for the victim or the victim’s family. We were not seeking a social visit; our beloved Leslie’s life was ended by their actions. Because they received no discipline, the very least they could do was to face us. In the last paragraph, it was mentioned that $1.5 million was the monetary offer for settlement.
As a follow-up to that letter, our attorneys told us that two of the officers had agreed to meet with us, and two said they would not. Our response was that if all four of those officers would not meet with us, then we would not settle. That was a deal breaker. We would just go to court if that was our only recourse to see all four of those people. I wanted to end my nightmares about those faceless officers responsible for Leslie’s death. After a few days passed, Mr. Noblett informed our attorneys that the two officers initially unwilling to meet with us had changed their minds, but there were conditions: they did not want the meeting in Chattanooga; they did not want media present; and we could not publicly share the details of the discussions that occurred during the meeting. We agreed to those conditions, because my main purpose was for the four of them to face us. We had only been in the room with the officer who had given a deposition.
At the October 17, 2006, meeting of the Chattanooga City Council, our lawsuit was an agenda item. Dwight, friends, relatives, and I attended that meeting. City attorney Randy Nelson reported on the lawsuit identified as “Prater and the City of Chattanooga.” He stated that at the time that Leslie Prater passed away, the police department had ceased its training with positional asphyxia, which is what caused his demise. “It is our understanding that we will be liable in this case.” Also in the meeting, it was stated that the top priorities for Parks, the new chief, would be staffing, training facilities, and career development. There was a motion and a second to authorize the city attorney to move forward with the proposed settlement agreement. I will tell you that $200,000 is the maximum amount that the city is authorized to pay in these types of lawsuits, unless there is proof that there was a problem with the training. When insufficient training is proven, there is no limit to the award.
On December 6, 2006, the family held a televised press conference. I read from a three-page, single-spaced document that I wrote. The following are some excerpts from that statement:
On January 2, 2004, our lives changed forever. That was the date that our son, Leslie Vaughn Prater, was a victim of a homicide. Leslie was the victim of police brutality, an ongoing travesty in America that has reached epidemic proportions.
Let me pause and thank all of those who have stood by us, supported and prayed for us, during almost three years of pain and suffering related to Leslie’s death and the subsequent activities following the senseless and cruel actions that stole his life. I won’t call individual names, because you know your identity. I would like to express appreciation to the law firms of Cochran, Neufeld, and Scheck of New York City and their partner, Nick Brustin and the Chattanooga Law Firm of John Wolfe and Amelia Roberts. I would also like to thank the representatives of the media who are here today.
The settlement included a fiscal settlement of 1.5 million dollars and four injunctive relief agreements that are summarized as follows:
The City of Chattanooga agrees to contract with an independent expert, agreeable to the parties, to conduct an audit of the Chattanooga Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division.
The City of Chattanooga agrees to consult with an independent expert, agreeable to the parties, regarding existing and recommended policies and procedures for current training on positional asphyxia and related topics by police training agencies.
The City of Chattanooga agrees to allow me, Dr. Loretta Prater, the mother of Leslie Prater and a university professor and Dean, to teach a workshop at the police academy for the next three classes of new police officer recruits. The class will focus on the preventable death of Leslie and the real-life and permanent consequences of police actions on the street. For this service, I agree to receive no fiscal compensation.
The defendants Jonathan Mance, Keith Hudgins, Gregory Chambers, and Daniel Anderson must meet, face-to-face, with the Prater family.
On Thursday, December 7, 2006, the day following the press conference, Dwight and I went to Knoxville. The purpose of the trip was to meet, face-to-face, with the four police officers. As previously agreed, there were no media present. A mediator facilitated the meeting within a tight secure environment. In honor of another condition, I have never shared the details of the meeting’s dialogue, which is why that information is not included in this book. Stefan chose to not attend that meeting. He said to me, “There is no way that I could be in the same room with the guys who killed my brother.”
Because people knew that we had an excellent case and some nationally renowned attorneys, many continued to ask, “Why did you settle?” I feel that the people of Chattanooga deserve an answer. For our family, money was not the issue. There was no dollar amount listed on the original wrongful death lawsuit. We love Leslie very much and no amount of money can fill our emptiness. We could have been awarded millions of dollars if his case had appeared before a jury, which is what I believe city officials feared. After nearly three years of non-action by the police department in this matter, it was evident to us that we had to force changes. The only vehicle we had, in a sincere desire to prevent this from happening to another family, was to make demands in a settlement arrangement.
Some people confuse receiving money with receiving justice. The two are not comparable. When people congratulate us on receiving money in exchange for Leslie’s life, it saddens me. I know they mean well, but they actually have no understanding of the impact of their words. Yes, the money serves as a tangible implication of the officers’ guilt and a way for the city to express some accountability for the actions of its employees. I have been told that the $1.5 million is the largest amount that Chattanooga has ever awarded in a wrongful death lawsuit, but Dwight and I could never put a price on Leslie’s life.
There can be some good to come from our lawsuit, but only if the city acts in good faith. We are hopeful that the city will follow through on the actions they are obligated to complete, according to the settlement agreement. We will be watching, and I am asking two groups, especially, to join us in making sure that these agreements are honored. The first group includes taxpayers and the second group is composed of hardworking, honest police officers who are tired of professional policing being disrespected because of the criminal actions of a few. If this happens and there is a zero-tolerance policy for police brutality, senseless killings of residents by police officers will stop. No one should be denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
For our family, the settlement of the lawsuit is a beginning. We will continue to oppose these wrongful deaths. I pray that police brutality will end and that abusive police officers will be purged from employment roles everywhere. This epidemic of senseless killings must stop. None are safe until all are safe. We are all at risk as long as there is no accountability. What happened to our family can happen to your family. I would like to close this chapter with a quote from Robert Kennedy: “Let us dedicate ourselves to the challenge presented by the Greeks so many years ago—to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.”
7
Silent No More
Strategies of Advocacy to Elevate Public Awareness
This chapter provides a glimpse of what a family might have to endure in bringing attention to a wrongf
ul death at the hands of police officers. I summarized some of the engagement that took place between the public and family members. There were far too many television, newspaper, radio, and online reports of our case to touch on them all. In fact, I feel certain that there are some reports of which we are still unaware. Although we thought our media experiences were extensive, they were minor in comparison to some other families.
The family of Michael Brown from Ferguson, Missouri, is the first that comes to mind. I feel saddened every time I hear his name, because I am reminded of how his life was stolen. But imagine how his family must feel, considering the infinite public reminders of Michael’s death. After reading the book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, coauthored by his mother, Lezley McSpadden, her feelings are no longer left to the imagination.1
Because of the volume of materials I had accumulated, it was challenging to decide how to organize the information for this chapter. I began to establish categories, such as newspaper articles; television presentations; protest activities; city council meetings; special invited presentations; and research conference presentations. As I started writing, that format quickly became cumbersome. Instead, I will share selected events mostly within a chronological structure. The information is not all-inclusive but provides an overview of the activities involved in bringing attention to the injustice of Leslie’s death, especially those events that can be initiated by families. Some activities have been referred to in other chapters but not discussed. You will notice that some situations are briefly mentioned and others are discussed in more depth. A majority of activities occurred in the earlier years after Leslie’s death.
Activities January 2, 2004–December 31, 2004
Excessive Use of Force Page 19