Eriquez and his attorney have called the incident isolated, overblown and regrettable.
Overblown?
To recap, the former mayor and present chairman of the Democratic Town Committee was charged with assault in the third degree, disorderly conduct, and interfering with an emergency call in connection him allegedly doing the following to his wife in a drunken rage:
When his wife tried to call police, Eriquez chased her down, grabbed her cell phone and threw it down the hallway, the report said. She was eventually able to retrieve the phone, lock herself in a bedroom and call 911, police said.
The victim told police her face felt sore where she had been punched and both her arms felt bruised. The arresting officer noted that she had a red mark and swelling on her nose and forehead.
To add, while Eriquez claimed in a statement that he made in May that, "although some statements and allegations printed are not accurate," according to the Newstimes, the police noted the following regarding the former mayor's state of mind.
Eriquez was too drunk to give a statement, according to the police report. He was escorted by police to a relative’s home in the city and told not to return to his home or have contact with his wife.
Did I mention that the media's primary source of this horrific incident which Eriquez characterized as "overblown" and portions of the news coverage that he described as "not accurate" is the victim's recount of the alleged attack?
I don't think that the people who were effected by Eriquez's actions would agree with his assessment of the incident.
While it's refreshing to see that Eriquez called the his actions "regrettable," and that he's getting the counseling that he needs, for him to call this incident "overblown" is wrong...flat wrong.
Maybe this entire disgraceful affair is "overblown" to Eriquez but it's not overblown for many in the city who would NEVER call ANY incident of domestic violence "overblown."
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
