Boughton speaks on Eriquez (and I guess pigs do fly every once and a while)
Thursday, May 26, 2016 Time: 12:50 PM
Mark the date down and make sure that you're sitting when you read this because what I'm about to say doesn't happen a lot...I actually agree with Mayor Mark Boughton on something (well, I agree with him for the most part).
You have to agree with Mark on this one. No one wants to see situations like this, but unfortunately we hear about them all the time. What struck me about his answers was the part about Eriquez stepping aside from his duties with the Democratic party. Not stepping down, but aside. You would think what is best for the Democratic party, at this time, is for him to step down. Who am I to say? I do echo the sentiments of Mayor Mark, though. Our thoughts right now are with Mrs. Eriquez.
Although I do not support Boughton's notion that, "after he's paid his debt to society he can get sober and healthy" because getting treatment and help should be paramount and should go hand in hand with Eriquez paying his debt to society, for the most part, the current mayor struck the right tone with his commentary...and everyone's thoughts should be with Mrs. Eriquez at this time.
Now I'll return you to my regular programming of criticizing Boughton over a wide range of issues :-)
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.
