 |
|
Public Affairs coverage from our award-winning staff |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fundraiser for Chicago Cop Angers Families
Produced by Chip Mitchell on Wednesday, October 21, 2009
|
|
Frugoli’s blood-alcohol level was triple the legal limit, authorities said. (Photo from Illinois State Police) |
Some Chicago cops are planning a fundraiser for a fellow officer charged with driving drunk and killing two young men on the Dan Ryan Expressway. The fundraiser is angering several families who’ve lost loved ones in crashes involving alcohol and police officers.
Det. Joseph Frugoli, 41, was off duty in April when he allegedly rammed into a car that had broken down. The crash killed Andrew Cazares, 23, of Summit and Fausto Manzera, 21, of Chicago. Authorities said Frugoli’s blood-alcohol level was triple the legal limit.
Now some of his co-workers are throwing a benefit for him at their union lodge. Here’s Fraternal Order of Police President Mark Donahue.
DONAHUE: I think it’s a good idea for friends to stand by their friends, especially in their darkest hours.
FLORES: They should be ashamed and embarrassed of themselves.
That’s Nancy Flores of Cicero. Her brother Miguel, 22, and his pal Erick Lagunas, 21, died when a different Chicago cop broadsided their sedan after drinking.
The families are planning a protest Wednesday night outside the office of a South Side detective, Jack Halloran, who’s organizing the fundraiser.
Halloran hasn’t returned our calls. Announcements for the event don’t specify whether the funds will go toward Frugoli’s legal defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nineteenpaulie, West Loop // Saturday, October 24, 2009 @ 3:19 AM
Announcement on their website placed there by a relative, not the FOP themselves, and, I am sure, will only be attended by the detective's friends and family. Actually, the personal friends and family who will attend are simply trying to support this man, (who made a horrible and tragic decision to drive drunk which none of US has ever done,....right? *hypocrite cricket sound effect*) resulting in the death of two men, in his hour of need. Rather than turning their backs on a friend or family member who has done something wrong and horrible, they have decided that they "HATE THE SIN but LOVE THE SINNER"...I know, I know..A highly unusual and complicated philosophy that these vile, immoral and disgusting people have but they feel its important to show they value him as a human being regardless of his mistakes in life.I know WE would never do something as despicable and heinous as these people for OUR closest friends of a family member if they did something like this. Yuck. We all have much more CLASS and RIGHTEOUS causes to support. Right?? The detectives protections under the Bill of Rights/U.S. Constitution are to be thrown in the trash as he has already been tried and convicted by the ignorant hypocrites here. Why bother have ANY trial, let alone a legal fund?? I, for one, am starting a fund for the purpose of reimbursing the home and business owners in Chicago who's homes, businesses and structures were criminally and needlessly damaged/"tagged" and spraypainted for years by the two prolific "taggers"(professional property damagers) killed as a result of this police detective's horrible decision. In no way did ANYONE deserve to die, but at least someone could have the guts to offer that the victims own actions played some part in their deaths. I am optimistic that the vocal and righteous supporters of and the "tagger"/grafitti "artists" or "tagging community" of Chicago and Cook County like the ones who PROTESTED at the fundraiser Friday night, would be willing to donate as well. It does not in any way excuse what horrible decision this detective made, but the two men killed had been driving prior to pulling over partially IN the lane of traffic to sleep off how drunk THEY WERE, according to family, state police investigators and sources.The fact is that the many gallons and containers of paint, paint thinner aka ACETONE that the two men used in their occupations as "taggers/vandals/professional property defacers" in the rear of their vehicle QUICKLY ignited and engulfed the car in flames. I am sure their heavily intoxicated states could have contributed to their inability to exit the vehicle after it was struck. NO ONE in this incident was totally innocent. It was a tragedy UPON a tragedy. Hopefully the supporters of the "taggers/vandals/professional property defacers" consider donating towards the reimbursing the years of cleanup of their crimes.May truth and justice prevail.
|
|
robert brown, west town // Saturday, October 24, 2009 @ 1:02 PM
nineteenpaulie, your "blame the victim" strategy is the stuff that cowards hide behind. i find it very telling that you don't dispute the actual facts of the incident; that frugoli killed the men while he was wasted drunk and tried to flee the scene, or that he has a record of previous drunk driving offenses. you think you can lessen the impact of this pathetic homicidal officer's actions by labeling the victims taggers. here's a news flash for you: even if the victims had been convicted felons high on crack and in the act of vandalizing public property frugoli's actions would be no less criminal and no less repugnant. police officers are NOT allowed to kill ANYONE while driving drunk, even if the victims are deemed undesirable members of society by the likes of you.
my question to you is this: had the victims been a mother and her 3 year old child would you feel differently about the actions of frugoli? would you be fighting equally hard to blur the facts and deny those victims justice as well?
this homicidal, alcoholic, menace cop needs to spend the appropriate time in prison. those who would raise money to aid in his attempt once again to dodge justice share in the complicity of this crime on a moral level.
|
|
nineteenpaulie, West Loop // Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:02 AM
Maybe you have been breathing in paint fumes or sniffing toluene because NOWHERE did I blame the victims for the accident.
I called it an accident because that's what it was.
If Frugoli could be proven to have INTENT to injure/kill the victims then that would NOT be an accident, would it.
Nor did I say anywhere, and wouldn't, that police officers or anyone else allowed to kill ANYONE "while driving drunk, even if the victims are deemed undesirable members of society by the likes of you."
Your post seems highly emotional and makes other absurd comments I find so ridiculous they are not worth addressing. If you feel you can be calm and rational please answer a few questions.
If Frugoli were NOT a COP...NOT a member of THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT...would you feel the same way about this case or ever had posted on the topic in the first place?
Would this case have garnered the media attention it has?
Would people have such a serious objection to an "average Joe" (non-police officer) receiving donations from family, friends and coworkers in an attempt to have the best legal defense possible?
Wouldn't you want the same for yourself or family member or close friend, regardless of THEIR occupation?
Does and should Frugoli have the same constitutional rights as any other U.S. citizen? If not, why?
Do you feel this case somehow is somehow symbolic of something larger?
NOTE:
(Most supporters of the victims view tagging/criminal defacement/damage to property, which are crimes in all fifty states, as being acceptable, normal behavior to be glorified and even admired, some even calling the criminal activity "art". Tagging and the tagging/"street art" community seemingly populated by a large percentage of "poseurs and hipsters" who evidently believe "their" crimes, or "street art" as they'd rather call it, are acceptable. Criminal psychologists see that as a common behavior among criminal offenders who somehow rationalize their crimes as "okay".
.............Versus the cops, CPD, pigs, Chicago Police, law enforcement, "THE MAN!", the establishment, etc. etc.)
Frugoli is/was a Chicago police detective. That is not a secret. Are the alleged depicted behaviors/crimes, lifestyles and occupations of the victims somehow "off limits" for myself or any other citizen of Chicago and should they have no impact on how public opinions have been formed regarding this case?
Very few of these facts will be coming out during the criminal trial of Frugoli, barring some plea agreement, I'd guess. The overwhelming majority of them will come to light during any civil actions and motions brought forth on behalf of the victims.
Please explain how you believe that someone like myself who wants to hear ALL the facts and evidence of this case and how it all ties together before making a decision on it is wrong for feeling that way.
Explain how the citizens of Chicago and the civil or criminal juries on this case would be able to make a fair and just decision based solely on half the facts of the case.
(Notwithstanding rules of evidence issues.)
|
|
robert brown, west town // Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:47 PM
o.k. paulie, here are my answers:
1) yes, if it were simply a regular joe alcoholic who had a record of being a serial offender and of escaping punishment on prior drunk driving incidents, who chose to continue to break the law and operate a motor vehicle while grossly impaired until he finally managed to kill two people, then i would be equally incensed. 2)no, it wouldn't garner the same media attention because the killer would not be someone who by the nature of their job is supposed to be a role model for society. 3) if having "the best legal defense possible" means that a habitual alcohol abuser and serial offender gets to escape justice yet again (only this time for two deaths that he caused) then no, i would not want this. i would want my friend or loved one removed from the street so he is unable to cause further pain, injury or death because of his inability to control himself and behave within the guidelines of the law. 4) of course frugoli should have the same rights and protections as all of us, but no more. he should not garner any special treatment or leniency because he is a police officer. 5) this case is not symbolic of anything larger, nor does it need to be. it is more than adequately repugnant and outrageous on it's own merits. 6) the lifestyle and occupations of the victims are immaterial in this conversation as well as in court. the only thing at issue is the actions of frugoli. 7) i don't think that you are wrong for trying to hear all the facts. unfortunately i also don't believe for a second that fairness and justice are your motivations. you, sir, are blindly supporting one of your own who in this case happens to be so wrong that your defense of him may damage not only your own credibility, but that of the entire cpd as well. now finally i would like to finish with a quote from you. "Criminal psychologists see...a common behavior among criminal offenders who somehow rationalize their crimes as "okay"." in this case it is a serial offender cop who rationalized that he was above the law and would be ok operating his motor vehicle despite being grossly impaired. no doubt frugoli knew that as a badge carrying cpd detective if he were to be stopped by the police there would be no action taken against him. his bros in blue would bend the rules for him once again, and this is both morally wrong and illegal.
|
|
Susan A, Lisle, IL // Thursday, October 29, 2009 @ 4:07 PM
To nineteenpaulie, you say that you are not blaming the victims, but in your original post, you wrote, "someone could have the guts to offer that the victims own actions played some part in their deaths." To me, that IS implying the victims were responsible, at least to some degree. You may want to clarify your position, because if you are (partially) blaming the victims, that is repulsive.
Frugoli's friends have the right to have any kind of fundraiser they want. I personally would have a hard time contributing one cent to a guy, however, who repeatedly puts his and others' lives in danger and then tries to shirk any responsibility. It doesn't matter who he killed or how drunk they may have been, he chose to get wasted and drive home, and now he feels good about having friends pay for his damages. Immature, morally reprehensible, and probably the reason he has gone this long without addressing his issues. When you get bailed out time and again, why be a man and pay your own way in life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|