Apparently, the Richmond City Council did not approve the settlement after all. No wonder, I couldn't recall it. The matter apparently is in the final throes of settlement by the City's excess coverage insurance carrier. How the press found out before the City Council was briefed is unknown.

From today’s San Francisco Chronicle: 

Richmond pays $210K to owners of dog shot dead by cops

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, May 31, 2007

(05-31) 11:12 PDT RICHMOND -- The city of Richmond has agreed to pay $225,000 to settle two federal civil rights lawsuits filed in connection with the controversial shooting death of a pit bull.

Cynthia Peters and Mark Parr accused officers of acting in "reckless and callous disregard" of their constitutional rights when police shot their 1-1/2-year-old pit bull, Blu, on July 27, 2005.

The Richmond City Council agreed to pay $210,000 to the couple and an additional $15,000 to Genevia Walker, a bystander who also sued the city in federal court, saying her neck was burned when three bullet casings fired by an officer hit her neck and left her temporarily unable to hear.

"We're happy with the way the case was resolved," Karen Snell, an attorney for Peters and Parr, said today.

Blu was in the couple's fenced yard on Sixth Street when the officers opened the gate to pursue a suspect and shot the dog 11 times with pistols and a shotgun.

When Parr ran up and asked the officers, "Why'd you shoot my dog?" police "pointed their guns at him, kicked and punched him and threw him to the ground," according to the lawsuit filed by the couple in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

Police arrested Parr on suspicion of obstructing police officers, but no charges were filed.

An internal investigation by the police department found no fault with the officers; the couple appealed. The Police Commission in February 2006 ruled in their favor and attributed Blu's death to insufficient departmental guidelines for handling such situations.

In court papers, the city said "the destruction" of Blu was necessary and therefore reasonable, that the force used against Parr was reasonable and that his arrest was lawful.

In an unusual move, Richmond Police Chief Chris Magnus apologized to the couple. Magnus told The Chronicle last year that his apology doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't support his officers, but that owning up to Blu's death was the right thing to do.

"Being sorry that something happened doesn't mean that your people acted in the wrong way," Magnus said.

Richmond police have since drafted a policy specifying when officers can use deadly force against dogs and provided training on how to deal with dogs in general.

The city paid more than $500,000 in 1998 in connection with a lawsuit over another "unnecessary shooting" of a dog named Champ that belonged to James Fuller. Officers entered his yard in 1991 to speak with Fuller and shot the dog during the exchange.

"They did nothing to change their policy until the new chief came along," said Snell, who nevertheless applauded the city for outlining a policy that bars officers from shooting a dog "if there are nonlethal alternatives."

Attorneys for the city of Richmond did not immediately respond to requests for comment today.

Richmond City Councilman Tom Butt said today, "It is regretful that the city was so slow to learn. The adage 'once burned, twice shy' suggests that when someone has had a bad experience, he or she is likely to shy away from being in the same position again, having better learned to deal with similar situations.

"Previous chiefs did not learn. Magnus made the correction to the policy. I think he did the right thing by apologizing."

E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/31/BAGT7Q4J1525.DTL