Colorado shooting victims still waiting to see donations

Los Angeles Times ^ | September 16, 2012 | Jenny Deam

[Cincinatus' Wife]

.......There have been two tragedies in Aurora. The first was the theater shooting. The second is how the victims have been treated by the powers that be," said Tom Teves, the father of Alex Teves, who was killed in the rampage at a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises."

Teves has emerged as a spokesman for a group of victims of the attack that left 12 dead and 58 wounded.

On Aug. 28, Teves and 17 other family members and victims crowded onto a tiny stage at an Aurora meeting hall for the first time to ask about the millions raised for their loved ones. They also charged that they had been shut out of the process to distribute the funds.

Last week, only Teves and seven others gathered and far fewer reporters attended for what Teves has said will be the last news conference on the matter. One by one the eight stepped forward to pay tribute to those lost, repeating, "We will remember."

Reading from a prepared statement and taking no questions Thursday, Teves said his group had been repeatedly misled by the Community First Foundation, which oversees the Aurora Victim Relief Fund that has been flooded with donations from across the country.....

[Cincinatus' Wife]

You have to read the whole piece to get a feel for the information that has so far been put out about the fund.

[Gaffer]

The survey lays out two disbursement possibilities. One would evenly divide the money among the wounded and the families of those killed, as well as others in the theater the night of the shooting and those displaced from their homes as authorities dismantled the booby traps in the apartment of suspect James E. Holmes. The second would divide it according to an individual needs assessment.

Firstly, this country has become nothing more than groups of victims that are entitled to some sort of settlement for any tragedy that happens to make the national news. It started largely with the families of 9/11 victims and seems to have evolved into that general feeling everywhere.

Secondly, the pervasive attitude of "needs assessment" has gone from a 'government' purview even into charity now. To me it all boils down to bickering over a pot of money. Victims complaining about not getting it, and the organization(s) holding the money trying to figure out how to rake off as much as they can for overhead before they reluctantly have to dole it out.

[txrefugee]

The fire victims in last year’s Texas wildfires learned that for all the millions of dollars and goods donated, they saw little if any of it. They had to rebuild their lives with insurance payments (if they had enough) and the kindness of friends and family and the help of local churches. The money from government entities went to government agencies in the area...never to be seen again.

If you are moved to help someone after an emergency, find a real family and donate your gift to them personally, or do it through a local church. They will be eternally grateful.

Many a scam artist is out gathering funds for his favorite charity.... himself.

[lurk]

Cashing in on a tragedy.

Very sorry for those who experienced loss in this shooting, but now the next thing to do is to be consoled among family and church and move on without expecting some gimme.

[Venturer]

Many people are willing to help and many organisations are willin to get their hands on a piece of the action.

I believe Salvation Army is probably the most honest of the foundations to accept donations.

[Gaffer]

I agree about the Salvation Army. Possibly the last honest organization left, at least that I know of.

[knarf]

And unless they’ve become politically correct, you might get saved at one of their mission services.

[GeronL]

At first it sounds like: “I’m a victim, show me da monee”

[SeminoleCounty]

I am so leery of all these charities now...so many are just in it for themselves. Look at the one tied to a well-known GOP Media talker....

These days, with computers cheap and plentiful, there should be little overhead with a charity. Any large overhead in over-compensation of someone down the line

[tiki]

I didn’t donate but if I had I would have found the name and addresses of those who I wanted to donate to and sent it directly to them.

[mongo141]

” Firstly, this country has become nothing more than groups of victims that are entitled to some sort of settlement for any tragedy that happens to make the national news. It started largely with the families of 9/11 victims and seems to have evolved into that general feeling everywhere.

Secondly, the pervasive attitude of “needs assessment” has gone from a ‘government’ purview even into charity now. To me it all boils down to bickering over a pot of money. Victims complaining about not getting it, and the organization(s) holding the money trying to figure out how to rake off as much as they can for overhead before they reluctantly have to dole it out.”

____

Absolutely correct IMO.

[RightOnline]

You are quite correct. Look at the percentage of funds received vs. funds disbursed by “charitable organizations”. The S.A. has ridiculously low overhead.....and good on them. I have given substantial amounts to them knowing the funds would definitely go to the betterment of the intended recipients vs. fat pay checks to administrators.

[Mark was here]

The responsibility lies with those who made the donations. They should have had the charity sign a contract detailing how the funds would be distributed.

If you give someone some cash with no strings attached, guess what?

There are no strings attached.