Skip to Content

Fired Teller Co. official arrested, accused of harassment, using racial slur against fire chief

TELLER COUNTY, Colo. (KRDO) -- The former Teller County Director of Emergency Management is out of jail after being arrested and charged with harassing a fire chief.

Court records obtained by 13 Investigates say 64-year-old Donald George Angell II is accused of calling Florrisant Fire Chief Michael Bailey a racial slur and grabbing him. Angell was arrested Wednesday, April 13.

Angell faces five misdemeanors, including three counts of harassment, child abuse, and bias-motivated crimes. Court records say Angell and his wife, who works for the Florrisant Fire Protection District, arrived at Bailey's home on April 2 to get a department vehicle.

According to court records, Angell "repeatedly used offensively coarse, racial language" towards Bailey and another person during that interaction. Additionally, court records say he grabbed Bailey by the wrist trying to force him to sign a document releasing the Florissant Fire Protection District vehicle and equipment.

The records obtained by 13 Investigates state that Angell said “Quite stalling, give me the keys N-word” and “You *expletive* N-word you do this all the time.”

Tuesday, Bailey filed a temporary restraining order against Angell, which was granted by a Teller County judge. Angell's next court appearance is scheduled for later in April.

Prior to his arrest, Angell was fired from his position with Teller County's Office of Emergency Management in March. However, the county's director of human resources tells 13 Investigates Angell was terminated for performance issues and was not connected to his recent arrest.

Author Profile Photo

Dan Beedie

Dan is a reporter with the 13 Investigates team. Learn more about Dan here.

Author Profile Photo

Shelby Filangi

Shelby is a digital content producer for You can learn more about Shelby here.



  1. I get the physical contact, but now using a racial slur is a crime? Good bye freedom of speech! Those that cheer this, it’s only great until something you want to speak about is deemed “criminal”.

    1. This guy went to the Chief’s house. This was not in public. Why did he not go with the sheriff?

      1. Based on recent articles the sheriff may not have been the most adequate person to contact to uphold these criminal charges.

    2. I take your point, but when there is an as sault we always use motivation to determine the seriousness of a crime. I’d rather have that be part of the judicial process than a statutory preset, but it’s fair to call something a different kind of crime if it appears to be an as sault accompanied by or incited by racial hatred. If the as sailant in this case doesn’t want us thinking it’s about racial hatred, he probably shouldn’t use racial epithets. But he’s not being charged with using the epithet, he is being charged with committing a criminal act, the nature of which is additionally grave because it is connected with racial hatred.

      This is different from, for example, some British and Canadian law where you can face criminal prosecution for the speech alone.

    1. It is kind of a, what came first; The parody show “South Park”, or the actual lifestyle of the region it represents and makes fun of consistently.

  2. Once again krdo only tells part of the drama. They missed the part where the Chief had been suspended ànd had a dept vehicle that he didn’t return. County officials need to stop micro managing staff and other agencies.

    1. The story doesn’t mention the suspension, but does mention that the vehicle was being picked up. From other stories, the suspended chief wanted a paper signed (which was signed) that said the vehicle was in good condition when returned. I don’t know where you see county officials micromanaging in this story, the only county officials involved were the three individuals in the story and the sheriff’s department. There are more extensive stories in the Flume and the Gazette, but it doesn’t make the parties involved look any better than they do here. The suspension seems to have been due to a disagreement between a board member and the chief, there’s no indication that he was accused of poor conduct or a crime, so it’s not drastically relevant here, although I agree it should have been included for a more comprehensive story. Will be good to get clarity.

  3. Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court held that First Amendment protections do not apply to speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Comments are closed.

Skip to content