Chicago squandering taxpayer money by settling bogus lawsuits

[Derec]

I guess they do not care because net taxpayers are not their target demographic.
Chicago settles another lawsuit over fatal shooting by police
Cedick Chatman was a thug who beat up and carjacked somebody. When confronted by police he took of running and allegedly turned toward the cops. The shooting was deemed justified.
There is no reason why the family of this thug should be enriched.

Chicago is in general very generous with payouts to families of thugs who get shot by police. Just last week the family of armed thug Darius Pinex who dragged a police officer with his car got paid even though the first trial ended in defeat for the family.
Well, it's easy to be generous with other people's money. Especially when it's mostly the money of people who don't vote for you.

 

[Arctish]

I guess they do not care because net taxpayers are not their target demographic.
Chicago settles another lawsuit over fatal shooting by police
Cedick Chatman was a thug who beat up and carjacked somebody. When confronted by police he took of running and allegedly turned toward the cops. The shooting was deemed justified.
There is no reason why the family of this thug should be enriched.

What definition of bogus are you using? The three cases cited in the article include two with video evidence and a whistleblower suit filed by 2 police officers. It does not appear these cases are unsupported by evidence, so why are they being labeled bogus?

Chicago is in general very generous with payouts to families of thugs who get shot by police. Just last week the family of armed thug Darius Pinex who dragged a police officer with his car got paid even though the first trial ended in defeat for the family.
Well, it's easy to be generous with other people's money. Especially when it's mostly the money of people who don't vote for you.

Regarding the Pinex case:

City settles lawsuit in fatal shooting by Chicago police in 2011

Pinex was fatally shot by two police officers during a traffic stop in 2011. The first trial had concluded with a jury finding in favor of the city and the officers.

But the case erupted into controversy in January when U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang ordered a new trial and found that Jordan Marsh, then a Law Department lawyer, had intentionally withheld crucial evidence. Marsh resigned, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel hired longtime Chicago lawyer Dan Webb to conduct a third-party review of the department.....

.....In taking the rare action of striking the city's motion for summary judgment from the record, the judge said a reasonable jury could conclude that officers Gildardo Sierra and Raul Mosqueda "lied and covered up" their reasons for stopping Pinex's car the night of the shooting.

Chang wrote in his four-page order that the officers had given inconsistent statements about an emergency dispatch they allegedly heard describing Pinex's Oldsmobile as wanted in an earlier shooting. When the recording finally was produced at trial in April 2015 — after years of city lawyers denying it existed — there was no mention of a shooting or a gun, the judge said.

Chang said a jury could "reasonably reject the lawfulness of the stop.".....

.....Just last month, Sierra, who resigned from the department in 2015, told Chang he intended to testify at the retrial despite danger of incriminating himself.

The Tribune has previously reported on Sierra's involvement in three shootings, two of them fatal, during a six-month span. In the other fatal shooting, captured on a police dashboard camera, Sierra fired 16 shots at Flint Farmer, including three into his back as he lay prone on the ground. Sierra said he mistook a cellphone for a gun. The city settled a lawsuit by Farmer's family for $4.1 million.

I doubt the city would have won that trial. Settling with the Plaintiffs was the sensible, most cost effective thing to do.

 

[Derec]

What definition of bogus are you using? The three cases cited in the article include two with video evidence and a whistleblower suit filed by 2 police officers. It does not appear these cases are unsupported by evidence, so why are they being labeled bogus?

Bogus, as in shootings deemed justified by the DA as no charges were brought. These were thugs who were shot during commission of felonies, such as carjacking and assault and battery for Chatman. Why should the family be enriched (at taxpayer expense) just because a thug got himself shot by police?

I doubt the city would have won that trial. Settling with the Plaintiffs was the sensible, most cost effective thing to do.

They already won once, but the verdict was set aside by an activist judge. It is indisputable that the shooting itself was justified. Pinex dragged one officer and tried to hit another before he was shot. He had a lengthy rap sheet and a firearm. The only questionable thing is the justification for the stop. But you do not get a huge settlement for an improper stop (if indeed it was improper) and regardless of why he was stopped Pinex should not have done what he did. The family deserves nothing.

If George Soros or somebody wants to give these families money he is welcome to waste his cash. Rahm Emanuel should be more careful with taxpayer money though.

 

[Arctish]

Bogus, as in shootings deemed justified by the DA as no charges were brought.

You can't use the fact that a DA declined to prosecute as evidence a crime was not committed. Sometimes the evidence is insufficient to get an indictment, or it's been tainted by improper police actions. Sometimes the DAs are corrupt and will ignore evidence of crimes committed by friends and allies. Sometimes they even collude with the police to conceal evidence. This is of particular concern in Chicago since it's known to have happened recently.

If the lawsuit is bogus that will become apparent when it's presented in court. The judge is empowered to toss out the suit, and he or she will if there's not enough evidence to support the claims being made.

Also thugs who were shot during commission of felonies, such as carjacking and assault and battery for Chatman. Why should the family be enriched (at taxpayer expense) just because a thug got himself shot by police?

I doubt the city would have won that trial. Settling with the Plaintiffs was the sensible, most cost effective thing to do.

They already won once, but the verdict was set aside by an activist judge.

It was set aside because it was learned that Jordan Marsh, then a Law Department lawyer, had intentionally withheld crucial evidence.

It is indisputable that the shooting itself was justified. Pinex dragged one officer and tried to hit another before he was shot. The only questionable thing is the justification for the stop. But you do not get a huge settlement for an improper stop and regardless of why he was stopped Pinex should not have done what he did. The family deserves nothing.

If George Soros or somebody wants to give these families money he is welcome to waste his cash. Rahm Emanuel should be more careful with taxpayer money though.

The cops lied about the stop. One of them had recently shot a suspect 16 times including shots fired into the guy's back as he lay prone on the ground. The city was highly unlikely to win a case that depended on their testimony about whether Pinex was such a threat they had no choice but to gun him down after stopping him for no reason they could explain.

Instead of being angry at the families of the dead, why aren't you demanding the cops stop lying and the DAs stop covering up police misconduct? It's the shenanigans on the part of the cops and the DAs office that's costing the taxpayers so much money. They are the ones who should be held to higher standards.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Enough of using the word "thug" instead of "nigger". Just say what you really mean.

 

[Derec]

Enough of using the word "thug" instead of "nigger". Just say what you really mean.

You are wrong as usual. Thug is a subtype of criminal. Like for example the carjacker whose early demise enriched his parents.

 

[Derec]

You can't use the fact that a DA declined to prosecute as evidence a crime was not committed.

Often it's the closest thing we have.

Sometimes the evidence is insufficient to get an indictment,

If there isn't enough evidence for an indictment how do you suppose there is enough evidence for a civil judgment? At the very least, you should take it to court, not capitulate early.

or it's been tainted by improper police actions. Sometimes the DAs are corrupt and will ignore evidence of crimes committed by friends and allies. Sometimes they even collude with the police to conceal evidence. This is of particular concern in Chicago since it's known to have happened recently.

Or maybe the shooting really was justified. I mean is it really that inconceivable that a guy who just committed robbery and carjacking could be shot justifiably by police? Or how about a guy who drags one officer with his car and attempts to hit another?

If the lawsuit is bogus that will become apparent when it's presented in court.

We will never have that chance thanks to Rahm folding like a cheap suit in case after case after case.

It was set aside because it was learned that Jordan Marsh, then a Law Department lawyer, had intentionally withheld crucial evidence.

It had no bearing on the shooting itself, just on the stop. The shooting was justified by Pinex' (a career criminal) actions regardless of the legality of the stop. Therefore it is improper to make his family wealthy and reward them for raising a piece of shit like Pinex.

The cops lied about the stop.

If true give him whatever discipline applies for that. It has no bearing on the legality of the shooting and thus should have no bearing on whether the family collects on "wrongful death" suit. Since Pinex hit one cop and tried to hit another his death wasn't wrongful and thus the family should get nothing.

One of them had recently shot a suspect 16 times including shots fired into the guy's back as he lay prone on the ground.

Got a source for that? What were the circumstances?

The city was highly unlikely to win a case that depended on their testimony about whether Pinex was such a threat they had no choice but to gun him down after stopping him for no reason they could explain.

They already won once. And the circumstances of the shooting are quite clear and indeed show that Pinex was "such a threat". When you use your car as a deadly weapon and actually hit and drag a police officer there is a strong possibility you will be shot. And it will be justified. Police getting hit by suspects is no joke.

Instead of being angry at the families of the dead, why aren't you demanding the cops stop lying and the DAs stop covering up police misconduct? It's the shenanigans on the part of the cops and the DAs office that's costing the taxpayers so much money. They are the ones who should be held to higher standards.

I am mostly angry at the "Cream" (German meaning of "Rahm"). In these cases it is Rahm Emanuel being overly eager to pay up that is costing the taxpayers so much money. Sure, police should tell the truth. But both of these cases were justified shootings of violent and dangerous criminals. Chicago is better off without them in it. Why should the families get rich off their crimes?

 

[repoman]

 

[repoman]

Actually this is what thug means:

 

[Arctish]

You can't use the fact that a DA declined to prosecute as evidence a crime was not committed.

Often it's the closest thing we have.

Even if it's all we have, you still can't use the lack of prosecution as evidence of the lack of a crime. Especially in Chicago in a case involving alleged police misconduct.

Sometimes the evidence is insufficient to get an indictment,

If there isn't enough evidence for an indictment how do you suppose there is enough evidence for a civil judgment? At the very least, you should take it to court, not capitulate early.

or it's been tainted by improper police actions. Sometimes the DAs are corrupt and will ignore evidence of crimes committed by friends and allies. Sometimes they even collude with the police to conceal evidence. This is of particular concern in Chicago since it's known to have happened recently.

Or maybe the shooting really was justified. I mean is it really that inconceivable that a guy who just committed robbery and carjacking could be shot justifiably by police? Or how about a guy who drags one officer with his car and attempts to hit another?

The shooting might have been justified. But the cops still lied about why they pulled the car over, the city's lawyer still intentionally concealed crucial evidence, and the city was still unlikely to prevail against a lawsuit claiming misconduct on the part of its employees seeing as how it was a known fact its employees had committed misconduct.

If the lawsuit is bogus that will become apparent when it's presented in court.

We will never have that chance thanks to Rahm folding like a cheap suit in case after case after case.

It was set aside because it was learned that Jordan Marsh, then a Law Department lawyer, had intentionally withheld crucial evidence.

It had no bearing on the shooting itself, just on the stop. The shooting was justified by Pinex' (a career criminal) actions regardless of the legality of the stop. Therefore it is improper to make his family wealthy and reward them for raising a piece of shit like Pinex.

In your opinion. But if it had no bearing on the legitimacy of the shooting, one wonders why it was concealed in the first place. Fruit of the poisonous tree, perhaps?

The cops lied about the stop.

If true give him whatever discipline applies for that. It has no bearing on the legality of the shooting and thus should have no bearing on whether the family collects on "wrongful death" suit. Since Pinex hit one cop and tried to hit another his death wasn't wrongful and thus the family should get nothing.

One of them had recently shot a suspect 16 times including shots fired into the guy's back as he lay prone on the ground.

Got a source for that? What were the circumstances?

The Chicago Tribune article I quoted above. Also here. Prosecutors initially declined to press charges even though

The death of Flint Farmer in June 2011 was the third shooting — the second fatal shooting — in six months by Officer Gildardo Sierra, a patrolman in the Englewood district. It was so disturbing that it prompted police Superintendent Garry McCarthy to tell the Tribune that he considered the shooting a "big problem" and to acknowledge the department had erred by allowing Sierra back on the street given the previous shootings.

and

the videotape of the shooting was damning, showing muzzle flashes and suggesting Sierra stood over Farmer as he shot him in the back

I guess Sierra admitting he drank multiple beers before going on shift that night is what tilted the scales in favor of the plaintiff and led to the settlement.

The city was highly unlikely to win a case that depended on their testimony about whether Pinex was such a threat they had no choice but to gun him down after stopping him for no reason they could explain.

They already won once. And the circumstances of the shooting are quite clear and indeed show that Pinex was "such a threat". When you use your car as a deadly weapon and actually hit and drag a police officer there is a strong possibility you will be shot. And it will be justified. Police getting hit by suspects is no joke.

Instead of being angry at the families of the dead, why aren't you demanding the cops stop lying and the DAs stop covering up police misconduct? It's the shenanigans on the part of the cops and the DAs office that's costing the taxpayers so much money. They are the ones who should be held to higher standards.

I am mostly angry at the "Cream" (German meaning of "Rahm"). In these cases it is Rahm Emanuel being overly eager to pay up that is costing the taxpayers so much money. Sure, police should tell the truth. But both of these cases were justified shootings of violent and dangerous criminals. Chicago is better off without them in it. Why should the families get rich off their crimes?

The families aren't getting rich off the (alleged) crimes of the victims. They are winning cases or getting settlements because the Chicago police department and city officials have allowed police misconduct to go unpunished, and that failure to respond appropriately has left the city liable for damages.

 

[barbos]

Lawyers are getting rich off taxpayers.

 

[arkirk]

Lawyers are getting rich off taxpayers.

The lawsuits are not bogus. If the taxpayers don't demand enough of their elected officials, they find themselves having to pay for the actions of government agencies (mostly the police) misbehaving. This is a city that elected Raum Emanuel to lead it in the destruction of public education in the city.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Enough of using the word "thug" instead of "nigger". Just say what you really mean.

You are wrong as usual. Thug is a subtype of criminal. Like for example the carjacker whose early demise enriched his parents.

Uh huh. Like I said, just say what you mean.

 

[Derec]

Uh huh. Like I said, just say what you mean.

I say what I mean. And your attempts to delegitimize a word like 'thug' are as transparent as they are futile. Chatman and Pinex were thugs because of their behavior regardless of the color of their skin.

- - - Updated - - -

The lawsuits are not bogus. If the taxpayers don't demand enough of their elected officials, they find themselves having to pay for the actions of government agencies (mostly the police) misbehaving.

These were justified shootings. It is irresponsible to pay the families of these thugs without defending the city at the trial.

This is a city that elected Raum Emanuel to lead it in the destruction of public education in the city.

That is a completely different matter but perhaps Chicago would have more money if Rahm was not so generous with paying families of thugs.

 

[RavenSky]

14 Words That Carry A Coded Meaning For Black People
You don’t hear overtly racist language very often these days. Here are some words with a subtler implication.

What you say: “He is such a thug.”
What we hear: He is the n-word.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tamerragri...black-people?utm_term=.xea7A5Zx2n#.xjRjZAzbDP

The sneaky language today's politicians use to get away with racism and sexism

Coded language describes phrases that are targeted so often at a specific group of people or idea that eventually the circumstances of a phrase's use are blended into the phrase's meaning. So since "thug" has been used so often to describe black men in particular, even when they're doing nothing wrong, it now carries a racist connotation...

The way these words play into stereotypes without outright mentioning them gives the user some leeway, Haney-López said: "It allows people to say, 'Hey, I'm just criticizing the behavior, not criticizing a racially defined group.'"

... By its technical definition, "thug" is supposed to refer to a violent person or a criminal. But over time, it has been used so often to refer to black people that it began to carry its own connotation — the racist idea that black people are criminals or violent.

Take, for instance, the Baltimore protests. Were all the protesters in Baltimore, who were demonstrating against Freddie Gray's death in the hands of police, rioting and looting? No, but they were broadly labeled as such, even by the mayor and the president.

In comparison, one does not see the same kind of labeling with white rioters, which media outlets like CNN have labeled as, for example, "rowdy" in past instances.

As these kinds of contrasts present themselves in media, it becomes clear that the word "thug" is used to describe not merely criminal or violent behavior, but behavior from black men in particular.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/1/10889138/coded-language-thug-bossy

7 Phrases Everyone Needs to Stop Using to Describe Black People

Many decades ago, the word "thug" referenced people who engaged in organized crime. But in more recent years, especially in the wake of the murders of Trayvon Martin and even Brown, many whites and others dismissively use the word to describe young, black people — especially black men — implying that they're violent, irrational and shouldn't be taken seriously.

https://mic.com/articles/99182/7-ra...-to-stop-saying-about-black-people#.5es5lif5G

Richard Sherman On What Being Called a “Thug” Really Means

Sherman: The only reason it bothers me is because it seems like it’s the accepted way of calling somebody the N-word nowadays. It’s like everybody else said the N-word, and they say “thug,” and they’re like: “oh, that’s fine.” And that’s where it kind of takes me aback and it’s kind of disappointing. Because they know. What’s the definition of a thug really? Can a guy on a football field just talking to people, maybe I’m talking loudly, and doing something, talking like I’m not supposed to…But, there was a hockey game where they didn’t even play hockey. They just threw the puck aside and started fighting. I saw that and I said: “oh man, I’m the thug, what? What’s going on here?” Jeez. So I’m really disappointed in being called a thug.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ins_what_being_called_a_thug_is_code_for.html

Ultimately, the only way to get around coded language is to call it out, explain what's really going on, and openly discuss how to work through bigoted fears.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/1/10889138/coded-language-thug-bossy

 

[Derec]

Even if it's all we have, you still can't use the lack of prosecution as evidence of the lack of a crime. Especially in Chicago in a case involving alleged police misconduct.

I can definitely use it as evidence for a lack of evidence for any crime by the police. If there is not even probable cause to charge any officers there is likely not enough evidence to find in favor of the family in a "wrongful death" suit. In any case it makes it worthwhile to defend these cases and not fold.

The shooting might have been justified. But the cops still lied about why they pulled the car over,

That does not make Pinex' death wrongful.

the city's lawyer still intentionally concealed crucial evidence, and the city was still unlikely to prevail against a lawsuit claiming misconduct on the part of its employees seeing as how it was a known fact its employees had committed misconduct.

So discipline the employee. But that does not make Pinex' death wrongful or his family deserving of millions of dollars.

In your opinion. But if it had no bearing on the legitimacy of the shooting, one wonders why it was concealed in the first place.

I can't read minds. Here's another mindreading task - why did Pinex run over one cop and tried to run over another? Had he not done that he'd be alive. He is the person most directly responsible for his own death.

Fruit of the poisonous tree, perhaps?

Applies only to evidence in criminal prosecutions I think.

I guess Sierra admitting he drank multiple beers before going on shift that night is what tilted the scales in favor of the plaintiff and led to the settlement.

He should not have been drinking but at the same time Farmer should not have fled. If you have a suspect in a violent crime and chase him the chances of a violent engagement between police and suspect are increased greatly. Especially if that person has an object that can be misinterpreted as a gun (same applies to carjacker Chatman). So again, fire the officer for drinking but Farmer is still the one mostly responsible for getting shot. Farmer's family again do not deserve to be millionaires over this. And again, there was no criminal prosecution, not even for the three shots he fired when Farmer was on the ground. Sierra probably really felt threatened by the suspect who pointed an object at him in the dark (that turned out to be a cell phone but would easily been mistaken for a gun).

The families aren't getting rich off the (alleged) crimes of the victims. They are winning cases or getting settlements because the Chicago police department and city officials have allowed police misconduct to go unpunished, and that failure to respond appropriately has left the city liable for damages.

Rahm is not even trying to defend these cases! And the families are most definitely profiting off the crimes of their relatives because had Chatman, Pinex or even Farmer not engaged in violent crime they'd not have been killed.

 

[Derec]

RavenSky, that is bullshit race baiting of the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton caliber.

Thug can be of any race. However, black thugs get routinely defended by what is commonly known as "black community". See #blacklivesmatter that does this all the time. Now we are not even supposed to call them "thugs" any more. Sorry, if you carjack somebody you are a thug. When you have a burglary conviction and try to run over police you are a thug. Regardless of your race. But I do not see white thugs being rallied around.
And according to the Vox article (perhaps the worst of the bunch) we are not even supposed to use terms like "illegal immigrant" or "radical Islam". No way, Jose!

The "Wheel of Misfortune" metaphor can be applies to all of this PC language policing, including "thug" ...

 

[RavenSky]

RavenSky, that is bullshit race baiting...

Yes, that is exactly what you are doing. You know this, so your continued use of the word for only black people makes your intent crystal clear for everyone to see

 

[Derec]

Yes, that is exactly what you are doing. You know this, so your continued use of the word for only black people makes your intent crystal clear for everyone to see

I do not use the word only for black thugs. But those are the only thugs we discuss at length because of them receiving support. For example, I do not recall Rahm paying families of white thugs millions. Therefore, I do not start a thread about it.

 

[thebeave]

Well, I guess our president is racist for using the term "thug":

http://nypost.com/2015/04/28/obama-calls-baltimore-rioters-criminals-and-thugs/

Still, the president lashed into the rioters who torched buildings and looted businesses in Baltimore a day earlier, calling them ​“criminals ​and thugs” who were destroying their own communities.

​“That is not a protest. It is not a statement. It’s people, a handful of people, taking advantage of a situation for their own purposes — and they need to be treated as criminals,” Obama said from the White House.

Listen to what The Doctor of Common Sense has to say about it: