Like sons, like mother

[Derec]

Christina Lopez got $5M when her thug son was killed by police because he was running from police over a killing her other thug son later got later convicted for.
So what did this "mother of the movement" do with the money? She used the money to buy weapons for her third thug son and his gang, which they then used to bump off another man.

Mom awarded $4.9M after son’s death, bought guns for other son’s gang

A California woman who was paid nearly $5 million in a settlement after her son was fatally shot by police officers was arrested for using the money to purchase guns for her other son and gang members.

Christina Lopez, 42, of Madera, was one of 14 people arrested in a months-long investigation into a gang whose members were allegedly involved in a fatal shooting in July, according to the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office.

Lopez received $4.9 million from the city in April for the death of her 16-year-old son, Isiah Murrietta-Golding, who was shot and killed as he ran away from officers attempting to detain or arrest him in 2017. The settlement was one of the largest in the city’s history.
Fresno County District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp said that Lopez used funds from the settlement to purchase weapons for her 14-year old son to distribute to his gang.

We need to stop awarding millions of dollars to families of thugs who get killed by police. The kid was reaching for his waistband while being known to the police for carrying gun and while being sought for questioning in connection with a homicide. It is reasonable to assume he was armed. The little twerp should not have ran.

 

[laughing dog]

That "little twerp" is innocent until proven guilty. Running from the police does not entail an automatic death sentence. In fact, "running from" the police indicates that the runner is not an active threat to the police.

The awards from juriesfor police malfeasance are supposed to
1) compensate the family for their loss, and
2) provide a disincentive for the police to engage in malfeasance.

Settlements prior to trial are usually given to avoid anticipated larger awards from juries.

Ms. Lopez is also innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Trausti]

So much for “poverty causes crime.”

 

[none]

So much for “poverty causes crime.”

Oh come on. That is such a lazy approach. Why even bother...
Apparently billions of dollars a day used to fight poverty is working.. globally.

 

[Derec]

That "little twerp" is innocent until proven guilty.

Thank you, Captain Obvious!
He could have had his day in court had he not ran like an idiot.

Running from the police does not entail an automatic death sentence.

Of course not. And most people who run from the police do not get shot. But running vs. not increases your odds of getting shot by many orders of magnitude. Especially if one is a suspect in a gun homicide and wears loose pants that make it necessary to go for the waistband to pull them up.

In fact, "running from" the police indicates that the runner is not an active threat to the police.

That is not true. Remember Thurman Blevins? He ran from the police and shot his gun at them before they shot him. It doesn't take long to turn around while running. It takes even less time to shoot over your shoulder, but than can backfire, as Kenneth Harding found out.

The awards from juriesfor police malfeasance are supposed to
1) compensate the family for their loss, and
2) provide a disincentive for the police to engage in malfeasance.

This was not even a jury verdict (however, those can be equally if not more idiotic, see Karryn Gaines case) but a unilateral decision by moronic politicians running Fresno.
Also, how do these people arrive at these multimillion dollar numbers? Why should a family become millionaires just because one of their family members got shot by police while out committing felonies? It is one thing to have high payouts for innocent victims (like Justine Damond) and/or the officer is convicted of a crime. However, it is perverse to reward thuggery by awarding millions in police shootings, especially when the shooting is deemed justified by the DA and does not lead to charges, let alone convictions.

Settlements prior to trial are usually given to avoid anticipated larger awards from juries.

Unfortunately it encourages families of thugs filing frivolous lawsuits even when police do nothing wrong, because cities are so quick to settle for millions. We need to reform tort laws to a) disallow payments for shootings deemed justified and b) standardize and limit dollar amounts to a sensible level. These payouts should happen much more rarely and should not be as haphazard as they are now. The principle of compensating families when there is actual police wrongdoing is not wrong, but it becomes meaningless when families can cash in even when police do nothing wrong.

Ms. Lopez is also innocent until proven guilty.

Cpt. Obvious, you are on a roll. Are you gunning for promotion (and would that be Major Obvious, Commodore Obvious or Rear Admiral Obvious I wonder?)

Of course she enjoys presumption of innocence in a court of law. And since she did not run from police and did not reach for her waistband, she will get to enjoy it.
Realistically though, I think they have her dead to rights. Nice family of thugs. One son, dead. Other son, in prison for manslaughter. Mom, likely in prison. However, given that it is California, the 14 year old will probably get a slap on the wrist in juvie.

 

[none]

Thank you, Captain Obvious!
He could have had his day in court had he not ran like an idiot.

Of course not. And most people who run from the police do not get shot. But running vs. not increases your odds of getting shot by many orders of magnitude. Especially if one is a suspect in a gun homicide and wears loose pants that make it necessary to go for the waistband to pull them up.

In fact, "running from" the police indicates that the runner is not an active threat to the police.

That is not true. Remember Thurman Blevins? He ran from the police and shot his gun at them before they shot him. It doesn't take long to turn around while running. It takes even less time to shoot over your shoulder, but than can backfire, as Kenneth Harding found out.

The awards from juriesfor police malfeasance are supposed to
1) compensate the family for their loss, and
2) provide a disincentive for the police to engage in malfeasance.

This was not even a jury verdict (however, those can be equally if not more idiotic, see Karryn Gaines case) but a unilateral decision by moronic politicians running Fresno.
Also, how do these people arrive at these multimillion dollar numbers? Why should a family become millionaires just because one of their family members got shot by police . It is one thing to have high payouts for innocent victims (like Justine Damond) and/or the officer is convicted of a crime. However, it is perverse to reward thuggery by awarding millions in police shootings, especially when the shooting is deemed justified by the DA and does not lead to charges, let alone convictions.

Settlements prior to trial are usually given to avoid anticipated larger awards from juries.

Unfortunately it encourages . We need to reform tort laws to a) disallow payments for shootings deemed justified and b) standardize and limit dollar amounts to a sensible level. These payouts should happen much more rarely and should not be as haphazard as they are now.

Ms. Lopez is also innocent until proven guilty.

Cpt. Obvious, you are on a roll. Are you gunning for promotion (and would that be Major Obvious, Commodore Obvious or Rear Admiral Obvious I wonder?)

Of course she enjoys presumption of innocence in a court of law. And since she did not run from police and did not reach for her waistband, she will get to enjoy it.
Realistically though, I think they have her dead to rights. Nice family of thugs. One son, dead. Other son, in prison for manslaughter. Mom, likely in prison. However, given that it is California, the 14 year old will probably get a slap on the wrist in juvie.

Well darn, your so qualified... fucking "especially if"... no winner here folks time to move on

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you, Captain Obvious!
He could have had his day in court had he not ran like an idiot......

Running from the police is not a capital offense. And it indicates you are not a threat while you are running away. In order to be an actual threat, you have to turn around and point a gun: running away is not literally not an active threat.
That is pretty obvious, yet you seem unable to grasp it.

This was not even a jury verdict (however, those can be equally if not more idiotic, see Karryn Gaines case) but a unilateral decision by moronic politicians running Fresno.
Also, how do these people arrive at these multimillion dollar numbers? Why should a family become millionaires just because one of their family members got shot by police while out committing felonies? It is one thing to have high payouts for innocent victims (like Justine Damond) and/or the officer is convicted of a crime. However, it is perverse to reward thuggery by awarding millions in police shootings, especially when the shooting is deemed justified by the DA and does not lead to charges, let alone convictions.

Settlements prior to trial are usually given to avoid anticipated larger awards from juries.

Unfortunately it encourages families of thugs filing frivolous lawsuits even when police do nothing wrong, because cities are so quick to settle for millions. We need to reform tort laws to a) disallow payments for shootings deemed justified and b) standardize and limit dollar amounts to a sensible level. These payouts should happen much more rarely and should not be as haphazard as they are now. The principle of compensating families when there is actual police wrongdoing is not wrong, but it becomes meaningless when families can cash in even when police do nothing wrong.

Family members are still cherished by their relatives regardless of your view of their merits. A local DA is not an disinterested arbiter in police shootings. You need to either become a successful consultant to these cities and their insurance companies or change the laws in those jurisdictions to suit your views.

Cpt. Obvious, you are on a roll. Are you gunning for promotion (and would that be Major Obvious, Commodore Obvious or Rear Admiral Obvious I wonder?)

Of course she enjoys presumption of innocence in a court of law. And since she did not run from police and did not reach for her waistband, she will get to enjoy it.
Realistically though, I think they have her dead to rights. Nice family of thugs. One son, dead. Other son, in prison for manslaughter. Mom, likely in prison. However, given that it is California, the 14 year old will probably get a slap on the wrist in juvie.

So the sins of the children are to be visited onto the parents - how reverse biblical of you.

There is no way for you to know whether the DA has this woman "dead to rights" unless you are privy to their evidence (something I doubt that you have seen). It appears all you have is your kneejerk idolatry of the police and the DA along with your bigoted views towards Ms. Lopez et al.

 

[ZiprHead]

This OP is outright bigotry. Derec found one "thug family" so now all people who have relatives killed unjustly by police and receive a settlement are thug families.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This OP is outright bigotry. Derec found one "thug family" so now all people who have relatives killed unjustly by police and receive a settlement are thug families.

You know, I've never noticed Derec's propensity to be obsessed about race until now.

 

[Patooka]

Thank you, Captain Obvious!
He could have had his day in court had he not ran like an idiot.

It's astonishing how many "crimes" deserve execution in your eyes. Especially when the person involved is of a certain persuasion. It's also astonishing how you have never advocated that there should be a better screening process for police, or that better training methods should be employed or that a more honest system of accountability should be devised. You have never spoken about any of those things.

Oh, right. You have and I am being dishonest. You argued all those things only, and just only, in the instance of Mohammed Noor. Not sure why you picked him out, but I guess that's one of life's little mysteries now isn't it? The only cop who ever did something wrong in your eyes is Mohammed Noor. Now why is that?

I am so (not) confused.

 

[Politesse]

Maybe she was angry.

 

[Toni]

Thank you, Captain Obvious!
He could have had his day in court had he not ran like an idiot.

Tell that to George Floyd.



Oh, wait.......

 

[Trausti]

Thank you, Captain Obvious!
He could have had his day in court had he not ran like an idiot.

Tell that to George Floyd.

Or Ashli Babbitt.

 

[none]

Thank you, Captain Obvious!
He could have had his day in court had he not ran like an idiot.

Tell that to George Floyd.

Or Ashli Babbitt.

She was running into bullets, it what she was trained to do...

 

[Elixir]

It's astonishing how many "crimes" deserve execution in your eyes.

Right wing extremists have always been sanguine about killing the "bad guys" (wrong color guys).

Especially when the person involved is of a certain persuasion.

Persuasion? I never thought skin color could be considered a "persuasion".

 

[Elixir]

Yet, you’re okay killing her because you disagree with her politically.

Yeah, it's not like she was being BLACK or something, like George Floyd.

 

[RVonse]

The awards from juriesfor police malfeasance are supposed to

2) provide a disincentive for the police to engage in malfeasance.

How does a big award provide a disincentive for the police to engage in malfeasance? The money does not come out of their wallet does it? If anything, this is only a punishment to the taxpayers of local property in the area who had nothing to do with the shooting.

If society wants to provide a malfeasance disincentive they should prosecute the police (as was done for George Floyd) and/or fire their management. I do not see how giving out a huge award does anything at all to motivate a policeman who do not even have to pay a cost.

 

[Toni]

The awards from juriesfor police malfeasance are supposed to

2) provide a disincentive for the police to engage in malfeasance.

How does a big award provide a disincentive for the police to engage in malfeasance? The money does not come out of their wallet does it? If anything, this is only a punishment to the taxpayers of local property in the area who had nothing to do with the shooting.

If society wants to provide a malfeasance disincentive they should prosecute the police (as was done for George Floyd) and/or fire their management. I do not see how giving out a huge award does anything at all to motivate a policeman who do not even have to pay a cost.

Local citizens are often quite vocal over how their tax money is spent. They show up at meetings, write letters and vote and even run for office to oust those they feel are incompetent or irresponsible. Pressure is definitely put on those who run police departments whenever there is a large settlement over police misconduct.

Just not enough pressure.

 

[laughing dog]

The awards from juriesfor police malfeasance are supposed to

2) provide a disincentive for the police to engage in malfeasance.

How does a big award provide a disincentive for the police to engage in malfeasance? The money does not come out of their wallet does it? If anything, this is only a punishment to the taxpayers of local property in the area who had nothing to do with the shooting.

If society wants to provide a malfeasance disincentive they should prosecute the police (as was done for George Floyd) and/or fire their management. I do not see how giving out a huge award does anything at all to motivate a policeman who do not even have to pay a cost.

The award does not directly affect any individual's decision-making. But the award means less dollars for the city and/or the department which usually causes changes in policies or procedures.

 

[Derec]

Running from the police is not a capital offense.

Nobody said it was. But there is a huge difference between capital offenses and thing that may lead to you getting shot by police.

And it indicates you are not a threat while you are running away.

BS.

In order to be an actual threat, you have to turn around and point a gun: running away is not literally not an active threat.

Pulling a gun and turning around takes very little time, comparable to the reaction time of the pursuing officers. If the cop waits until he can positively identify a gun in the perp's hand and a clear turning motion is evident, the perp get likely get a shot off. So he is shot when he moves his hand toward the waistband if the cops suspect the perp is armed.

That is pretty obvious, yet you seem unable to grasp it.

It's not obvious, it's simplistic.

Family members are still cherished by their relatives regardless of your view of their merits.

That does not mean they deserve to be millionaires.

A local DA is not an disinterested arbiter in police shootings.

More disinterested than the families or the city council. But yes, often there is political motivation with DAs. Not in this case, but for example Paul Howard frivolously charging the officers in the Rayshard Brooks case.

You need to either become a successful consultant to these cities and their insurance companies or change the laws in those jurisdictions to suit your views.

The laws definitely need to change. Hearse chasers like Ben Crump are parasites.

So the sins of the children are to be visited onto the parents - how reverse biblical of you.

Who said anything about that? But if she - as is likely - bought illegal weapons for a gang she should go to prison.
Also, the sins of the children should not lead to profits for the parents - and the lawsuit industrial complex is doing just that.

There is no way for you to know whether the DA has this woman "dead to rights" unless you are privy to their evidence (something I doubt that you have seen). It appears all you have is your kneejerk idolatry of the police and the DA along with your bigoted views towards Ms. Lopez et al.

I am going by what is in the article. They seem to have a strong case. And there are no "bigoted views". Rather, all you have is kneejerk gainsaying of everything I write plus cheap insults.