Chicago makes more thug families millionaires

[Derec]

You continue to ignore that a new criminal trial for the two officer was ordered because the prosecution failed to turn over evidence to the defense.

No, that was a civil trial. The police officers were never criminally charged in connection with the shooting.

 

[laughing dog]

You continue to ignore that a new criminal trial for the two officer was ordered because the prosecution failed to turn over evidence to the defense.

No, that was a civil trial. The police officers were never criminally charged in connection with the shooting.

My mistake. But if the shooting was so justified, why did the city have to withhold evidence in the civil trial? Hmmm.

 

[Derec]

My mistake. But if the shooting was so justified, why did the city have to withhold evidence in the civil trial? Hmmm.

From what I understand an Oldsmobile similar to the one Pinex was driving was pursued in a different police district. The radio broadcasts are by district, but a condensed version is rebroadcast to everybody. So the two cops would not have heard the more detailed broadcast (that included details such as the driver having a gun)

When they were interviewed, the two cops indicated they heard information not included in their broadcast. Perhaps they were lying, perhaps their mind filled the gaps from what they found later. Human memory is good at filling gaps like that, and not that reliable especially in stressful situations like this one. So I don't think they were necessarily lying.

In any case, none of that has a bearing on how Pinex acted when he was stopped, or on him having a gun in the car despite being a convicted felon etc.

BTW: Pinex was 27 when he got killed and had an (at the time) 11 year old daughter. That means that he sired her when he was 15 or 16. Yes, being a bad boy (he had a lengthy criminal record when he died which means he probably had a similar personality when he was a teen) definitely gets you chicks.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That means that he sired her when he was 15 or 16.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

 

[laughing dog]

My mistake. But if the shooting was so justified, why did the city have to withhold evidence in the civil trial? Hmmm.

From what I understand an Oldsmobile similar to the one Pinex was driving was pursued in a different police district. The radio broadcasts are by district, but a condensed version is rebroadcast to everybody. So the two cops would not have heard the more detailed broadcast (that included details such as the driver having a gun)

When they were interviewed, the two cops indicated they heard information not included in their broadcast. Perhaps they were lying, perhaps their mind filled the gaps from what they found later. Human memory is good at filling gaps like that, and not that reliable especially in stressful situations like this one. So I don't think they were necessarily lying.

In any case, none of that has a bearing on how Pinex acted when he was stopped, or on him having a gun in the car despite being a convicted felon etc.

Basically you are arguing that not only did he deserve an EJK, but the police should not be held responsible for this EJK even if it was a mistake.

[
BTW: Pinex was 27 when he got killed and had an (at the time) 11 year old daughter. That means that he sired her when he was 15 or 16. Yes, being a bad boy (he had a lengthy criminal record when he died which means he probably had a similar personality when he was a teen) definitely gets you chicks.

So you feel that fact he may have fathered a child when he was 15 or 16 means that the police should not pay damages for making a mistake that got him killed? Or this just another example of your special attention to the "facts" about the life of a black victim?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When they were interviewed, the two cops indicated they heard information not included in their broadcast. Perhaps they were lying, perhaps their mind filled the gaps from what they found later. Human memory is good at filling gaps like that, and not that reliable especially in stressful situations like this one. So I don't think they were necessarily lying.

Second this. Human memory is very poor at timeline issues like this--whether they heard information before or after a certain other event.

In any case, none of that has a bearing on how Pinex acted when he was stopped, or on him having a gun in the car despite being a convicted felon etc.

BTW: Pinex was 27 when he got killed and had an (at the time) 11 year old daughter. That means that he sired her when he was 15 or 16. Yes, being a bad boy (he had a lengthy criminal record when he died which means he probably had a similar personality when he was a teen) definitely gets you chicks.

Yeah, it's amazing how often the "innocent victims" turn out to be scumbags.

 

[Arctish]

I do not think that part is disputed by anyone, not even Pinex' family . Note that we do not have to rely on police statements only here. We have the evidence of the damage to Pinex' car and also injuries to the cop he hit.

No one disputes Pinux attempted to escape the confrontation with the Chicago cops that night. The family disputes the allegation he injured a cop through negligence and utterly rejects the allegation he did it deliberately.

Note that even though the cops faced consequences for lying about hearing the radio dispatch, they did not face any consequences for the shooting itself. Ask yourself why.

I have asked why the cops faced no consequences, especially the cop who had shot two other people in the previous 6 months, one of whom was unarmed and lying motionless and facedown on the ground. But this happened in Chicago, a city with a well deserved reputation for collusion among officials to cover-up wrongdoing by its police officers. And I remembered that this thread is about the consequences the city is facing for its failure to properly address the issue.

Why do you believe the second part of the cops' story is true when you know the first part was a lie?

Because it is consistent with evidence and also, to my knowledge, not disputed by anybody.

The evidence is consistent with the cops instigating a fatal encounter for no reason. But you keep arguing as though there was a reason for the cops to kill Pinex, and you keep using the known-to-be unreliable statements of liars as evidence.

Why do you trust the cops to be telling the truth about the second half of their story when you know they lied about the first half? It's very inconsistent with your views when other people are known to have lied.

He also had a lengthy criminal record which makes the course of the shooting as stated by police much more likely than if Pinex had been a law abiding citizen.

To bring it back to your story. If my roommate lied about being out because of the trash, but nobody is disputing the story about the kidnapping and the crash, I would wonder what he was really doing that he would seek to conceal from me, but I would not assume everything else must be a lie just because of it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear but in the story the roommate lied about witnessing a kidnapping, too.

Your roommate told you he took your car so he could chase after a man kidnapping a kid. He said he crashed the car when he saw the man point a gun at him. But there wasn't an attempted kidnapping on your street. That part of the story is false, just like the part about him taking out the trash. So the question is, if you know the first part of the story is false, do you believe the rest of it?

The first part of the story was the justification for taking your car, the second part explained how it came to be wrapped around a tree. But if the first part was bullshit, wouldn't you suspect the second part was, too? Or would you still believe your roommate was doing something selfless and heroic when he wrecked your car?

BTW where is your research on Officers Sierra and Mosqueda? You've covered Pinex's history pretty thoroughly but I have yet to see anything about Sierra's prior uses of lethal force or how often he went out on patrol drunk, or if Mosqueda had domestic violence complaints lodged against him, or who he took to the Senior Prom. And you appear to have completely missed this: IPRA Recommends Firing Cop Who Fatally Shot Darius Pinex For Lying.