Chicago makes more thug families millionaires

[KeepTalking]

I suppose the accident would have been you ramming the rear bumper of his car. It's hard to imagine any scenario where a driver can pull off the road and be at fault because a following driver hit their car from behind.


This is not a situation where "Ignorance is no excuse," would apply. If the other driver's brake lights were not operating, his ignorance of this would be no excuse. In this case, his ignorance was of the fact that you felt entitled to the 200 square feet of concrete where he chose to stop his car.

The more I think about this, the more I realize you are fortunate to come out of the encounter unscathed.

No, the accident would have been me getting horseshoed by oncoming traffic due to an unexpected (and unnecessary) stop in the middle of an intersection).

Horseshoed? Do you mean T-boned?

Regardless, if oncoming traffic was the issue, this implies that you were crossing oncoming traffic to pull into the gas station. In that situation it is your responsibility to ensure that the path before you is clear before making your turn. It seems like you were just being impatient, and making your turn before you knew you were in the clear so that you could beat oncoming traffic. That is entirely your fault.

I can't believe there is so much space around gas stations and the pumps in other congested cities... I guess it is just NY... you all sound like you would be quite the danger trying to navigate around my town...

So, you have never traveled outside of New York in your car to encounter a gas station in a smaller city? Yet we are the ones not to be believed because we have never traveled to New York? What an odd sense of perspective you seem to have.

Think of it like this... you are at a green light in a busy and fast moving intersection waiting for the car in front of you to make a left turn so you can make your left after him. He makes his left turn and there is enough room for you to make your left turn right behind him. As soon as he gets just past oncoming traffic, the guy stops short for no reason at all. You are now stuck behind him, with no way around him and oncoming traffic is bearing down on you as you hang out in the middle of the intersection. That is what happens when you don't move all the way up in NY gas stations. you get horseshoed by oncoming traffic. I'd say it happens all the time, but it doesn't.. because most people aren't quite that fucking stupid to stop short of where they are expected to go for no reason.

Shit happens. Cars break down in the middle of intersections. Happened to me once. The people around me didn't stop to berate me and push me around, they stopped to help me push my car out of the intersection. I guess I am lucky I wasn't in New York. Maybe next time you will make sure your path is clear before crossing oncoming traffic.

 

[Bronzeage]

He may have been guilty of violent felonies, but in this country, we don't execute criminals in the street.

The city couldn't fight this case and the simple fact is, it can't fight cases such as this. To defend shooting an unarmed civilian, the police department would be on trial. They would have to expose their training programs and philosophies, which led a trained policeman to decide to shoot a person.

This is free market economics at work. A poorly run police department is expensive, and this is where the money is spent.

If you really object to people collecting damages when a family member is killed by a policeman, worry more about police training and tactics, instead of pissing and moaning when the court forces the taxpayers to make good when a policeman fucks up.

Alternatively, you could write into law that public officials are responsible for the damages they inflict while serving. Somehow I believe that there would be a greater sense of patience or caution within police officers who are aware that the state wont bail them out if they fuck up.

That is basically unworkable.We would have a police department in which every officer is responsible to only himself and the Police department is not responsible for his actions. Every person in an institution represents that institution. We have to hold institutions accountable for their procedures and policies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Was Chatman shot in the back? Autopsy suggests not.

Riiight - the bullets curved into him while he was running away.

So the BLM assertion that he was running away is more important than the truth of the path the bullet took?

On the other hand, such a hit is consistent with a guy who was running and then turned towards the cops for some reason.

 

[laughing dog]

Riiight - the bullets curved into him while he was running away.

So the BLM assertion that he was running away is more important than the truth of the path the bullet took?

On the other hand, such a hit is consistent with a guy who was running and then turned towards the cops for some reason.

Or the hit is constant with someone running away from police in one direction and then turning 90 degrees to get away in another direction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So the BLM assertion that he was running away is more important than the truth of the path the bullet took?

On the other hand, such a hit is consistent with a guy who was running and then turned towards the cops for some reason.

Or the hit is constant with someone running away from police in one direction and then turning 90 degrees to get away in another direction.

That angle is more like 45 degrees than 90--facing towards the cop. Couple that with the item in his hands and it looks like someone preparing to shoot at the cop.

 

[laughing dog]

Or the hit is constant with someone running away from police in one direction and then turning 90 degrees to get away in another direction.

That angle is more like 45 degrees than 90--facing towards the cop. Couple that with the item in his hands and it looks like someone preparing to shoot at the cop.

Nope. Ninety degrees without looking at the police officer. More importantly, he was not armed. The city officials saw a losing civil case and settled.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

2 suits over fatal Chicago police shootings being settled for about $3M each
Let's meet these dindus whose deaths are worth millions to their families.
First, Darius Pinex.

A clear case of being a dindu, according to this family.

"They just shot him down like he was nothing. He was a human being and he had people that loved him, people that still do love him," said Gloria Johnson, Pinex's grandmother. "He didn't deserve to die the way he did, and I just want to know why they shot my grandson down the way they did."[..]Johnson insisted that her grandson was a good person who "didn't give anyone any problems."

"No problems" except a lengthy criminal history and he also injured a police officer before getting shot.

The officer that was dragged by the car was taken to an area hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Police Shoot Driver After Officer Allegedly Dragged
Clarly, the family should be rewarded for raising such an upstanding young gentleman.
Who is the next posthumous winner of the ghetto lottery? Meet Cedrick/Frederick Chatman.

A 17-year-old boy who ran from South Chicago District officers after being stopped on suspicion of carjacking was fatally shot Monday as he fled the stolen car when officers saw he had a "dark object" in his hand, police said. [...]Less than a minute later, however, a police radio broadcast alerted the officers to the Charger having been stolen not long before in an armed carjacking, Camden said.
The officers realized "That’s the car!" and sped on to where the Charger was stopped in traffic, with vehicles in front and behind, Camden said. The officers got out of the car, one on each side, and told the driver they were police.
The driver raised his left hand but appeared to be reaching for something in the passenger seat, then jumped out and ran, Camden said.

Teen carjacking suspect fatally shot by cops identified
So a carjacker too dumb to drop a dark object (black iPhone case as it turned out, but police had no way of knowing it) gets shot and his family become millionaires?

Who are these nincompoops in the Chicago government working for? Families of thugs or the hard working taxpayers of Chicago? Apparently the former. And is any of this money going to be used as restitution for these thugs' victims?

Congratulations, Derec!

This is your 100th negative thread about a Black person.

As a special prize for all your hard work, you will be receiving in the mail a Confederate flag signed by Robert E Lee's ghost, a collection of naked photos of Leslie Jones complete with original nasty jokes from alt-right, and George Zimmerman's new book, Two-Star Bars, Hangouts, and Places I Like to Park my Truck to Watch for Those Assholes Who Always Get Away Except When I Kill Them.

If you make it to 1000 threads, you will also get a 10% off coupon for a Cracker Barrel breakfast from the mods.

You have a dream.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That angle is more like 45 degrees than 90--facing towards the cop. Couple that with the item in his hands and it looks like someone preparing to shoot at the cop.

Nope. Ninety degrees without looking at the police officer. More importantly, he was not armed. The city officials saw a losing civil case and settled.

90 degrees means the heart is beside the spine. Check your anatomy.

And the cities settle these things because juries like to hand out gobs money when they see a hurt victim and someone with deep pockets.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. Ninety degrees without looking at the police officer. More importantly, he was not armed. The city officials saw a losing civil case and settled.

90 degrees means the heart is beside the spine. Check your anatomy.

Why do you think koans are an effective rebuttal?

And the cities settle these things because juries like to hand out gobs money when they see a hurt victim and someone with deep pockets.

Right, because juries are always swayed by emotion, never the evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

90 degrees means the heart is beside the spine. Check your anatomy.

Why do you think koans are an effective rebuttal?

Did you check human anatomy?

And the cities settle these things because juries like to hand out gobs money when they see a hurt victim and someone with deep pockets.

Right, because juries are always swayed by emotion, never the evidence.

Once again a strawman argument.

It doesn't matter if they are always swayed by emotion rather than the facts. The reality is when you have a seriously hurt "victim" and someone with deep pockets juries tend to award large sums unless there is very clear evidence the guy with deep pockets didn't do it.

I've been on a mock jury and seen it in action. We all agreed with the defense's smoking gun--she was faking it, the actual injury was minor. Yet 5 of 7 still wanted to give her mid 5 figures and one nutcase wanted to give her everything she was asking for.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But Derec, there is one positive to come out of this: It pisses off closet racists like you.

I didn't realize Derec was still in the closet. I thought for sure he'd come out and hold his head high now that Trump was in office and "telling it like it is" was back in style.

BTW My challenge is still out there: find a use of "dindu" that doesn't involve a black person.

Find a white person in the news that would reasonably be described as a dindu.

Find a white person in the news who has EVER been described by ANYONE as a dindu.

Just because it's been used for racist purposes doesn't automatically make it invalid.

Nobody's saying it's invalid. We're saying it's RACIST. A racist term is still racist even if it refers to a very specific thing in a very specific context.

So if a black person tells you that you are an ignorant cracker, you hear that and realize that is a racist term.

If a straight man tells you that you're a faggot because you refused to participate in a gang rape, you hear that and realize that is a sexist term.

If a white man tells you that you're a cuck because you're married to an Asian woman, you hear that and realize that is a racist term.

And if a white man invariably describes those killed by police officers as "dindus," you hear that and realize that is a racist term.

Since none of these terms are invalid, are you comfortable with the fact that you're a cuckold cracker faggot who fucks Asian bitches because you can't find a real white woman to grease your pole? Or perhaps -- just PERHAPS -- would you consider the fact that derogatory language offends people for reasons that have nothing to do with its accuracy?

It describes a behavior...

Just like "cuckold cracker faggot who fucks Asian bitches because you can't find a real white woman to grease your pole" describes an individual. Do you see anything offensive in there?

 

[laughing dog]

Once again a strawman argument.

As usual, you are willing to say anything to defend the killing of a black man by a police officer. You are generalizing from ing unsubstantiated assertions of fact, and your generalization to a specific case, regardless of the actual facts of the case. Then you dismiss relevant criticism as a straw man. Straw man does not mean "I cannot handle or understand your observation".

It doesn't matter if they are always swayed by emotion rather than the facts. The reality is when you have a seriously hurt "victim" and someone with deep pockets juries tend to award large sums unless there is very clear evidence the guy with deep pockets didn't do it.

In this case, it is clear that the "guy with deep pockets" did do it. So your entire argument is, as usual, wrong.

I've been on a mock jury and seen it in action. We all agreed with the defense's smoking gun--she was faking it, the actual injury was minor. Yet 5 of 7 still wanted to give her mid 5 figures and one nutcase wanted to give her everything she was asking for.

For some reason you feel your anecdote about some mock jury is relevant to your straw man argument.

 

[Derec]

As usual, you are willing to say anything to defend the killing of a black man by a police officer. You are generalizing from ing unsubstantiated assertions of fact, and your generalization to a specific case, regardless of the actual facts of the case. Then you dismiss relevant criticism as a straw man. Straw man does not mean "I cannot handle or understand your observation".

What actual facts of the case? What possibly justifies such large payouts in these cases of a man who dragged a police officer with his car during a traffic stop and a carjacker who was holding a dark object mistaken for a gun?

In this case, it is clear that the "guy with deep pockets" did do it. So your entire argument is, as usual, wrong.

No, the shootings were justified.

 

[Derec]

I didn't realize Derec was still in the closet. I thought for sure he'd come out and hold his head high now that Trump was in office and "telling it like it is" was back in style.

Bullshit, as always.

Find a white person in the news who has EVER been described by ANYONE as a dindu.

It has already been done.

Nobody's saying it's invalid. We're saying it's RACIST. A racist term is still racist even if it refers to a very specific thing in a very specific context.

Wrong. The very essence of racism is that you judge based on skin color. If you judge by behavior, it's not racist.
Somehow, we took a wrong turn at Albuquerque and became way oversensitive as to what we label "racist". We need to calibrate the shit out of the racism gauge.

And if a white man invariably describes those killed by police officers as "dindus," you hear that and realize that is a racist term.

Dindu is more like "redneck". It describes a certain attitude and behavior pattern that while predominantly found among people of a certain racial group is hardly identified with the racial group as a whole.
In Bayesian terms, just because p(B|D) and p(W|R) are high, does not mean we are claiming that p(D|B) or p(R|W) are not low.

 

[KeepTalking]

What actual facts of the case? What possibly justifies such large payouts in these cases of a man who dragged a police officer with his car during a traffic stop

If, after dragging the police officer, the car stops and is disabled by running into a telephone pole, and the person driving the car is no longer a threat, then shooting and killing that person is an act of revenge, an execution, and/or a murder.

 

[Derec]

Btw, this nonsense of being overly quick to pay out mucho dinero for thugs who get shot by police is not limited to the Windy City.
LA does not want to get behind in terms of wasting taxpayer money either.

L.A. to pay more than $8 million to settle lawsuits over deadly shootings by LAPD

Especially outrageous here is the payout in the case of of Reginald Doucet.

The third shooting settled by the city Tuesday happened in January 2011, when officers went to Playa Vista to investigate reports of a disturbance and possible theft after a cab driver called police to complain that a customer had walked away without paying his fare. Officers found the customer — Doucet, a 25-year-old athletic trainer and model who had played defensive back at El Camino College and Middle Tennessee State University — on a sidewalk, naked.
Doucet initially cooperated with police and put his hands behind his head as if surrendering, according to a report Beck submitted to the Police Commission. When Officer Aaron Goff tried to handcuff him, however, Doucet balled his hands into fists and broke free from police, the report said.
Two officers chased him to the front door of his apartment building, where Goff told investigators he tried to grab Doucet from behind. Doucet turned and punched the officer, later grabbing the handle of his gun and trying to yank it out of the holster, according to Beck’s report.
Police say Doucet continued to punch both officers. As they continued to struggle with Doucet, Goff drew his gun and fired.
The shooting sparked an outcry from Doucet’s friends and family, who questioned how an unarmed man could have overwhelmed two officers and why police didn’t try to use a Taser to subdue him.
Police commissioners determined Goff was justified in using deadly force. The district attorney’s office declined to charge the officer, saying he acted lawfully to defend himself and his partner.

So a crazed ex-football player and "athletic trainer" starts punching officers and goes for their gun and the city pays his family almost 2 million dollars? Un-fucking-believable!

 

[Derec]

If, after dragging the police officer, the car stops and is disabled by running into a telephone pole, and the person driving the car is no longer a threat, then shooting and killing that person is an act of revenge, an execution, and/or a murder.

You do know cars can go both backward and forward?

According to police, once the vehicle was stopped, officers ordered Pinex and a passenger out of the car. The passenger opened his door and Pinex put the car in reverse striking and dragging an officer.
Pinex then put the car into drive in an attempt to strike another officer, but hit a light pole instead, police said. The officer said he feared for his life, fired his weapon and shot Pinex, who later died.

Nothing here about the vehicle getting disabled.
Police Shoot Driver After Officer Allegedly Dragged

And Pinex also had a gun and has shown himself willing to use deadly force against police. Note that nobody was charged in the shooting and the only questionable thing was the justification for the stop. Does that really justify paying his family several million dollars when it was not the stop that caused him to get shot but his violent behavior during the stop?

Note that being dragged by a car can definitely be deadly.

 

[Bronzeage]

Last week, the City Government of New Orleans made a few more millionaires out of the survivors and families of the murdered, who were killed or wounded during the days of Hurricane Katrina. The pay out to individuals was not released, but the total settlement was $13.3 million.

One of the incidents was a police shooting on the Danziger Bridge. New Orleans Police opened fire on a group of unarmed pedestrians, killing two and wounding six. This was followed by a cover up, in which police falsified repoorts and witness statements. The cover up described a scenario in which police responded to a report of an officer down and were met by four armed civilians who fired at them. I remember the initial news reports at the time, and thought the story seemed very strange, even for New Orleans. If the story had been true, it would have been a heroic tale, but that was its undoing.

The heroism attracted too much attention and there were too many survivors for the story to remain intact. Once the story had become part of the official record, it fell apart when examined.

The officers involved in the actual shooting were given harsh sentences, which were later greatly reduced.

 

[Derec]

Last week, the City Government of New Orleans made a few more millionaires out of the survivors and families of the murdered, who were killed or wounded during the days of Hurricane Katrina. The pay out to individuals was not released, but the total settlement was $13.3 million.

That at least has the distinction of being based on actual unjustified shootings and not police justifiably shooting thugs. Not really the same as Chicago and LA making it rain like they were in a strip club.

 

[KeepTalking]

If, after dragging the police officer, the car stops and is disabled by running into a telephone pole, and the person driving the car is no longer a threat, then shooting and killing that person is an act of revenge, an execution, and/or a murder.

You do know cars can reverse?

Not if the car is disabled. I am not saying the car was disabled, as I don't know if that was the case, but the police certainly know, and that could be one reason they settled.

And Pinex also had a gun and has shown himself willing to use deadly force against police.

The gun was found under his seat. It isn't likely that Pinex placed it there after being shot to death, so it is likely that the police who shot him were unaware that he had a gun. So, it is possible that there was no reason for them to consider him a threat, and the city settled as a result.

Note that nobody was charged in the shooting and the only questionable thing was the justification for the stop. Does that really justify paying his family several million dollars when it was not the stop that caused him to get shot but his violent behavior during the stop?

I don't know if your characterization is accurate. I do know that neither you nor I have access to the information the city used when determining whether or not to settle the case.

Note that being dragged by a car can definitely be deadly.

Certainly, and if Pinex were in the process of dragging a police officer when he was shot, that would be justified. That was not the case here, the officer was no longer being dragged, the vehicle had already stopped after having hit a light pole, and was possibly disabled, when Pinex was shot dead.