What is the life of a loved one worth?
I would imagine it is invaluable to his loved ones. That does not mean the city of Chicago needs to make them millionaires just because their son got himself shot by the police during commission of a violent felony.
Seems like you have a contradiction there: jusfitied damage awards that do not allow the family to profit.
Not at all. Profit would be any payouts to the family over and beyond actual damages.
What about them? They can go after his estate.
If Cedrick's estate gets any significant money I do hope all of it eventually goes to Cedrick's victims, not to his family. Of course, since he was killed during the commission of a violent felony I do not think there isn't any "wrongful death" case here anyway.
Fortunately, the rest of rational humanity in the USA disagrees.
You mean the irrational humanity? Tort law is poor way to handle things beyond actual damages due mostly to low burden of proof and ability of jurors to pull punitive damage amounts out of their asses.
That's how we get rank nonsense like the hot coffee verdict.
No it is not. Tort system is supposed to
compensate for damages, not make people rich. It is also not meant to punish anybody, that's what criminal justice system is for.
The lawyer lobby wrote these punitive damage laws not to benefit the society at large but to benefit themselves. When lawyers get 35-40% of any judgment is behooves them to lobby for a system that encourages ridiculously high judgments, even when actual damages are a couple of percent of the final judgment at the most.
So your insistence of "presumption of innocence" is a charade.
As usual you are completely wrong. The cases are hardly comparable.
There is no conviction, so you are wrong.
You can't convict a dead perp. That doesn't make him any less of a perp.
Yes they did. They could have followed him and tried to capture him alive.
And he could have not ran.
Using your reasoning, the police could shot anyone on the claim they had no way of knowing the victim was unarmed.
They received a carjacking call. The perp flees the stolen vehicle. They see a black object in his hand. Thus they acted on reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. The decision to fire is made in a very short time under stressful and quickly evolving conditions. It is not fruitful to Monday morning quarterback it.
No it doesn't. The finding of wrongdoing by the police and the subsequent judgment by the court entitles the family to the payment.
Hopefully it doesn't come to that, although under the perverse US tort system it is a possibility. It is also a possibility that the city, like NYC and Baltimore, make a payment without any judgment is rendered but I hope Rahm has more brains and spine than that.
Depending on the circumstances, I think my dad (my mother passed away a bit ago) might deserve millions.
Why the hell would he? Was he damaged by the death of your thug brother to the tune of millions?
Certainly more than the police department or municipality that was enabling such wrongdoing.
Again, if punishment needs to be meted out for wrongdoing there is the criminal justice system. There are also disciplinary measures available. Tort should be left for actual torts.
Ignoring your hypocrisy over the presumption of innocence,
No hypocrisy.
1) that is not a capital offense, and
2) it is not the responsibility of the police to execute convicted criminals, let alone, alleged ones.
So are you saying that police are never justified in using deadly force? Because that's the only way these two points are even coherent.
