Closing your garage door is now an executable offense in America

[Axulus]

That links agrees the garage door was closing and the police fired through the closing garage door. Why oh why did not you focus on that closing door? Hmmm.

But according to the OP article

When officers knocked on his front door, Hill opened the garage door, saw the police, and began closing it again. At that point one of the deputies opened fire through the door, striking him twice in the body and once in the head. Police later found an unloaded gun in his back pocket, and determined his BAC had been nearly five times over the legal limit.

So, if that is true, then the claims of the police are pretty hard to believe.

And yet the jury who sat through many hours of trial did not have a hard time believing it. What evidence do you have that they did not receive (or properly consider) that weights your internet opinion above that of the jury's?

 

[bleubird]

I live in a state with a lot of guns and a big alcohol problem.We do not see this kind of thing a lot.Wonder what the difference is? Maybe we have better police?

I should have not.

 

[bleubird]

It's almost certainly a deliberate insult. The jury didn't like the case.

- - - Updated - - -

He had a gun on his own property. The police officer who shot him said he had the gun out but it may have been found in his pocket. Either way, it was his property, his garage. And he went to close the garage door after having opened it. I posted about this in the black privilege thread because we have people who will say it was black privilege for the family to receive $4 while not looking at the event holistically.

Gun plus BAC approaching .4. Doesn't matter if it's your own property, that's still not legal.

Really?What law would that be? I call more BS.

 

[bilby]

It's almost certainly a deliberate insult. The jury didn't like the case.

- - - Updated - - -

He had a gun on his own property. The police officer who shot him said he had the gun out but it may have been found in his pocket. Either way, it was his property, his garage. And he went to close the garage door after having opened it. I posted about this in the black privilege thread because we have people who will say it was black privilege for the family to receive $4 while not looking at the event holistically.

Gun plus BAC approaching .4. Doesn't matter if it's your own property, that's still not legal.

Really? Under what law? It's not unlawful to be drunk in your own home in Florida, is it? It's not unlawful to be in possession of a gun in your own home in Florida, is it? Is there a specific Florida or Federal statute that prohibits handling your own gun on your own property while intoxicated? If so, please provide a link.

 

[RavenSky]

This may better explain the result of the trial than any demagogue effort to inflame.



link

It does not explain $4.

Nor the 99% responsibility.

Nor how being drunk inside of one's own house is a contributing factor to being shot to death. This "defense" is meant to be used when people sue manufacturers or businesses for negligence when its really their own stupid drunk ass that caused then to slip & fall.

Being drunk and closing his garage door did not contribute to a cop shooting him.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The police didn't know he was drinking. They were there for a noise complaint.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The police were there, responding to a noise complaint, to request of someone to keep noise down. The BAC was measured at autopsy, not any kind of knowledge by police at the time. Also irrelevant is the police record. Again, noise complaint. My nephew had one of those once because his band is loud. No one got shot.

 

[Axulus]

Nor the 99% responsibility.

Nor how being drunk inside of one's own house is a contributing factor to being shot to death. This "defense" is meant to be used when people sue manufacturers or businesses for negligence when its really their own stupid drunk ass that caused then to slip & fall.

Being drunk and closing his garage door did not contribute to a cop shooting him.

Closing the garage door on the police after being told to drop his weapon (and also not dropping it) is 99% of the reason he was shot according to the jury. The jury believed it was only 1% the fault of the cop. In other words, the cops actions were essentially 1% legally negligent given what happened per the jury.

 

[Axulus]

The police were there, responding to a noise complaint, to request of someone to keep noise down. The BAC was measured at autopsy, not any kind of knowledge by police at the time. Also irrelevant is the police record. Again, noise complaint. My nephew had one of those once because his band is loud. No one got shot.

Yep, the BAC is irrelevant (and any alleged rap sheet he had, something that seems made up as far as I can tell). Whether he refuses to drop the weapon and closes the garage door drunk or sober is not relevant in the determination of excessive force and/or negligence on the part of police.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Nor the 99% responsibility.

Nor how being drunk inside of one's own house is a contributing factor to being shot to death. This "defense" is meant to be used when people sue manufacturers or businesses for negligence when its really their own stupid drunk ass that caused then to slip & fall.

Being drunk and closing his garage door did not contribute to a cop shooting him.

Closing the garage door on the police after being told to drop his weapon (and also not dropping it) is 99% of the reason he was shot according to the jury.

1. The family says that is a false claim. The gun was found in his pocket after being shot in the head dead. How do you explain that?
2. Actually, the jury awarded each family member $1 for all the damages due to a black life lost. They then determined, incorrectly it looks like, the dead guy was 99% at fault, so they awarded 1% of the emotional and material damage to the family. So they gave them 4 cents.

Since we are being told that privilege is relative and so many families got $0, it means this is black privilege.

 

[Axulus]

1. The family says that is a false claim. The gun was found in his pocket after being shot in the head dead. How do you explain that?

It's a good question. Something I'm sure was covered extensively during the trial. I'd need to hear the arguments from both sides plus the police testimony to give a justifiable response to that. At the end of the day, the jury believed the explanation and argument of the defendant more than the plaintiff for unrevealed reasons.

2. Actually, the jury awarded each family member $1 for all the damages due to a black life lost. They then determined, incorrectly it looks like, the dead guy was 99% at fault, so they awarded 1% of the emotional and material damage to the family. So they gave them 4 cents.

The dollar amount really makes no sense to me other than cruelety (or perhaps confusion). Even if they believed the victim was only 1% at fault, it doesn't make any sense to make the dollar value on the suffering and funeral so low. Perhaps the jury was tainted, something to be determined in an appeal.

Since we are being told that privilege is relative and so many families got $0, it means this is black privilege.

$4 is more an insult and rubbing salt in the wound than anything else, obviously not privilege. It is not the role of the jury to rebuke the plaintiff like that (if that indeed was their intent).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's a good question. Something I'm sure was covered extensively during the trial. I'd need to hear the arguments from both sides plus the police testimony to give a justifiable response to that. At the end of the day, the jury believed the explanation and argument of the defendant more than the plaintiff for unrevealed reasons.

Ah, faith in the jury system when Reason says otherwise.

The dollar amount really makes no sense to me other than cruelety (or perhaps confusion). Even if they believed the victim was only 1% at fault, it doesn't make any sense to make the dollar value on the suffering and funeral so low. Perhaps the jury was tainted, something to be determined in an appeal.

...and here for this second thing, you actually choose to abandon faith or at least be skeptical based on how you should be--based on evidence and reason. Yet, the first instance you were not.

When do you get to choose to use Faith and when Reason?

Moreover, the same explanation of a "tainted jury" would explain both but you're only arguing for it in the second instance, not the first. What principle allows you to do that?

$4 is more an insult and rubbing salt in the wound, obviously not privilege.

Regardless, it is greater than $0, so by previous arguments that privilege is relative, it is privilege. Now, I disagree, but my disagreement is irrelevant to the point I was making that it is compatible with how someone else describes privilege.

 

[Trausti]

The $1 amount wasn't meant to be cruelty. The jury was given the option of awarding nominal damages; which usually means $1. An example is if someone trespasses onto your land. Your rights were violated, but what harm came to you. In this instance, it appears the jury awarded a nominal amount because they felt the decedent's alcoholic state was the proximate cause of his death.

 

[Axulus]

Ah, faith in the jury system when Reason says otherwise.

What was the testimony given by the police witnesses and the arguments provided by their attorney and why do you disagree with it?

...and here for this second thing, you actually choose to abandon faith or at least be skeptical based on how you should be--based on evidence and reason. Yet, the first instance you were not.

When do you get to choose to use Faith and when Reason?

I was not at the trial and have not read any trial transcripts (and I'm guessing that neither have you), so right there the jury is in a much better position to make an accurate and more informed judgment than either you or me.

Moreover, the same explanation of a "tainted jury" would explain both but you're only arguing for it in the second instance, not the first. What principle allows you to do that?

An especially weak case by the plaintiff also explains both. I need more information to determine which it was. A judge will decide on appeal whether it warrants a retrial.

 

[Axulus]

The $1 amount wasn't meant to be cruelty. The jury was given the option of awarding nominal damages; which usually means $1. An example is if someone trespasses onto your land. Your rights were violated, but what harm came to you. In this instance, it appears the jury awarded a nominal amount because they felt the decedent's alcoholic state was the proximate cause of his death.

The impaired state shouldn't have anything to do with the dollar value of the emotional harm on the children as a result of the death of their father, unless you are trying to argue that the kids suffered less (essentially zero) from the death because their dad was drunk at the time?

The impaired state is relevant in adjusting the final dollar amount awarded to the family, not in putting a dollar amount on the funeral cost and suffering.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I was not at the trial and have not read any trial transcripts (and I'm guessing that neither have you), ...

https://www.scribd.com/document/380742956/Gregory-Hill-Jr-verdict#download&from_embed

They said right in the document that the emotional and material damage to each child was worth $1 and funeral expenses $1 which is pretty much what I wrote, right? So, their 1% liability x the $1 (x3 children) + 1% liability x $1 (funeral) = 4 cents. Their estimates of damages make no sense, just cents.

 

[Axulus]

I was not at the trial and have not read any trial transcripts (and I'm guessing that neither have you), ...

https://www.scribd.com/document/380742956/Gregory-Hill-Jr-verdict#download&from_embed

They said right in the document that the emotional and material damage to each child was worth $1 and funeral expenses $1 which is pretty much what I wrote, right? So, their 1% liability x the $1 (x3 children) + 1% liability x $1 (funeral) = 4 cents. Their estimates of damages make no sense, just cents.

But that does not imply the plaintiff has a good case, that the cops were at fault (more than 50%), and that you or I are in a better position to make a more informed judgment about the legal responsibility of the cop compared to the 6 people on the jury.

At best, a case could be made that the jury was unfairly biased and that a retrial is therefore warranted. Something we don't know for sure one way or another either without getting an explanation from the jury. My layman's perspective is that the bizzare damages are helpful in arguing for a retrial and should certainly be considered in an appeal. However, a retrial being granted says nothing one way or another about the merits of the plaintiff's case, just that they didn't get a fair shake the first go around.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I was not at the trial and have not read any trial transcripts (and I'm guessing that neither have you), ...

https://www.scribd.com/document/380742956/Gregory-Hill-Jr-verdict#download&from_embed

They said right in the document that the emotional and material damage to each child was worth $1 and funeral expenses $1 which is pretty much what I wrote, right? So, their 1% liability x the $1 (x3 children) + 1% liability x $1 (funeral) = 4 cents. Their estimates of damages make no sense, just cents.

But that does not imply the plaintiff has a good case, that the cops were at fault (more than 50%), and that you or I are in a better position to make a more informed judgment about the legal responsibility of the cop compared to the 6 people on the jury.

At best, a case could be made that the jury was unfairly biased and that a retrial is therefore warranted. Something we don't know for sure one way or another either without getting an explanation from the jury. My layman's perspective is that the bizzare damages are helpful in arguing for a retrial. However, a retrial being granted says nothing one way or another about the merits of the plaintiff's case.

No, the thing that says something REGARDLESS of merits of the case is that an unloaded gun was found in his pocket and that he was shot in the head, dead. It is completely UNREASONABLE to conclude that his gun was out and he pretended it wasn't after being shot in the head by then putting it in his pocket. It is also unreasonable to say that he would have done that within a few milliseconds or whatever after being shot in the heart or wherever but before being shot in the head. What on Earth for? Was he thinking of some grand conspiracy within a millisecond so that his family could sue the police and somehow got extra adrenaline and PRAYERS so he could use unearthly means to put it in his pocket. All the while he telepathically communicated with his daughter eyewitness across the street to lie that he didn't have a gun out. Come on. Seriously?

The afternoon that Hill died, St. Lucie County Deputies Newman and Edward Lopez responded to a noise complaint at Hill's home. Hill lived across the street from an elementary school, and school was still letting out when Newman and Lopez arrived. The deputies heard loud music coming from Hill's garage and knocked on the garage door. When no one responded, Newman knocked on the front door. He heard the music get louder and turned to see the garage door opening. Hill stood facing out of the garage with his left hand on the door and his right hand down. Newman drew his gun, and as the garage door started to go down, fired four times toward Hill, tracking upward. A SWAT team arrived, and when it went inside the garage, it confirmed that Hill was dead and found a gun in his back pocket. He had been shot three times: twice in the abdomen and once in the head. Bryant's expert concluded that after sustaining the head wound, Hill would have been incapable of any motor function.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1887067.html

 

[Derec]

The police were there, responding to a noise complaint, to request of someone to keep noise down. The BAC was measured at autopsy, not any kind of knowledge by police at the time. Also irrelevant is the police record. Again, noise complaint. My nephew had one of those once because his band is loud. No one got shot.

Yep, the BAC is irrelevant (and any alleged rap sheet he had, something that seems made up as far as I can tell). Whether he refuses to drop the weapon and closes the garage door drunk or sober is not relevant in the determination of excessive force and/or negligence on the part of police.

Well, he was on probation for cocaine possession and also had other misdemeanors.

Investigators identified his weapon as a 9mm handgun, which was later found to be unloaded. Hill was on probation for cocaine possession, according to the Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff’s Deputy Bryan Beaty, public information officer, said via email that agency policy indicates they don’t comment on active lawsuits.

Phillips said Hill had misdemeanor convictions and he didn’t believe Hill was prohibited from having a weapon. Hill’s mother, Viola Bryant, 59, said it was painful to be here, saying her son loved his family. She said Hill’s three children are ages 5, 8 and 11.

Family files lawsuit 2 years after Fort Pierce man killed by St. Lucie County deputy

So, definitely not made up. However, his lawyer is wrong, according to Florida statutes. Hill being on probation would have meant that he is prohibited from possessing a firearm. He also violated probation by drinking alcohol in excess. That's probably why he was so quick to close the door as soon as he saw the fuzz - he didn't want to go back in.

2. If the offense was a controlled substance violation and the period of probation immediately follows a period of incarceration in the state correctional system, the conditions must include a requirement that the offender submit to random substance abuse testing intermittently throughout the term of supervision, upon the direction of the probation officer.
(m) Be prohibited from possessing, carrying, or owning any:
1. Firearm.
2. Weapon without first procuring the consent of the probation officer.
 Be prohibited from using intoxicants to excess or possessing any drugs or narcotics unless prescribed by a physician, an advanced practice registered nurse, or a physician assistant. The probationer or community controllee may not knowingly visit places where intoxicants, drugs, or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed, or used.

Does Phillips not know how to read a law book? Where did he get his degree anyway? University of American Samoa? Scratch that, I am being uncharitable to Jimmy McGill's alma mater ...

P.S.: 0.40% BAC? He must have been a heavy duty alcoholic if he was still upright.

 

[laughing dog]

Due to her own actions.

No, she did not shoot her son. S

They tried for six hours. In any case, the shooting is on her.

No, it is not. And if they tried for 6 hours, then it is not obvious she was still threatening them.

And even if county had liability, $37 million is not based on any real damages.

Your factual basis for this claim is....?

It was definitely a wrongful verdict.

That is your opinion, it is not a fact.

And it is an example of privilege because the whole case was based on race from the beginning to end.

Your basis for this is....?