To not waste everyones time.
-
Features
One of the worst verdicts in a civil suit ever
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
How dare someone being afraid of the police?
ruby sparks
Contributor
To not waste everyones time.
I'm getting the vague feeling you don't agree fully with what I said......
That's ok. You can say that straight out. Don't be shy.
Derec
Contributor
Are you saying that she intentionally sought confrontation with police (by refusing to register her car for example) because she was afraid of police? Logically, if you are afraid of something, you would seek to minimize interactions, not maximize them. If somebody is going around poking dogs with a stick, would you conclude they did it because they were afraid of dogs?
Derec
Contributor
The jury. And they can just make it up as they go along. In this case they were pretty close to the demand of the shysters, which was $42 million.
I do not think they should get anything because Gaines caused the entire incident herself.
I don't know that she was ever diagnosed with a mental illness, but she did have nutty beliefs. Here is her traffic stop that precipitated the FTA warrant when she ignored her ticket.
laughing dog
Contributor
Exactly.
Looks like to this outsider that the family of Ms Gaines either had better lawyers or a better case than the city of Baltimore.
The real question is whether this will stand up on appeal or whether there will be a settlement.
I have no problem believing she decided to shoot it out. These sovereign citizen types are nuts and are prone to getting violent when it becomes apparent they can't bullshit their way out of the situation and are going to go to jail for what they've done.
Meanwhile, this gives us a clear indication of why cities pay millions when the dead person was clearly in the wrong--juries sometimes do stupid things like this.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,728
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Such deaths are not inevitable.
Here is a recent incident that ended without any shots fired, despite the person who was eventually arrested threatening to kill someone and being heavily armed. The incident was resolved without shots fired perhaps because of the presence and abilities of a skilled negotiator:
Please note that there is a bit of a firewall but it's pretty easy to get around by selecting 'none of the above' to whatever question you are expected to answer.
http://lacrossetribune.com/jacksonc...cle_787d5d6e-6021-5a72-b250-bea1326e73fc.html
On a more personal note, several years ago, a frail and elderly family member was held hostage by an armed robber in her home. It's a long story but her spouse, who was also taken hostage was forced by the other armed robber to leave the home and to get cash from an ATM. The husband was able avoid retrieving cash and more importantly, was able to alert the police to the situation. Numerous SWAT teams descended on the neighborhood and the home and after some hours, they were able to convince the armed robber to come out, and no one was harmed. No shots were fired.
The news is full of stories of such successful negotiated outcomes with an armed suspect in a home, sometimes with hostages.
Perhaps the jury is well informed enough to realize that even when armed, suspects with much more serious intentions than avoiding tickets can be negotiated with to agree to lay down their arms, release hostages and surrender to the police, with zero shots fired. Perhaps their intentions were to provide adequate care for a 5 year old who has lost his mother and also been shot in this unnecessary shooting. FWIW, I doubt that I would have considered such a settlement to be nearly adequate if my mother had been shot in our home by the police. But then, I loved my mother.
Perhaps the jury's verdict and award was designed to send a message: train officers to better avoid the use of deadly force! Certainly that would have been cheaper and no doubt everyone would have been much happier.
Who is surprised?
You have repeatedly shown that you have no problem believing any bullshit as long as it confirms your twisted prejudices.
barbos
Contributor
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Wow, what a dumb thing to say. As a husband and father, if my wife were killed I'd be emotional. In fact, I'd want revenge. As a man, my blood would boil and I would have to keep my testosterone-fueled rage at bay.
Derec said:
Hahaha. I don't have any feigned or non-feigned outrage over your sexist post. Your post is inconsequential, based on stereotypes, superficial, and not substantive.
Opoponax
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,384
- Location
- California Central Coast
- Basic Beliefs
- Apathetic Atheist
Every time I read something like this, I first think of the McDonald's case where the elderly lady was burned by coffee and awarded a fairly large sum.
Conservatives blew that up like it was the downfall of western civilization. But if one took time to learn even the basic facts, it turns out the reward probably wasn't sufficient.
In this case, with an award this size, the cops must've done something seriously wrong. Commenting on without substantive knowledge regarding the outcome of a case is fine, as long as one understands they're speaking from a very ignorant position.
One small example: here in California, we have what's called a 998 offer. It's purpose is to encourage a settlement by providing a strong financial disincentive to a party, whether it be a Plaintiff or a Defendant, who fails to achieve a better result at trial than that party could have achieved by accepting the other party's settlement offer. For example:
The plaintiff loses the right to recover court costs incurred after the 998 offer was made, and must also pay Defendant’s post-offer costs. These preoffer costs may include attorneys’ fees.
If a defendant fails to accept a 998 offer and the plaintiff then obtains a “more favorable judgment or award,” the court has discretion to order Defendant to pay reasonable post-offer expert witness fees incurred by Plaintiff in connection with trial or arbitration.
This by itself can amount to a shitload of money. So one thing that may have contributed to the amount of the lawsuit was that the plaintiff's attorney offered the City X amount and City turned it down, and now they're paying the price for that. Good luck finding that in a newspaper article.
The point is that without knowing all the details, the procedural law, the state substantive law, precedent for such cases, the facts, the testimony, etc., it's really hard to comment with any accuracy. I don't know if this is true, but say for example, the City provides 2 or 3x damages in wrongful death actions by city officials. There may be some kind of a statute in place like that. There may not be though. Or maybe there's a statute that provides something along the lines of more strict liability in such cases. Maybe not though.
But the point stands. You have to know that you don't know.
Conservatives blew that up like it was the downfall of western civilization. But if one took time to learn even the basic facts, it turns out the reward probably wasn't sufficient.
In this case, with an award this size, the cops must've done something seriously wrong. Commenting on without substantive knowledge regarding the outcome of a case is fine, as long as one understands they're speaking from a very ignorant position.
One small example: here in California, we have what's called a 998 offer. It's purpose is to encourage a settlement by providing a strong financial disincentive to a party, whether it be a Plaintiff or a Defendant, who fails to achieve a better result at trial than that party could have achieved by accepting the other party's settlement offer. For example:
The plaintiff loses the right to recover court costs incurred after the 998 offer was made, and must also pay Defendant’s post-offer costs. These preoffer costs may include attorneys’ fees.
If a defendant fails to accept a 998 offer and the plaintiff then obtains a “more favorable judgment or award,” the court has discretion to order Defendant to pay reasonable post-offer expert witness fees incurred by Plaintiff in connection with trial or arbitration.
This by itself can amount to a shitload of money. So one thing that may have contributed to the amount of the lawsuit was that the plaintiff's attorney offered the City X amount and City turned it down, and now they're paying the price for that. Good luck finding that in a newspaper article.
The point is that without knowing all the details, the procedural law, the state substantive law, precedent for such cases, the facts, the testimony, etc., it's really hard to comment with any accuracy. I don't know if this is true, but say for example, the City provides 2 or 3x damages in wrongful death actions by city officials. There may be some kind of a statute in place like that. There may not be though. Or maybe there's a statute that provides something along the lines of more strict liability in such cases. Maybe not though.
But the point stands. You have to know that you don't know.
barbos
Contributor
You have not told us what exactly police did was wrong. We know that civil cases often are nothing but extortion, that's a fact.
untermensche
Contributor
The police killed a crazy person instead of bringing them to a hospital.
You pretend as if civil cases are so easy to win because a tiny few have been decided in a manner you disagree with.
You live in a fantasy world.
ruby sparks
Contributor
That seems to have set off my contradiction-detector.
barbos
Contributor
untermensche
Contributor
You didn't fix anything.
You just described the crazy thing this crazy person did.
You think being crazy gives the police the right to kill you.
That's crazy.
I’m thinkig of the BUndy Gang. And how they pointed guns at police in Nevada, and then in Oregon had a standoff with police patience of, what was it, weeks? What was different about those people? How come they got so much patience?
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/hw_bundy_militia_sniper_42-57566985_1280x720.jpg
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/hw_bundy_militia_sniper_42-57566985_1280x720.jpg
southernhybrid
Contributor
The NYTimes piece about this said that the police shot her in the back and then shot her three more times. Why was that? The Baltimore Police Department is one of the most corrupt in the country, or didn't you bother to read the thread I posted a week or so ago about this? The child was also shot by the police. Are the police so cowardly and stupid that they didn't bother to make sure the child was safe before they shot at his mother? Were they wearing protective vests? Did they bother to call in someone who has experience in dealing with a very emotionally charged person, who exhibits signs of a mental illness?
And let me tell you something else Derec. Men are just as or even more emotional than women. Why else do you think that 90% of all violent crimes are committed by men? Men easily become angry and enraged. I've seen it so many times. Are all men like that? Of course not, but ask yourself why you become so emotional when you read about things like this! Ask yourself why you have a habit of stereotyping women!
And, your comment that some of the jury must have been mothers, can be taken as an insult to fathers. Don't you think that a father might be very sympathetic towards a child that watched the police kill his mother? Do you think a father wouldn't be emotionally impacted by a young child being accidentally shot during this standoff? Apparently, the women on the jury took all of these things into consideration. I imagine there were a lot more details that weren't covered in the news too. I would hope that an all male jury would come to a similar conclusion.
Now you want to end the jury system? I agree that it's not perfect but it's better than having an appointed or elected judge having the power to make decisions involving crimes and civil rights violations.
You know what else Derec, the city is already appealing the verdict, so at this point, we don't even know if it will stand. Yet, you've already gotten yourself so worked up that you felt the need to start another thread supporting the police when they shoot a civilian. You even felt the need to use hyperbole by describing it as "one of the worst verdicts". Why is it that you don't start discussions about the many times that people, especially minorities, have their civil rights violated and the government doesn't do a thing? Hopefully, if this verdict stands, the city of Baltimore will do something about their poorly trained, ineffective police department.
And let me tell you something else Derec. Men are just as or even more emotional than women. Why else do you think that 90% of all violent crimes are committed by men? Men easily become angry and enraged. I've seen it so many times. Are all men like that? Of course not, but ask yourself why you become so emotional when you read about things like this! Ask yourself why you have a habit of stereotyping women!
And, your comment that some of the jury must have been mothers, can be taken as an insult to fathers. Don't you think that a father might be very sympathetic towards a child that watched the police kill his mother? Do you think a father wouldn't be emotionally impacted by a young child being accidentally shot during this standoff? Apparently, the women on the jury took all of these things into consideration. I imagine there were a lot more details that weren't covered in the news too. I would hope that an all male jury would come to a similar conclusion.
Now you want to end the jury system? I agree that it's not perfect but it's better than having an appointed or elected judge having the power to make decisions involving crimes and civil rights violations.
You know what else Derec, the city is already appealing the verdict, so at this point, we don't even know if it will stand. Yet, you've already gotten yourself so worked up that you felt the need to start another thread supporting the police when they shoot a civilian. You even felt the need to use hyperbole by describing it as "one of the worst verdicts". Why is it that you don't start discussions about the many times that people, especially minorities, have their civil rights violated and the government doesn't do a thing? Hopefully, if this verdict stands, the city of Baltimore will do something about their poorly trained, ineffective police department.
laughing dog
Contributor
The jury came back with its verdict in less than 3 hours. Lawyers tell me that such quick verdicts almost always indicate that the winning side has an excellent case and the losing side has a terrible case.