That's the proximate cause. The ultimate cause is their son stealing cars or evading arrest for a federal felony arrest.
It is in evidence to anybody with eyes to see. If you don't believe me, google the facts. Families of perps killed by police usually sue, and often collect millions even when the shooting is deemed justified. For example the family of the woman who threatened police with a shotgun and whose shooting was deemed justified still won 37 million by an idiot jury. Now, the county is appealing, and I hope the verdict is reversed and the family is not only not given anything but slapped with county's attorney's fees as well. It takes a special kind of greed to seek tens of millions of dollars for the death of somebody who was threatening police with a firearm!
No, it does not. But again you are being too literal-minded. The meaning of "ghetto" in this context is a particular culture, not a part of town.
If families of violent white criminals were to sue for millions, same criticism would apply. There is no bigotry here.
Nothing bigoted about the term "thug"
The family denied D' was in a gang. I can't find it now, but early on people were denying that Jimmy A. really committed the robbery.
It's what happens with cases like this. Families see dollar signs and there are plenty of lawyers willing to take them on. Care to bet that they will file a lawsuit soon?
You are hallucinating.
Nothing racist here. If the perps had been white, it would be just as wrong for their families to seek to profit from their misadventures.
The guy in stolen car is way way way more likely to run over people than the guy in his own car driving to work.
No, the ultimate cause would be the events in the officer's life that induced him to shoot.
There is no perversion of anything. The wrongful taking of a life deprives the family of one of their members. Until you can come up with a method of restoring life, money is the only recompense. Moreover, such awards send a signal and should have a deterring effect on such wrongful acts.
And I guess in the land of Alcoholic Actuary insurance is free. Must be a nice place.
Why do you assume they don't?
You appear to confuse your beliefs with fact. Do you have statistics showing what proportion of the families of police shooting victims sue and what proportion are awarded compensation? Without disinterested statistics, your biased summary of an incident are only convincing of your bias, not of the facts.
What is both unsurprising and hilarious is that your explanation proves my point about bigotry.
And yet, you never seem to find those cases. Hmmm.
The NAACP is not a family.
Then there is a mass hallucination. The fact that you reproduce examples only of black families suing over the alleged wrongful death of a black family member when there are examples of white families doing the same thing (https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article224528845.html is a recent example) is evidence suggesting bigotry. Add in your penchant for bigoted descriptions, and it is obvious to anyone who can see.
That is because police chases usually end up with cars driving at high speeds. If no one is chasing the stolen car, then the high speed chase does not occur. Hence your point is moot.
That event would be some punk stealing his car.
Tort is meant to compensate people for damages. Not to make some people, and their lawyers, millionaires.
True. But that's what the criminal justice system is meant for. Tort system is meant for damages.
Since money will not bring their family member, what's the point of throwing ridiculous amounts of money at these families?
Again, if you want deterrence, try the police officer in question for a crime. I would have no problem with this cop getting charged with manslaughter if it turns out the shooting was unjustified.
That's my point. Insurance companies are businesses, and the premiums must cover any payouts plus operating costs plus profits. The more is paid out, the higher premiums must be, and thus costs to the taxpayer. What needs to happen is that laws need to be changed to limit the amount juries can award for unjustified killings to some reasonable level when the triggering event was a felony committed by the dead guy, and shield cities and counties from liability entirely when the shooting is justified. Because too many times cities pay even for justified shootings.
Because you can't declare larceny income. Duh.
There have been more than enough cases of even justified shootings where families got settlements or judgments in the millions. Korryn Gaines is probably the most egregious example, but there are others.
The only thing it proves is that you have no idea what bigotry is.
Maybe it has to do with culture, maybe with the news media. I only become aware of cases when they either make national news, or if they happen in my neck of the woods like D' and Jimmy A.
No, they are activists. Always advocating for the perps.
No one forced the officer to shot. He is responsible for his actions. To quote a poster here, you are wrong as usual.
Logic fail. From your premise, if the damages are in the millions, then a tort is meant to compensate them in the millions.
You are misinformed, as usual.
To compensate them for the damages they endure. Really, this is not hard to understand.
The deterrence is not only for the individual, but for the police force so that they change their training, tactics and expectations. Really, this is not hard to understand.
The problem is that the "justification" is usually made by the police or the DA (who has a conflict of interest). If a disinterested jury of peers finds otherwise, then the problem is with you, not the award. In at least one of the examples you cite, no officer's life was put at risk, let alone undue risk, by a fleeing car thief. In the other example, there is no lawsuit at this time, nor is there any actual evidence that any police office faced an undue risk. Now, more information may come out. But at this time, there is no lawsuit, simply demands for more information. Yet here you are, jumping on one of your bandwagons.
You are using biased reasoning. We don't know how many of these instances result in lawsuits, and we don't know how many of these cases that do result in lawsuits result in awards, and we don't know the distribution of awards in the cases that result in awards.
To quote a poster in this forum - as usual, you are wrong.
Those are very unconvincing excuses.
Now you are shifting the goalposts with facts not in evidence.
You have no idea whether this case is rare compared to the OP case (and there is only one, since no lawsuit has been filed in the other). You are literally making stuff up to fit your bigoted view of this issue.
As usual, you are wrong since "we" do not both know that. I have never dismissed the statistic. i have pointed out that it may be irrelevant to a particular discussion.
No one forced D' to steal the car. He should be responsible for his actions that led to his death.
It is not logic fail. Yes, of course, if the damages are in the millions, then the tort should reflect that. But, to quote Spartan reply to Phillip the Macedonian, "IF". The problem with these lawsuits, settlements and judgments is that they have no relationship to any actual damages.
Indeed, it is not. But they do not have 5 million in damages. Not even 500,000. These numbers are freely invented and do not reflect any real damages.
Yes, I know. Very easy thinking. So easy, it oversimplifies. If cities have to pay even when their officers did nothing wrong, as in the case of Korryn Gaines for example, what is being deterred? And even when the shooting is unjustified, do you really think making the families of dead thugs millionaires
And the problem with the juries is that they are average people who are led by emotions, not facts.
The jury system is a big problem here. For example, a jury gave 37 million to the family of a woman who threatened police with a shotgun and used her own son as a human shield. That is not a good judgment just because a jury said so. That's just stupid.
Maybe, maybe not. The family doesn't deserve no millions in any case.
If car theft usually entailed death, you'd have a point. Since it doesn't, you don't.
Why?
Why?
Apparently the juries in the cases you cite do not believe the victim is at fault.
As usual, you mischaracterize the result. The officers were found to have done something wrong - that the first shot which they fired was not justified.
What have you against families that have suffered an unjust loss of a family member?
A wrongful death is a wrongful death regardless of the lag between the death and the filing of a lawsuit. As to the rest of that "thought", crime is work - just illegal work that involves high risk. But I find it unsurprising that you try to link black families with an ethos of not working to get rich.
And police and DAs and you are not? LOL.
As I pointed out above, their rationale (which you ignore) is reasonable.
There is no maybe about it. The thief was fleeing which means he was going away from the officer. It is stupid to claim the officer was at risk.
The family suffers a loss. If it is found to be a wrongful death, according to you, as a tort they deserve compensation.
If and when it does, then the case is, at least, relevant to your position. But it is either stupid or intellectually dishonest to include it at this point.
That would be as likely as shooting anybody and getting the same result. Whereas in my case it's obvious that guys in stolen cars are more likely to cause accidents.
