What the fuck Ferguson?

[Derec]

They settled with Michael Brown's family. Even though the shooting was found to be justified, the family is still going to get paid, profiting from the fact that they raised a convenience store robbing thug.
Family of Michael Brown Settles Lawsuit Against City of Ferguson

They should have gotten nothing. Not one red cent. In fact, the city should sue McSpadden's new husband for damages and costs associated with the riot he incited.

Instead, he now gets to live high on the hog while the taxpeyers of Ferguson have to pay for both the damages #BLM caused and for this needless settlement.

In more "WTF" news, Warner Bros is going to make a movie about Mike Brown based on his mother's book.
Mike Brown’s Legacy Is Being Memorialized In New Film By Warner Bros.
So more undeserved profits for the family, and a predicably biased movie in the theaters. I wonder who is going to direct. Spike Lee?

 

[Playball40]

WTF are you talking about? The cop was never tried. Hell, he wasn't even charged. The shooting was NEVER declared "justified".

They settled with Michael Brown's family. Even though the shooting was found to be justified, the family is still going to get paid, profiting from the fact that they raised a convenience store robbing thug.
Family of Michael Brown Settles Lawsuit Against City of Ferguson

They should have gotten nothing. Not one red cent. In fact, the city should sue McSpadden's new husband for damages and costs associated with the riot he incited.

Instead, he now gets to live high on the hog while the taxpeyers of Ferguson have to pay for both the damages #BLM caused and for this needless settlement.

In more "WTF" news, Warner Bros is going to make a movie about Mike Brown based on his mother's book.
Mike Brown’s Legacy Is Being Memorialized In New Film By Warner Bros.
So more undeserved profits for the family, and a predicably biased movie in the theaters. I wonder who is going to direct. Spike Lee?

 

[repoman]

I feel empathy for his mother even if he was killed justifiably - in reality not just legally. I don't think we will ever know. I give it a pulled out my ass estimate that it was 80% unavoidable at the exact time of the shooting and 20% avoidable. It is personal bias that will shift your own probabilities.

You could even have the shooting happen on video from 3 clear angles and people would disagree on its justification.

If it was avoidable the cop should in in prison on at least a manslaughter charge, do you at least agree on that Derec?

Things like this will make Robocops happen for real.

 

[Derec]

WTF are you talking about? The cop was never tried. Hell, he wasn't even charged. The shooting was NEVER declared "justified".

He wasn't charged because the shopoting was justfiied.

That Ferguson settled instead of fighting the frivolous lawsuit by the moneygrubbing (remember the physical fight over the profits from Michael Brown t-shirt sales between the two factions of the family?) family is unconsiounable. They should have fought, and they would have won. And the judge should have ordered the family to pay city's attorney's fees too.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

They settled with Michael Brown's family. Even though the shooting was found to be justified, the family is still going to get paid, profiting from the fact that they raised a convenience store robbing thug.
Family of Michael Brown Settles Lawsuit Against City of Ferguson

They should have gotten nothing. Not one red cent. In fact, the city should sue McSpadden's new husband for damages and costs associated with the riot he incited.

Instead, he now gets to live high on the hog while the taxpeyers of Ferguson have to pay for both the damages #BLM caused and for this needless settlement.

From your very own link:

"The amount would be less than $3 million, according to a person familiar with the details of the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no one is allowed to speak about the particulars of the case. Three million dollars is the most the city can pay under its insurance, according to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch."

So no, the taxpayers actually don't pay for anything. Had the case gone to trail and the city lost - then the taxpayers would have been on the hook for any amount over $3m (including defense costs).

aa

 

[laughing dog]

WTF are you talking about? The cop was never tried. Hell, he wasn't even charged. The shooting was NEVER declared "justified".

He wasn't charged because the shopoting was justfiied.

The officer was not charged because prosecutors felt there was not sufficient evidence - that is from the article in your OP.


The city officials along with their insurance company made a risk management call. Clearly they determined that the settlement was better than the cost of a trial plus the risk of incurring a larger payout.

 

[LordKiran]

He wasn't charged because the shopoting was justfiied.

The officer was not charged because prosecutors felt there was not sufficient evidence - that is from the article in your OP.


The city officials along with their insurance company made a risk management call. Clearly they determined that the settlement was better than the cost of a trial plus the risk of incurring a larger payout.

Does Derec know how to read?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The officer was not charged because prosecutors felt there was not sufficient evidence - that is from the article in your OP.


The city officials along with their insurance company made a risk management call. Clearly they determined that the settlement was better than the cost of a trial plus the risk of incurring a larger payout.

Does Derec know how to read?

covfefe shopoting

 

[blastula]

Derec, you are pathetic. Get help.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Derec, let's say they estimate there's a more than likely probability they will lose in court, so like 60% they'll lose. Let's say the family is asking $10 million. Do you think it's illogical to settle for way less than $6 million (the expected value), like for $2 million?

 

[Mumbles]

Eh - considering the years they spend siphoning money away from black residents in order to fund the government, this doesn't seem to be worth getting even slightly upset about.

 

[LordKiran]

Eh - considering the years they spend siphoning money away from black residents in order to fund the government, this doesn't seem to be worth getting even slightly upset about.

That's no real victory. In the end nothing changes, except the local gov is now short a few million dollars. Nobody will learn, nobody cares. Problem over let's move on! NEXT!

 

[Derec]

Eh - considering the years they spend siphoning money away from black residents in order to fund the government, this doesn't seem to be worth getting even slightly upset about.

Fines-for-revenue is a problem throuighout the United States. Why is it only considered a problem in places where majority of residents are black?

 

[Derec]

So no, the taxpayers actually don't pay for anything. Had the case gone to trail and the city lost - then the taxpayers would have been on the hook for any amount over $3m (including defense costs).

Do you know how insurance works? If there is a payout, premiums go up.

And if this had gone to trial, most likely the jury would have found against the Browns and McSpaddens and it the chance it would have awarded more than three million is infinitesimal.

Cities need to start fighting these cases. If the cities decide to settle every time some dead thug's family sues, it merely encourages the next one to sue as well. If they start losing in court, the families would be less likely to file for justified shootings.

 

[Derec]

The officer was not charged because prosecutors felt there was not sufficient evidence - that is from the article in your OP.

And all a trial would have yielded was that there was not sufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Not even charging is a stronger statement of likely innocence than a "not-guilty" verdict at trial. Playball, to whom I was reposnding to, made a claim that thge trial would have brought some kind of clarification.

For a DA to actually come out and say that a former suspect is innocent is very rare (the only case I know of is Duke Lacrosse). Thus you can't expect that. About the best you can expect is for the officer not to be charged.

The city officials along with their insurance company made a risk management call.

And maybe George Costanza is their risk management guy.

That would actually explain a lot.

Clearly they determined that the settlement was better than the cost of a trial plus the risk of incurring a larger payout.

Perhaps in a case where there could be an argument made that the shooting was unjustified. But Mike Brown case is unlikely to convince a jury to give the greedy family any payout, much less a "larger one".
And there is also an issue of these easy settlements for dead thugs (remember the multi-million settlement for a violent carjacker in Chicago) encouraging families to file more lawsuits, increasing overall cost.

 

[repoman]

Should we go back to mid career Malcolm X and George Lincoln Rockwell?

Then there police would only be in the areas of their own people.

 

[Derec]

Does Derec know how to read?

Better than you.

- - - Updated - - -

Derec, you are pathetic. Get help.

Because I do not think families of thugs should be enriched at taxpayers' expense?

 

[Derec]

Derec, let's say they estimate there's a more than likely probability they will lose in court, so like 60% they'll lose. Let's say the family is asking $10 million. Do you think it's illogical to settle for way less than $6 million (the expected value), like for $2 million?

First of all, I do not think that there is anywhere close to 60% chance that they would get $10M at trial. Even if there was a 60% chance that they win, a jury could award any amount, even $1. So I think your expected value of a judgment is overestimated by at least one order of magnitude, and probably two or more. Remember, by now the public is clued in just how inaccurate and misleading family's narrative of the "gentle giant spreading the word of Jesus Christ" actually was.

But there is also the problemof incentives. If you look at these cases in isolation, settling might appear as an attractive way out. But the problem is that if cities settle these claims so easily even when shootinsg are justified, they invite more of these lawuits, which will definitely cost them more in the long run.
So, these lawsuits should be fought, if for no other reason but to make the likes of Benjamin Crump think twice before taking on a case of justified shooting and trying to make millions from it on the backs of American taxpayers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does Derec know how to read?

Yes, but if a black person has committed a crime at any point in their life, it completely justifies their being shot to death at the discretion of any police officer, whether the policeman knows about the criminal history or not. It's so justified, no one outside of the cop's chain of command needs to be consulted on the issue.

 

[Jaecp]

Eh - considering the years they spend siphoning money away from black residents in order to fund the government, this doesn't seem to be worth getting even slightly upset about.

Fines-for-revenue is a problem throuighout the United States. Why is it only considered a problem in places where majority of residents are black?

It's not only a problem when it happens to black people.

Covfefiently nobody but you has suggested that