Eight hours into a 10-hour deliberation the jury indicated that it was unable to reach a verdict. [the plaintiffs' lawyer John M.] Phillips said some appeared visibly “incensed” and red in the face.
Still, they were sent back to continue deliberating; eventually, the jury said they had a verdict.
“There was a tug of war somewhere in there,” [the dead man's fiancée said. “And then everybody’s mind changed to one? Something went on... It seems like jurors gave up.”
May 31, 2018
A wrongful death lawsuit yields 4¢ for the family of a man killed by a police officer.
The NYT reports in "Jury Leaves $4 to Family of Man Killed by Sheriff’s Deputy, Along With Many Questions." Yes, that says $4, but that's the assessment of damages, but the officer's action was deemed to be only 1% of the cause of the loss, so the $4 became 4¢. Why didn't the jury just find for the defendant? The 4¢ seems like a deliberate insult to the plaintiffs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
124 comments:
Payday.
The reflexive payoffs to families of Blacks who are shot to death by police officers should be brought under control.
There should be a requirement that the police officer's fault be proved.
The mere fact that the victim was Black and the police officer was White should not suffice for the Black family to get a huge compensation.
"And then everybody’s mind changed to one? Something went on... It seems like jurors gave up.”
Isn't this how most juries work?
Unless everyone is immediately in agreement, then it is a waiting game until people give up.
Sure, there are arguments back-and-forth -- issues rehashed, points made again with more emphasis, etc.
But, eventually, some people have to give up, if there is to be a verdict.
Evidently the price for some of these jurors to give up was four cents, and not a penny more.
-LWL
If the jury award was 4¢, then the lawsuit did not yield 4¢ for the family. The lawyers always get their cut.
Still counts as a black mark for the defendants.
Reading the NYT article it does sound like the police are lying and covering up, but then it is the NYT, so I don't trust them to present the facts fairly and impartially. My first thought was about the lack of mention of body cam footage.
Gregory Hill should have played his music quieter, so that it didn't bother his neighbors.
When the police officer asked Hill to turn his music down, he should have done so and apologized to the officer immediately.
Didn't notice the nasty pun until I hit post. Triggered, anyone?
QB VII by Leon Uris is about a libel suit brought in the U.K. by a WWII German war criminal against an author. In the end, the author loses, but the ex-Nazi is awarded just a half-penny, the smallest coin of the realm. Good TV mini-series in the '70s.
When I commented above, I thought I had read the entire newspaper article. Now I see that the article continued after an advertisement that I thought marked the article's end.
Now I read that the police officer shot through a closed garage door. I disapprove of that.
However, I still say that Hill should have simply turned down the music and apologized to the police officer. I disapprove of his closing the garage door in the police officer's face.
"Mr. Hill, a 30-year-old African-American, was fatally shot by a white sheriff’s deputy"
The NYT, always there to provide the most relevant information.
The newspaper article should have explained the event better.
It seems to me that
1) the police officers came to the garage, where the door was shut.
2) after the police officers banged on the door, Hill opened it
3) Hill pulled his gun and aimed it at the officers
4) while doing so, Hill closed the door in the officer's face
5) eventually the officers shot bullets through the closed garage door.
The article should have explained in detail what happened between steps 4 and 5. What happened in those moments must explain why the officers were exonerated and why the jury awarded only $4.
Mike Sylwester said...
Now I read that the police officer shot through a closed garage door. I disapprove of that.
A more detailed account said that the officer fired as the garage door was being closed, so that he was firing with the man at least partly in sight, knowing the man was still holding the gun. Not saying that makes the shooting justified, but it is certainly different from shooting blindly through a closed garage door.
It should also be noted that the $4 award was not for any wrongdoing by the shooter, or the other deputy on the scene, both of whom were deemed by the jury to have acted reasonably. It was based on something done by the Sheriff, who was not even there.
However, I still say that Hill should have simply turned down the music and apologized to the police officer.
Yes, in our modern burgeoning police state, he certainly should have.
"3) Hill pulled his gun and aimed it at the officers"
I dispute this. If he was shot after pulling his gun, how did it magically end up in his pocket? Police are unreliable witnesses for one another.
i suspect the jury found it was negligent and below the standard of care of the reasonable police officer to shoot blind through a closed garage door, because it might hit an innocent person.
And if a bullet had hit an "innocent" person the damages would have been significant.
But because it hit a man who the police "reasonably" suspected of having a gun that was a threat to the officers, the jury imputed 99% fault to the plaintiff's action.
““I don’t get it,” the family lawyer, John M. Phillips, said.”
And by “it” he means the fat payday he was expecting.
Still, shooting through a barrier like that is nuts, absent maybe being fired upon. What if a child had entered the garage?
Major violation of the 4 rules of gun safety.
Isn't this how most juries work?
All the ones I've been on.
My guess is that while Hill was pointing his gun at the police offices and closing the garage door, he threatened to shoot the officers.
He and the officers must have said something while the garage door was closing and right after it closed. That communication through the closing and closed garage door must be the key.
Unfortunately, however, the event is reported by The New York Times, and so the key details remain concealed from the article's readers.
On the bright side, the entire four cents is tax-free.
Known Unknown at 8:05 AM
I dispute this. If he was shot after pulling his gun, how did it magically end up in his pocket? Police are unreliable witnesses for one another.
I am just guessing about what happened, because the New York Times did not explain the event adequately.
I understood from the article that the dead person is an African-American. I get that part.
I can only guess what exactly happened during the event. Furthermore, I can only guess what the police officers said happened.
I am just guessing about what happened, because the New York Times did not explain the event adequately.
I know. I wasn't questioning you, but more the police narrative. Sorry that was unclear.
ATLANTA - A Clayton County jury awarded a young woman $1 billion to be paid by a security company after an apartment complex guard was convicted of rape. The woman was just 14 years old when she was assaulted.
It was 2012, Hope Cheston was visiting a friend at a Clayton County apartment complex when an armed security guard raped her. The guard, Brandon Lamar Zachary, is now serving 20 years in prison for rape and child molestation.
Cheston is now 20 years old and a college student.
"Twelve strangers feel like what I went through and my story and how I feel, after six years, is worth a billion dollars," said Cheston.
Posted: May 23 2018 04:04PM EDT
Since I.....
1. Can't/won't read the article in the NYT
2. Don't believe the NYT anyway to give an accurate reporting
3. Haven't bothered to look up the story elsewhere to get any real information
I, therefore, don't have an opinion on the shooting. However, since the award was so very and insultingly low, I have the gut feeling the jury was skeptical and pissed off at having to waste their precious time on a farce.
Ignorance if Bliss at 8:02 AM
A more detailed account said that the officer fired as the garage door was being closed, so that he was firing with the man at least partly in sight, knowing the man was still holding the gun.
The New York Times did not bother itself to report that key part of the event.
Our situation here is that now we have to go find and read other newspaper to find out what happened during this event.
Based only what I read here, I assume that Hill opened the door and pointed his gun at the police officers. One police officer began shooting at Hill, and so Hill (probably using a hand-held remote control) began closing the garage door.
After the garage door closed, the police officer continued shooting through the door.
I assume (don't know for sure) also that Hill voiced threats while this was happening.
I assume also that the event was described in detail by the two police officers during the trial. Yes, I know that Hill is dead and could not tell his own side of the story. However, the newspaper article should have reported the police officers' description of the event.
Because this article was published by The New York Times, its readers do not know what the police officers said about the event. The readers can only guess.
As someone who has tried a number of "media" criminal cases, I can tell you the reporting on what happened or what evidence is actually presented in court often bears scant resemblance to what is then reported (or emphasized) in print or on the television machine.
I agree with DBQ -- the jury was pissed at wasting their time on this and decided to send a message to the plaintiff.
Didn't read the article, either.
However, I suspect the 'many questions' that the Headline mentions could be answered if there were better reporting by the New York Times!.
If I were a policeman, I'd get my own body cam if the department won't.
At the conclusion of the proceedings, the jury went and pissed on the deceased's grave in order to remove ambiguity about their actions.
Mike Sylwester said...
...One police officer began shooting at Hill, and so Hill (probably using a hand-held remote control) began closing the garage door.
After the garage door closed, the police officer continued shooting through the door.
The officer fired 4 shots. Most likely the 4 shots were fired as quickly as the officer could pull the trigger. Likely not a scenario where the garage door had time to close.
"If I were a policeman, I'd get my own body cam if the department won't."
Why put yourself in jeopardy like that? Police are rarely prosecuted, much less convicted on most of these types of cases.
Also, body cams now conveniently malfunction or are 'turned off' accidentally during crucial moments in tense situations.
The cop in Arizona who shot the unarmed underwear-clad drunk guy in the hallway had video of his actions and was not convicted of wrongdoing.
I am particularly interested in this case because I write a blog about the killing of Michael Brown.
African-Americans disproportionately are shot by police officers because African-Americans disproportionately try to resist or run away from police officers.
When a police officer asked Michael Brown to walk on the sidewalk, Brown punched the officer in the face.
When a police officer asked Gregory Hill to turn down his music, Hill drew a gun on the officer.
In such situations, most people simply comply with the officers' requests and do not get shot.
In my blog I published an article titled Blacks are more likely to be shot by police because they resist arrest.
There I reported a study that was conducted in San Francisco and that found that African-Americans in that city resist arrest at a rate that is eight times greater than Whites' rate.
"When the police officer asked Hill to turn his music down, he should have done so and apologized to the officer immediately."
The penalty for failing to do so should not be death.
We got a whole lot of right-wingers who reflexively side with the police in just about any situation. Despite the obvious contradiction between siding with the police vs. claiming that the FBI is politicized and out to get their hero Trump.
The more libertarian strain of conservative thought (which always attracted me) is nearly dead, killed off by the siege mentality of Trump's supporters.
Like leaving a penny under the plate after a restaurant meal. A much more grave and deliberate insult than merely stiffing the waiter.
Here is my recreation of events, based on the limited reports I've seen:
Police bang on garage door. Hill doesn't know who it is, so has his gun in his hand as he opens the door. ( I saw somewhere that it was a manually operated door. )
Police order him to drop the gun. Being drunk and stupid, he does not comply. Instead he attempts to close the garage door. In the process of closing the garage door, his hand holding the gun comes up in the general direction of the police.
The police shoot while the garage door is coming down.
Hill is fatally wounded, but not killed instantly. He puts the gun in his back pocket before dying, while the police wait for SWAT.
Not saying that is what happened, just that it is a scenario that is consistent with the facts that have been presented and the jury verdict.
"African-Americans disproportionately are shot by police officers because African-Americans disproportionately try to resist or run away from police officers."
Because African-Americans disproportionately distrust police officers.
Because they've got a 200-year history of dealing with racist cops. Particularly in the South.
Guess what: Most surviving Jews didn't move back to Germany after World War II ended either.
Ignorance Is Bliss at 8:48 AM
The officer fired 4 shots. Most likely the 4 shots were fired as quickly as the officer could pull the trigger. Likely not a scenario where the garage door had time to close.
Maybe you're right about that.
I assume that at the trial the police officers described the event in detail. From this NYT article, however, we can only guess about the officers' description of the event.
Yes, I know that Hill is dead and cannot tell his own side of the story.
However, the police officers surely did tell their own side of the story at the trial. The NYT should have reported that testimony.
I assume that the officer's testimony would explain why Hill's family received only four cents.
The more libertarian strain of conservative thought (which always attracted me) is nearly dead, killed off by the siege mentality of Trump's supporters.
And yet Trump is more libertarian about certain subjects than any of the NeverTrumpers could ever hope to be. He gets dinged on Civil Asset Forfeiture for sure, but his signing of the Right To Try bill and his position on tax policy is better than a Rubio or Ryan.
"The reflexive payoffs to families of Blacks who are shot to death by police officers should be brought under control."
Reflexive police murders of blacks should be brought under control. I do not think most of the families of victims of police violence see even $0.01 in "damages," so there are no "reflexive" payoffs to be "brought under control."
"Hill is fatally wounded, but not killed instantly. He puts the gun in his back pocket before dying"
I am glad you're trying to make sense of events, but this doesn't square with me unless he's really drunk. Why pocket a gun after being fired upon 4 times?
sinz52 said...
The penalty for failing to do so should not be death.
Good thing it is not. He is not dead because he failed to turn down the music. He is dead because he pointed a gun at police.
And note that death is not the penalty for pointing a gun at a police, but it is a likely consequence. ( You would not say that the penalty for playing in traffic is death, only that death is a likely consequence of playing in traffic.)
sinz52 at 8:57 AM
The penalty for failing to do so [turn down the music and apologize] should not be death.
Rather than turn down the music and apologize, Hill drew a gun on the police officers.
Don't forget the part where he drew his gun at the police officers.
"When the police officer asked Hill to turn his music down, he should have done so and apologized to the officer immediately."
Perhaps Mr. Hill should have turned down his music if his neighbors had complained, but why did he owe an apology to the police officer?
I wish the media didn't have a double standard. They normally never report the race of an alleged criminal suspect unless they are at large. This started switching in the late 80's early 90's because people thought it painted black Americans in a bad light. But now they report the race of both the police officer and the person shot by the police officer, to try and tacitly suggest some sort of racial bias is involved, even if no one including the reporter has made that allegation.
It would be nice if they stuck to one set of principles.
Juries can be weird. This could be a case where the jury didn't understand the jury instructions. Or perhaps the plaintiff's attorney never really argued for damages, and then at the end threw in something like, "and we are asking you to award $10 million in damages for his unjustified death." If I was on a jury and someone asked for $10 million and I felt they had done absolutely nothing to justify why $10 million is worth it, I might be inclined to only award a $1. But the fact that they deemed the officer 1% negligent, makes me think there was probably one or two holdouts who felt the officer was somehow responsible but the majority didn't think he was responsible at all, and this was the jury's compromise.
I'm curious how Mr. Hill allegedly had a gun in his hand while he was alive, but it ended up in his back pocket when he was a corpse. Sounds like something fishy going on right there. Or, as the police term it, "SOP."
sinz52 at 8:58 AM
Because African-Americans disproportionately distrust police officers. Because they've got a 200-year history of dealing with racist cops.
That's one part of the problem.
Another part of the problem is that African-Americans disproportionately commit crimes and therefore disproportionately are encountered by police officers.
Then another part of the problem is that in these disproportionately frequent encounters, they disproportionately try to resist or run away.
Known Unknown said...
I am glad you're trying to make sense of events, but this doesn't square with me unless he's really drunk. Why pocket a gun after being fired upon 4 times?
Twice the legal limit, although the legal limit for driving is pretty low. Also in pain and possibly shock from being shot. Maybe put the gun away so that the police look bad for shooting him. Just a thought.
I'm curious how Mr. Hill allegedly had a gun in his hand while he was alive, but it ended up in his back pocket when he was a corpse,
I thought the same thing. I'm not saying that no reasonable explanation exists, and I can think of a few scenarios that could have occurred, but hopefully this was addressed in court. The fact that there is no reporting of an argument by the family's attorney that the gun was planted makes me think nothing surreptitious was done by police.
"African-Americans disproportionately are shot by police officers because African-Americans disproportionately try to resist or run away from police officers."
Resisting arrest without deadly force, and, particularly, running away, do not justify use of deadly force by the police. To the extent police shootings disproportionately involve African-Americans, I believe it's because the police assume they will more easily get away with it than if they shoot whites without sufficient cause. However, that will change as our police become ever more militarized and authoritarian. Soon enough, all of us will be at their mercy.
Robert Cook at 9:06 AM
Perhaps Mr. Hill should have turned down his music if his neighbors had complained, but why did he owe an apology to the police officer?
Hill's loud music caused problems not only for his neighbors but also for his neighborhood's police department.
I myself certainly would apologize to a police officer if he had to come to my own home because my neighbors had complained about my loud music.
In such a situation, most people would apologize to the police officer.
In contrast to a normal apology, Gregory Hill drew a gun.
It's like defending young black criminals from being shot by police by having riots and being amazingly chaotic pains in the ass has an effect on how sympathetic society is toward the African American community. It's like trying to force 'No White' days at university will have radical effects on the perception of blacks as trying to integrate into society. It's like Identity Politics is a PR disaster which causes a whole lot of Democrat losses in elections.
Who'd have thunk that?
There is no 'white nationalist' political group on the Right except a few wing nuts like Spencer. But the Left sure seems intent on creating one.
Robert Cook said...
Perhaps Mr. Hill should have turned down his music if his neighbors had complained, but why did he owe an apology to the police officer?
He owed and apology to society for violating society's noise ordinance. In this scenario, the police are representing society.
Also, being contrite is a good way to avoid a citation for things like violating a noise ordinance. A sincere apology is a good way to express contrition.
Maybe this is something black parents could include in that talk they all say that they have to have with their children.
Soon enough, all of us will be at their mercy.
And yet your side wants to take away guns from citizens to speed up that process. Sad and stupid.
Now that I am an elderly curmudgeon, I’m in favor of shooting everyone who plays their music too loud.
"Don't forget the part where he drew his gun at the police officers."
Um...that's what the police said. A common term for police testifying in court is "testilying."
Are they going to admit they shot someone whose gun was in his back pocket? Ha!
"And yet your side wants to take away guns from citizens to speed up that process."
What "side" do you presume I'm on?
sinz52 said...
The penalty for failing to do so should not be death.
I think this is what I most hate about all the coverage of police use-of-force.
They always juxtapose the relatively minor initial offense ( jay-walking, loud music, underage drinking ) with the police response to the offender's escalated behavior ( resisting arrest, assault, brandishing a weapon ).
The article might eventually describe all the events, but the headline is what sticks in people's minds.
I think some of what we might be seeing is jury fatigue at these constant lawsuits by black "victims" and families.
The Michael Brown case is a prime example
I used to testify in med-mal cases, for plaintiffs and for defense. Alabama was once considered an easy win for plaintiffs until a jury awarded millions on a case of a paint flaw in a new car.
The McDonald's hot coffee case was another.
Eventually, juries started rejecting these cases and it also affected the med-mal cases.
The Alabama lawyer for whom I testified several times, told me after the last case that his firm had decided to reject any medical case because it was too hard to win one.
I suspect we are seeing a similar phenomenon in the black shooting vs police cases.
Robert Cook said...
"And yet your side wants to take away guns from citizens to speed up that process."
What "side" do you presume I'm on?
We all know what side you are on, Cookie. It helps that you are polite about it.
2015 Wa Po police shooting data base.
Only 241 black men were killed by police shootings. The vast majority of them were done in the commission of a crime WITH WITNESSES of said crime.
Out of 47,500,000 blacks in America.
One wrongful killing is wrong. But trying to discredit an entire nation of police forces because statistics this small?
To put it in perspective: you are 1.5 times more likely to drown in a bathtub than a black man is to be killed by a police officer.
Robert Cook at 9:18 AM
Resisting arrest without deadly force, and, particularly, running away, do not justify use of deadly force by the police. To the extent police shootings disproportionately involve African-Americans, I believe it's because the police assume they will more easily get away with it than if they shoot whites without sufficient cause.
In some cases, the investigation exonerates the police officer from such suspicions.
In the particular case of Michael Brown, several people reported and then testified that police officer Darren Wilson killed Brown maliciously.
Under the leadership of President Barrack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the case was investigated in extraordinary detail. Police Officer Wilson was exonerated.
Wilson was exonerated because the investigators found correctly that the accusing witnesses had lied.
What happened was that Brown punched the police officer in the face and then ran away and then turned around and charged at the officer.
If you assume reflexively that the police officer is malicious, then the Michael Brown case is a good case for you to study. My blog begins here.
I read article in the NYTimes, and it is a piece of shit reporting, and I write as someone who knew literally zero about this court case. After the article, I still really don't know anything about the court case other than the verdict and a couple of details that favored the shooting victim. A good article would have included, at the very least, details about what the policemen said about the event during the trial. This isn't to say they should have been believed, but the readers shouldn't have to go to another paper to find this out. What a piece of shit the NYTimes has become.
Robert Cook at 9:22 AM
Um...that's what the police said. A common term for police testifying in court is "testilying."
There was a jury trial, and the jurors heard all the testimony and arguments, and then the jury gave the plaintiffs only four cents.
Cook: Perhaps Mr. Hill should have turned down his music if his neighbors had complained, but why did he owe an apology to the police officer?
Why? Because the police are there to represent the neighbors and also represent the entire community in enforcing the laws. He should have apologized for being an inconsiderate asshole to the entire neighborhood. Because the entire neighborhood was not present at the time and the Police represent the entire neighborhood....he should have apologized.
A simple..."Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was that loud. Here. Let me turn down the volume. Would have diffused the situation. Appeased the Police and satisfied the neighbors.
I'm betting it wasn't the first time that he has been an asshole in the neighborhood. I'm sure it is the last time though.
"There was a jury trial, and the jurors heard all the testimony and arguments, and then the jury gave the plaintiffs only four cents."
Mr. Hill was not there to give his testimony. The jury heard a one-sided story by the police.
His family seems intent on continuing that tradition, though.
Robert Cook said...
The jury heard a one-sided story by the police.
And they heard a one-sided story by the plaintiff's attorney. And they made their decision based on which one seemed more credible, knowing full well that the police could be lying.
I'm not saying the jury got it right. I am saying we've been presented no reason to conclude the jury got it wrong.
Maybe this has something to do with it.
Jury members read the news, too.
Under sustained assault by the City Council, pundits and self-styled civil-liberties advocates, a new generation of New York City cops is being conditioned to avoid showdowns with civilians, especially where coercion or force is called for. We could have saved the costly investment in body cameras by explicitly telling the cops two words: “Do nothing.”
I am sympathetic to blacks who are injured or killed by mistakes by police. I testified for a patents of mine who was clearly a victoim of a mistake by a policeman that ruined his life. The story is in my book.
He got nothing from a jury but hat was before Rodney King. I think we are now seeing jury fatigue.
I think we are now seeing jury fatigue.
I am hoping it is 'racial outrage' fatigue.
God knows I am tired of hearing about how everything is my fault...like electricity, and working water, and social security and factories and the international highway system etc.
Robert Cook at 9:41 AM
Mr. Hill was not there to give his testimony. The jury heard a one-sided story by the police.
Yes, that is true.
In this situation, only the police officers could provide a description of the shooting.
However, the victim's family had a lawyer who caused a jury trial to be conducted. During that trial, the lawyer was able to question and challenge the police officers.
The jurors saw the bullet holes in the garage door and saw other material evidence. The jurors were told that Hill's gun was in his back pocket.
The NYT article does not explain why we readers should think that the jurors made a wrong decision.
I myself am puzzled by the jurors' decision, but I assume that key considerations were not reported in the NYT article.
Robert Cooke, like most leftists, have a problem with any law, rule, decision or public opinion which goes against how he thinks the world SHOULD work. It's part of his Princess Syndrome and while it doesn't look good on 8 year old girls, it looks far worse on grown men.
Reporting from the time of the shooting (West Palm Beach channel 5, https://www.wptv.com/news/state/gregory-vaughn-hill-jr-fort-pierce-man-ided-in-fatal-deputy-involved-shooting) said that Hill's blood alcohol level was 5X the legal limit for driving, or 0.40. It also said that the gun was found "by Hill's body," rather than in his pocket. The complaint was that he was playing loud, obscene music as the school across the street was getting out, and that when police arrived he opened the garage door manually while holding his gun in his right hand, and that he raised the gun while trying to shut the garage door. Drunk man with a gun as students are piling into the street from school is a tense situation. Also, if the garage door was not powered, it would fall shut quite quickly, which could explain the shots penetrating the door. The story also reports that family members told the SWAT team that Hill was still alive but afraid to come out, which suggests that there were others in the house with him (any one of whom could have put the gun in his back pocket, assuming that that is where it was actually found). All in all, this doesn't tell a story of a clearly good shooting, but does suggest that the situation was not nearly as egregious as the Times reporting suggested it to be.
The McDonald's hot coffee case was another.
Only because the media misrepresented it.
We got a whole lot of right-wingers who reflexively side with the police in just about any situation. Despite the obvious contradiction between siding with the police vs. claiming that the FBI is politicized and out to get their hero Trump.
I fail to see the "obvious contradiction" in siding with the police in a particular case (which I'm not doing here because I don't know enough to hold an opinion) and acknowledging the obvious and readily apparent fact that the FBI is politicized and out to get Trump. In fact, wouldn't it be an "obvious contradiction" to believe that the FBI is composed of saintly individuals whose sole concern is the the integrity of our elections and the enforcement of the law with nary a partisan thought among them and the believe that police officers main goal on the job is to shoot blacks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0O9ugyOSCw
If you followed the link I provided you know that it is a fact that the FBI has done some egregious things, as have the CIA. We know for a fact that the FBI, when not busy covering up murders, including at least one case of blacks by cops, has spent a great deal time and effort in intervening in the political process. Trying to get MLK to kill himself, spying on peaceful activists, and bugging the Supreme Court are just a few of the acts the FBI has engaged in that seem to reveal that skepticism towards themI might be warranted. And perhaps you might excuse me if I find the lefts new found respect for the integrity of the FBI to be a bit disingenuous since I'm old enough to remember when distrust of the FBI was a point of pride on the left.
I mean, what's fixing a presidential election compared to framing four innocent people for murder so your informant can continue to provide information? Or, for that matter, informing a cold blooded killer that one of his associates is trying to rat him out?
Not every Ghetto Lotto ticket garners the grand prize, but you can't win if you don't play.
Those who think the neighbors should have handled the situation themselves and not called the police don't seem to have thought things through, or have been fortunate enough to have always lived in nice neighborhoods. The man was a known asshole - he was playing his music way too loud. Did his neighbors know he was drunk? Probably, if he was drunk a lot. Did they know he had a gun? Quite likely some of them did. Did they know he had a short fuse and/or extremely bad judgment in dealing with authority figures? Unless he'd just moved into the neighborhood, some of them probably knew that, too. Dealing with asshole neighbors can be dangerous, and most people naturally prefer to call the police when in doubt.
Example: I've had to deal with a psycho neighbor from Hell who blamed me for calling the police on her for intolerably loud music at 2:30am on a school night, even though I hadn't done it. I lived directly beneath her in a subdivided rowhouse just outside Baltimore, but in fact was not one of the seven neighbors who called the police on her. I was the one who answered the door and explained to a couple of rather hostile policemen that I only rented the first floor and basement, and the noise was coming from the second-floor, which was an entirely separate apartment rented by someone I didn't know (she'd just moved in - it was her second night in the house). The rowhouses were solid stone, so annoying neighbors up to half a block away took some doing. She left me a note the next day telling me next time I had any problem with her noise, I should talk to her, NOT call the police: note the entire lack of anything resembling an apology. I told her in person that I was not in fact one of the seven people who called the police, that I didn't appreciate being treated as if I were at fault when she was the one at fault, and that I didn't really want to have much to do with her in the future. After that, whenever she got home in the evening - usually 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning and driving a large car while extremely drunk - she would stomp around her apartment for 10-15 minutes picking up pieces of furniture and dropping them while she screamed "How do like that, you son of a bitch?!" (She didn't know which room I slept in, so she made sure to cover them all.) In short, there are a lot of extreme asshole neighbors in the world. I don't blame this guy's neighbors for calling the police instead of confronting him.
This verdict tells us that somebody hated the Plaintiff's lawyer intensely.I wonder what he did to make them that angry. The usual Jury debate is about how much they are able to award based on the horrible loss (this time death). Placing blame usually is taken for granted.
But the Jurors said $4 for the loss and 1% blame. I expect the Lawyer was ordering them to obey him based on BLM assumed wrong doing. They said back to him as clear as could be said, "Fuck-you and your pretense of authority."
If you assume reflexively that the police officer is malicious, then the Michael Brown case is a good case for you to study.
Just like the Trayvon Martin case, CTH was indispensable in figuring out what happened.
TG:
Maybe they didn't hate the plaintiff's lawyer. Maybe they'd all had similar neighbors themselves, and felt no sympathy with the dead man. Neighbors who play incredibly loud music way too late at night while drunk, belligerent, and possibly armed are not exactly rare in the U.S.A.
One lesson here, don’t open the garage door when you can’t see who is banging on the other side.
Should there be strict liability when the police kill someone? If the justification is the officer’s safety, the officer is making a decision that whatever risk there is to the officer’s life is worth more than the other person’s life. It’s basic economics that they will make wrong decisions when the life they are taking is assigned a $0.
@ Dr Weevil... You may be right that away from the Beach Resorts Florida is a crazy place that has to be policed by tough police. I have never been in a neighborhood like that. But one time a wealthy family across the canal from us left their teenage son home alone and he threw a party. They played black Rap Music with the worst lyrics possible and hating all the Hos. No one called the police, because we respected his parents. But it opened my eyes to how brainwashed white teen boys had become into black sexual mores. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Haven't read the NYT article (out of articles for the month) and going by the comments here there isn't much in the article. That said, does anyone know what Hill's occupation was and what were his earnings? Presumably the compensation would be for loss of legal income as the primary reason for compensation.
Left Bank of the Charles at 10:49 AM
don’t open the garage door when you can’t see who is banging on the other side
I assume that the police officers identified themselves through the closed garage door.
Please note, studies show that police do not disproportionately shoot blacks. If anything, they shoot blacks at a slightly lower rate than whites. Also, if you are arguing that they don't think they can get away with shooting whites, you are wrong. The execution of the white guy, on his knees begging for his life, is an example of that.
What would really deal with news credibility would be to require the writers of articles to respond to the most upvoted objections in the comments. This is like one of those confessions Nick talks about in The Great Gatsby. It's marred by obvious omissions.
I just glanced over the NY Post article on police standing down.
There is something basic about our legal/justice system and police that people seem to not realize. Our system doesn't exist to protect society and victims. The system exists to protect people accused of wrongdoing- guilty or innocent- from mob justice. Without police to call and a justice system to handle belligerent neighbors, eventually the neighbors get together on their own, and the belligerent neighbor gets the crap beat of him, with bats and metal poles, likely suffering broken bones and permanent disability. With no recourse because - there is no justice system. A mob, like a jury, doesn't always get things right. Sometimes the wrong person ends up hanging from the lamp post.
When the police back down, or are completely ineffective or non-existent, eventually other forms of justice are established. We can see that happening in our neighbor to the south. There are areas now where police and drug lords don't operate. Locals have created private security forces, armed them somehow even though Mexican law prohibits such things, and have established islands of order in a country of chaos. No juries, no police, if you have a complaint or are aware of something wrong, you see one of the people with power. They make a decision, and actions are taken. No trials, no second guessing. People want order, not chaos. Some, and by some I mean many, prefer order over freedom.
When the police back down, or are completely ineffective or non-existent, eventually other forms of justice are established. We can see that happening in our neighbor to the south.
I wonder how much this adds to the desire to own guns ?
I'll bet it's more than zero.
" how brainwashed white teen boys had become into black sexual mores."
I don't think there's much brainwashing going on. Teenage boys of all colors need little help in that department.
"way too late at night while drunk,"
I thought school was getting out across the street. I haz confuse.
Known Unknown said...
I haz confuse.
Yes, u duz.
The way too late at night while drunk was a reference to asshole neighbors in general. In this particular case, it was middle-of-the-day drunk.
holdfast said...
"Major violation of the 4 rules of gun safety."
What a lot of people don't grasp about the four rules is that they are for the range. If you find yourself using your weapon against someone else who is also armed, the zeroth rule comes into effect; Don't get killed.
Think of it this way; should you drive your car really fast down a steep and curvy road in the dark and rain with three kids unbelted in the back? No. That's unsafe. Unless you are being chased by someone who is shooting at you. Then it's pedal to the metal.
We got a whole lot of right-wingers who reflexively side with the police in just about any situation. Despite the obvious contradiction between siding with the police vs. claiming that the FBI is politicized and out to get their hero Trump.
Yeah. Because those two examples are exactly the same. Damn. I feel like such a hypocrite. Thanks for pointing it out.
It is interesting that the author -- I really can't bring myself to call him a reporter -- twice claims that highly relevant facts are "in dispute". As I understand the matter, there were three witnesses, and one of them is dead. Do the two surviving winesses disagree about what happened? Or does the author just think it makes a better story his way?
Well, Mr Hill sure showed them cops.
I believe Chris Rock had a video about how not to get your ass beaten by a police man.
Mr. Hill violated pretty much all of them...and thus...
Being armed around police while black is never a good mixed beverage, particularly when belligerent.
ANYONE armed around a police man is not a great idea.
“And then everybody’s mind changed to one? Something went on... It seems like jurors gave up.”
Sounds like standard jury deliberations. It's when the jury is of one mind from retirement to verdict that one should be worried.
"ANYONE armed around a police man is not a great idea."
Especially at Ruby Ridge.
" Despite the obvious contradiction between siding with the police vs. claiming that the FBI is politicized and out to get their hero Trump."
Just who is it now that's siding with corrupt police? The FBI can be shown to have broken serious laws and policies, and possibly to have attempted to influence a Presidential election, and maybe now attempting to unseat a duly elected president even before he took office, thus disenfranchising millions of voters.
They may be a few bad apples, but a dirty cop is a dirty cop.
TDS has caused the left to defend the likes of:
ISIS
MS 13
Hamas
North Korea
Iran
mishandling classified information
deleting suppeoned emails by the thousands
and now corrupt cops and corruption at the highest level
@Jim at
He's just upset that people on the right refuse to accept the role he has them playing in the movie running in his mind, blindly accepting whatever authority figures tell them, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.
Here you go
Chris Rock. How not to get your ass kicked by the police
Good advice for EVERYONE. Not just black people
Blogger FIDO said...
ANYONE armed around a police man is not a great idea.
There's a cute story going around Arizona. A cop stopped a driver for some infraction and the driver said, "Officer, I am armed with two guns." The cop said, "Why two guns ?"
The guy said, "Three is too uncomfortable."
The cop wrote his ticket and sent him on his way.
The lawyers got their full bill paid is my bet. There's a plot line in Bosch that goes exactly that way. Seems realistic to me. I'd like to know for sure though.
Twelve Kanaw: The answer is 'quite likely', though it depends totally on the law in the jurisdiction where the case was tried. Even though the plaintiff got 4 cents, he is still deemed the prevailing party and in tort cases where the jurisdiction awards costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party, 4 cents is enough to invoke that remedy. The restriction is usually "reasonable" attorney fees, meaning the lawyers will ask for the sky and get what the judge is disposed to give them, but they'll walk away with a lot more cash in hand than the plaintiff will.
get what the judge is disposed to give them, but they'll walk away with a lot more cash in hand than the plaintiff will.
In my one malpractice case that went to trial, I was awarded $25,000 in court costs.
Collected ? Zero.
I initiated a wrongful death lawsuit after my mother was intentionally overdosed on morphine in a Santa Monica hospital in 2012. The two doctors who conspired to kill her belong on death row.
I would gladly give them a lethal injection myself because that is what they did to my mom. Michael K, Winning the malpractice lawsuit filed against you tells me nothing. A doctor with an admitted painkiller addiction, should not be practicing medicine. At least you were forced out of the medical profession, and can't harm anyone else. Trump needs to go on a permanent vacation, too. He hurts the whole country.
"At least you were forced out of the medical profession, and can't harm anyone else"
Are you psychotic ? I can't tell if you are a parody or a nut.
Probably a nut,
Trumpit re Michael K.:
Huh?
I have no sympathy left for Blacks. They are oppressed by nothing more than their own depravity, and that's not a new phenomenon.
"Guess what: Most surviving Jews didn't move back to Germany after World War II ended either."
And no Blacks want to go back to Africa. Actually, nobody wants to go to that shithole.
Char Char Binks,
I'm black and so are my three children. You are a vile, lowlife racist.
You Trumpian deplorable trolls ruin everything you touch.
Oh, do you need sympathy? :(
Blogger Trumpit said...
Char Char Binks,
I'm black and so are my three children. You are a vile, lowlife racist.
You Trumpian deplorable trolls ruin everything you touch.
That explains a lot, especially the parody.
"ANYONE armed around a police man is not a great idea."
I've been armed near police, and I had no problem. In fact, they didn't even know I was armed. I had no trouble because I'm neither stupid nor violent, unlike... well, you know who ;)
Trumpit -- "Muh momma die -- ware duh neeress wite man? i soo hiz azz!"
No, she's was murdered, you vile piece of racist garbage.
I'm happy for you both.
I had no trouble because I'm neither stupid nor violent, unlike... well, you know who ;)
There was a cute Arizona story a week or two ago. A motorist was pulled over by a cop for some minor violation.
As he approached the car, the driver said, "Officer I am armed with two guns."
The cop said, "Why two guns?"
The driver said, "Because three is uncomfortable."
The cop wrote out the ticket and sent him on his way.
@Jupiter.
This is not the Battle of Guadalcanal. This is a police officer. You do not fire through an opaque barrier into a dwelling unless MAYBE you are taking fire from the other side. And even then you gave to be aware of the possible presence of kids.
Post a Comment