Diamond Reynolds gets $800,000 Settlement

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Murder and manslaughter yes, other crimes are more in proportion with 'white' people comitting those crimes, while still higher. Yes law enforcement spend a good deal of time there because of things like racial profiling.

Err, isn't that suggesting that if there is over policing racial profiling, it's against white folk more than black folk?

Things like drug offences are more likely to be inflated by overpolicing because the more you police the more crimes you'll find. But murder stats aren't likely to be influenced by racial profiling, at least not a huge amount, because a dead person is always going to be investigated. You don't have 10 bodies show up in a predominantly white area and go "hmmm, oh well, lets ignore this and go investigate that 1 body we found in the predominantly black area".

Murder and manslaughter stats should be the least prone to being warped by over policing.

But "racial profiling" is always going to be a problem when socioeconomic levels are divided by race. You can completely take race out of the equation, look at other countries where the low social status people are the same race as the high social status people and the former will still rack up higher crime stats even though race isn't an issue.

**Disciple of Fate**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Murder and manslaughter yes, other crimes are more in proportion with 'white' people comitting those crimes, while still higher. Yes law enforcement spend a good deal of time there because of things like racial profiling.
Err, isn't that suggesting that if there is over policing racial profiling, it's against white folk more than black folk?

Things like drug offences are more likely to be inflated by overpolicing because the more you police the more crimes you'll find. But murder stats aren't likely to be influenced by racial profiling, at least not a huge amount, because a dead person is always going to be investigated. You don't have 10 bodies show up in a predominantly white area and go "hmmm, oh well, lets ignore this and go investigate that 1 body we found in the predominantly black area".

Murder and manslaughter stats should be the least prone to being warped by over policing.

But "racial profiling" is always going to be a problem with socioeconomic levels are divided by race. You can completely take race out of the equation, look at other countries where the low social status people are the same race as the high social status people and the former will still rack up higher crime stats even though race isn't an issue.

I didn't mean it like that. I agreed with Cudda that police spend more time policing 'black' communities, which skews the other crime data to an extent, not saying it skewed murder data. I will edit it with some spacing for clarity.

Yes, but in the US it affects certain 'races' relatively more, which is why I refer to it as racial profiling. Of course it has (terrible) historical reasons, but on average 'white' people are slightly higher up on the socioeconomic ladder. Race can become a subconscious issue due to these biases (both socioeconomic and crime sats). Again leading to a somewhat vicious circle. This wasn't necessarily about skewed stats or one group being more likely due to race, my problem with the original statement was this:

Also whites are more likely to get shot than Blacks, adjusting for variables. Twice as many whites get shot, but there are 4.5 times as many Whites. However, once adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates whites are slightly more likely to take a bullet from a cop.

Its vague and trying to imply that its somehow worse for 'white' people because they are less disproportionately represented in crime numbers, without knowing the motivations behind the majority of police shootings because statistics are not really kept on them.

**cuda1179**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Murder and manslaughter yes, other crimes are more in proportion with 'white' people comitting those crimes, while still higher. Yes law enforcement spend a good deal of time there because of things like racial profiling.
Err, isn't that suggesting that if there is over policing racial profiling, it's against white folk more than black folk?

Things like drug offences are more likely to be inflated by overpolicing because the more you police the more crimes you'll find. But murder stats aren't likely to be influenced by racial profiling, at least not a huge amount, because a dead person is always going to be investigated. You don't have 10 bodies show up in a predominantly white area and go "hmmm, oh well, lets ignore this and go investigate that 1 body we found in the predominantly black area".

Murder and manslaughter stats should be the least prone to being warped by over policing.

But "racial profiling" is always going to be a problem with socioeconomic levels are divided by race. You can completely take race out of the equation, look at other countries where the low social status people are the same race as the high social status people and the former will still rack up higher crime stats even though race isn't an issue.

I didn't mean it like that. I agreed with Cudda that police spend more time policing 'black' communities, which skews the other crime data to an extent, not saying it skewed murder data. I will edit it with some spacing for clarity.

Yes, but in the US it affects certain 'races' relatively more, which is why I refer to it as racial profiling. Of course it has (terrible) historical reasons, but on average 'white' people are slightly higher up on the socioeconomic ladder. Race can become a subconscious issue due to these biases (both socioeconomic and crime sats). Again leading to a somewhat vicious circle. This wasn't necessarily about skewed stats or one group being more likely due to race, my problem with the original statement was this:

Also whites are more likely to get shot than Blacks, adjusting for variables. Twice as many whites get shot, but there are 4.5 times as many Whites. However, once adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates whites are slightly more likely to take a bullet from a cop.

Its vague and trying to imply that its somehow worse for 'white' people because they are less disproportionately represented in crime numbers, without knowing the motivations behind the majority of police shootings because statistics are not really kept on them.

And my problem was that US police are dangerous loose cannons and that being Black means you are almost certain to be shot.

**Disciple of Fate**

cuda1179 wrote:
And my problem was that US police are dangerous loose cannons and that being Black means you are almost certain to be shot.

Sure, I don't think they all are, but there is a problem with some bad eggs and the institutional defence of them that is (should be) disconcerting to everyone. Even if African Americans are seemingly (as in we don't have hard statistics because they aren't gathered) more frequently the victim. Yet the problem with political divisiveness is that it becomes a partisan instead of societal issue.

But then you said this and I'm curious about what adjustments you made to get to this conclusion, its a vague statement:

cuda1179 wrote:
Also whites are more likely to get shot than Blacks, adjusting for variables. Twice as many whites get shot, but there are 4.5 times as many Whites. However, once adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates whites are slightly more likely to take a bullet from a cop.

**Xenomancers**

sebster wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance.

For this argument to be anything more than a cynical deflection, you would have to argue that the reason we see so many more shootings in the US is because the US is somehow unique in having non-compliant citizens. Which would be a staggeringly ridiculous thing to claim.

It's actually not wrong to think different cultures would have different levels of compliance but that is not the issue. There are more shootings in the US because both police and citizens have guns - outside of any cultural differences - that is the main reason. My argument was that almost all police shootings of this type involve non compliance.

**Blackie**

One of the things about America that I've never understood is how a cop kills a citizen, usually unarmed, is found not guilty of any crime at a trial, but the victim's family received a settlement of millions.

If the cop's actions were justified why the settlement?

It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.

**Xenomancers**

Blackie wrote:
One of the things about America that I've never understood is how a cop kills a citizen, usually unarmed, is found not guilty of any crime at a trial, but the victim's family received a settlement of millions.

If the cop's actions were justified why the settlement?

It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.

I don't get it ether. In this case I think it worked something like this. The cop was tried for manslaughter but he was deemed not guilty. The family then sued the police department and rather than take it to trial they just cut their losses to avoid bad exposure to the public and insurance covers a lot of that bill anyways. Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.

**Disciple of Fate**

Its the difference between a criminal and civil case. Just because a cop is not found guilty in a criminal trial does not mean the police department is absolved of all wrongdoing, so a civil case is not useless. That doesn't just happen in the US.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:
Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.

That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at it seeing as the city and the judge (almost certainly) seem to disagree with you.

**Xenomancers**

Dreadwinter wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.

That is how you rationalize murder, folks!

This guy wasn't even convicted of a lesser crime than murder by a jury of his peers. The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance. You just want to be a social justice warrior.

He was compliant. He said in the video he had a weapon on him and he was not reaching for it. See, I know this because I watched the video again about 10-15 minutes ago.

Also, SJW really? Come on. Come on.

Lets be clear about the video evidence. We can't see Castile - only Yanez. So there is no way to know for sure what Castile is doing with his hands. We have to make an assumption here that Yanez is not a raving lunatic and just randomly deciding to shoot people up for whatever reason - there is no evidence of that. He saw him reaching for something and he repeated several commands for him to not do that. Never do we see Castiles hands go up (which we could have seen - and you would expect to see). Then he gets shot. Probably what happend was Castile decided to reach for his wallet and reasoned it was okay to do that - but you can't tell a cop you have a gun and reach for anything - that's probably up on the list of the dumbest possible thing you could do in a traffic stop.

Oh, okay. So why do we have to make the assumption that Yanez is not a raving lunatic?

He saw him moving his hands, again no evidence since we cannot see him, but we do now know where he was moving them. Castille informs the police he is armed and then says he is not reaching for his weapon. Which would have satisfied the officers commands not to reach for it. Because clearly he was not. Why do we assume that Castille is a raving lunatic looking to draw his weapon on an officer in a routine traffic stop but we assume Yanez is a sane upstanding police officer just looking to get home to his wife and kids?

Horsegak and you know it. That is an awful argument. Informing the officer you have a gun is what you are supposed to do. The Officer can then know that you are armed. If Castile could miraculously draw his weapon from a sitting position on the Officer, with another officer on the other side of the car watching inside, and shoot the officer. Holy crap that would be crazy. I mean, Yanez jumped but the other officer did not. I kinda wonder if, for some reason, the other Officer WAS AWARE OF PROTOCOL AND NOT A JUMPY GAKKY COP.

Well - the other officer was in no position to react in anyway to Castile - from where he was he couldn't see a thing.

**Dreadwinter**

Xenomancers wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.

That is how you rationalize murder, folks!

This guy wasn't even convicted of a lesser crime than murder by a jury of his peers. The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance. You just want to be a social justice warrior.

He was compliant. He said in the video he had a weapon on him and he was not reaching for it. See, I know this because I watched the video again about 10-15 minutes ago.

Also, SJW really? Come on. Come on.

Lets be clear about the video evidence. We can't see Castile - only Yanez. So there is no way to know for sure what Castile is doing with his hands. We have to make an assumption here that Yanez is not a raving lunatic and just randomly deciding to shoot people up for whatever reason - there is no evidence of that. He saw him reaching for something and he repeated several commands for him to not do that. Never do we see Castiles hands go up (which we could have seen - and you would expect to see). Then he gets shot. Probably what happend was Castile decided to reach for his wallet and reasoned it was okay to do that - but you can't tell a cop you have a gun and reach for anything - that's probably up on the list of the dumbest possible thing you could do in a traffic stop.

Oh, okay. So why do we have to make the assumption that Yanez is not a raving lunatic?

He saw him moving his hands, again no evidence since we cannot see him, but we do now know where he was moving them. Castille informs the police he is armed and then says he is not reaching for his weapon. Which would have satisfied the officers commands not to reach for it. Because clearly he was not. Why do we assume that Castille is a raving lunatic looking to draw his weapon on an officer in a routine traffic stop but we assume Yanez is a sane upstanding police officer just looking to get home to his wife and kids?

Horsegak and you know it. That is an awful argument. Informing the officer you have a gun is what you are supposed to do. The Officer can then know that you are armed. If Castile could miraculously draw his weapon from a sitting position on the Officer, with another officer on the other side of the car watching inside, and shoot the officer. Holy crap that would be crazy. I mean, Yanez jumped but the other officer did not. I kinda wonder if, for some reason, the other Officer WAS AWARE OF PROTOCOL AND NOT A JUMPY GAKKY COP.
Well - the other officer was in no position to react in anyway to Castile - from where he was he couldn't see a thing.

That is 100% wrong. He was on the opposite side of the car looking in. He could the right side of his body. Notice he jumps back and never draws his weapon.

You should watch the video again.

**Xenomancers**

I've watched the video countless times dreadwinter. When the shots are fired he is standing near the trunk of the car - maybe inline with the back seat. No chance he saw anything.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its the difference between a criminal and civil case. Just because a cop is not found guilty in a criminal trial does not mean the police department is absolved of all wrongdoing, so a civil case is not useless. That doesn't just happen in the US.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:
Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.

That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at it seeing as the city and the judge (almost certainly) seem to disagree with you.

The judge has very little to do with the settlement - all they do is approve the thing as far as I know. 2 lawyers negotiated the settlement - it's like a contracts. in essense she gets 800k dollars for being "emotionally traumatized" and "falsely arrested" and she in turn can't lead protests and march on town hall/ talk to the press - it's all in the settlement.

**Easy E**

Blackie wrote:

It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.

Its like Weregeld....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild

It prevents blood fueds from breaking out.....

**Disciple of Fate**

Xenomancers wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its the difference between a criminal and civil case. Just because a cop is not found guilty in a criminal trial does not mean the police department is absolved of all wrongdoing, so a civil case is not useless. That doesn't just happen in the US.

Xenomancers wrote:
Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.

That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at it seeing as the city and the judge (almost certainly) seem to disagree with you.

The judge has very little to do with the settlement - all they do is approve the thing as far as I know. 2 lawyers negotiated the settlement - it's like a contracts. in essense she gets 800k dollars for being "emotionally traumatized" and "falsely arrested" and she in turn can't lead protests and march on town hall/ talk to the press - it's all in the settlement.

A judge still has to approve it, its still passes the judicial review was my point. No, in essence she got 800k for having her partner shot and watching him die in front of her and her child, after that incredibly traumatic event she herself was also falsely arrested in front of her child for good measure. How giving her and her child money to recover from that is a problem is beyond me. Castillo's estate got much more than she did.

**Ouze**

Xenomancers wrote:
I've watched the video countless times dreadwinter. When the shots are fired he is standing near the trunk of the car - maybe inline with the back seat. No chance he saw anything.

The cops are pretty much equally parallel to each other:

When he jumps back, he has to travel at least 4 or 5 feet until he is actually behind the car. Which would make sense, because obviously his partner was watching the passenger seat, because jfc, what kind of alternate reality do you have to invent where the cop's partner intentionally stands someplace where he can't see what's happening in the front seat of a stop he is conducting with his partner.

redleger wrote:
Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.

If only there was another possibility, such as that the cop didn't intend to murder anyone that morning, but he panicked, and used lethal force where it wasn't justified. If only we lived in a world where there was justice system that had degrees between "totally innocent" and "murder one".

**Dreadwinter**

Nah man, that second cop isn't doing anything. He is just a clever decoy. Xenomancer knows, he has seen the video numerous times before!

**Xenomancers**

watch the video - the second cop is strolling up and down that sidewalk for about 30 seconds of exchange between the first officer and the driver. When the shots are fired look at where he is. If anyone is incompetent it is the second cop.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its the difference between a criminal and civil case. Just because a cop is not found guilty in a criminal trial does not mean the police department is absolved of all wrongdoing, so a civil case is not useless. That doesn't just happen in the US.

Xenomancers wrote:
Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.

That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at it seeing as the city and the judge (almost certainly) seem to disagree with you.

The judge has very little to do with the settlement - all they do is approve the thing as far as I know. 2 lawyers negotiated the settlement - it's like a contracts. in essense she gets 800k dollars for being "emotionally traumatized" and "falsely arrested" and she in turn can't lead protests and march on town hall/ talk to the press - it's all in the settlement.

A judge still has to approve it, its still passes the judicial review was my point. No, in essence she got 800k for having her partner shot and watching him die in front of her and her child, after that incredibly traumatic event she herself was also falsely arrested in front of her child for good measure. How giving her and her child money to recover from that is a problem is beyond me. Castillo's estate got much more than she did.

Judges typically do not get in the way of a a settlement unless there is some sort of egregious stuff in there. Like a child molester not serving time - something like that would never pass. Something like this though - where a police department is essentially bribing someone for silence? Yeah...judges don't even read those settlements - they just sign.

**Ouze**

Xenomancers wrote:
watch the video - the second cop is strolling up and down that sidewalk for about 30 seconds of exchange between the first officer and the driver. When the shots are fired look at where he is. If anyone is incompetent it is the second cop.

He is definitely, 100% walking up to the passenger's side window when he stops. At one point you see him leaning forward to look at something.

I have to wonder what video you're watching where he's "strolling up and down the sidewalk for 30 seconds". It literally does not happen.

**Xenomancers**

Ouze wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
watch the video - the second cop is strolling up and down that sidewalk for about 30 seconds of exchange between the first officer and the driver. When the shots are fired look at where he is. If anyone is incompetent it is the second cop.

He is definitely, 100% walking up to the passenger's side window when he stops. At one point you see him leaning forward to look at something.

You see him lean forward because he can't see because he is at the back seat.

**Disciple of Fate**

Xenomancers wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its the difference between a criminal and civil case. Just because a cop is not found guilty in a criminal trial does not mean the police department is absolved of all wrongdoing, so a civil case is not useless. That doesn't just happen in the US.

Xenomancers wrote:
Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.

That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at it seeing as the city and the judge (almost certainly) seem to disagree with you.

The judge has very little to do with the settlement - all they do is approve the thing as far as I know. 2 lawyers negotiated the settlement - it's like a contracts. in essense she gets 800k dollars for being "emotionally traumatized" and "falsely arrested" and she in turn can't lead protests and march on town hall/ talk to the press - it's all in the settlement.

A judge still has to approve it, its still passes the judicial review was my point. No, in essence she got 800k for having her partner shot and watching him die in front of her and her child, after that incredibly traumatic event she herself was also falsely arrested in front of her child for good measure. How giving her and her child money to recover from that is a problem is beyond me. Castillo's estate got much more than she did.

Judges typically do not get in the way of a a settlement unless there is some sort of egregious stuff in there. Like a child molester not serving time - something like that would never pass. Something like this though - where a police department is essentially bribing someone for silence? Yeah...judges don't even read those settlements - they just sign.

Problem being that if this is apparently ok by judicial standards and therefore justice/justified in that sense.

**Dreadwinter**

Xenomancers wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
watch the video - the second cop is strolling up and down that sidewalk for about 30 seconds of exchange between the first officer and the driver. When the shots are fired look at where he is. If anyone is incompetent it is the second cop.

He is definitely, 100% walking up to the passenger's side window when he stops. At one point you see him leaning forward to look at something.

You see him lean forward because he can't see because he is at the back seat.

Was he pacing up and down the street or is he leaning because he cannot see something? You are all over the place here. Have you watched the video?

**daedalus**

Dreadwinter wrote:

Was he pacing up and down the street or is he leaning because he cannot see something? You are all over the place here. Have you watched the video?

Based upon the conscript threads, I think there's enough police officers for them to be in whatever positions they need to be for the sake of the argument.

**Galas**

daedalus wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

Was he pacing up and down the street or is he leaning because he cannot see something? You are all over the place here. Have you watched the video?

Based upon the conscript threads, I think there's enough police officers for them to be in whatever positions they need to be for the sake of the argument.

You are arguing with a guy that said that Space Marines are the worst codex of 8th. This is a waste of time.

**Easy E**

Guys, let's focus on the settlements and not re-try the case. That is over.

Does the policy of settlements after a shooting help or hinder in the reduction of police shootings?

**Xenomancers**

Easy E wrote:
Guys, let's focus on the settlements and not re-try the case. That is over.

Does the policy of settlements after a shooting help or hinder in the reduction of police shootings?

I'd say it has very little if any effect at all.

**kronk**

Cites, counties, and states have been paying out settlements for years for "bad" shootings.

Nothing will change from that.

Charging and actually convicting cops for bad shootings is what's required. Until the US makes a concerted effort to actually do that, to be willing to send bad cops to jail, the bad shootings will continue.

There have been a few cops recently that have faced police brutality/murder (can't recall offhand). Perhaps that will help them boys in blue pause now and again.

Maybe.

**Vaktathi**

Easy E wrote:
Guys, let's focus on the settlements and not re-try the case. That is over.

Does the policy of settlements after a shooting help or hinder in the reduction of police shootings?

given that the settlements are typically paid out by insurance companies or public funds set aside in such expectation, or are otherwise shielded (or are too small) from having any direct meaningful impact on the departments they are levied against, probably very little direct reduction in shootings.

Take it out of the pension fund and the departments actual operating budget or raise/bonus allocation and we'd probably see a greater impact

But their point really isnt to drop shootings, its to compensate those affected by them.

**oldravenman3025**

Blackie wrote:One of the things about America that I've never understood is how a cop kills a citizen, usually unarmed, is found not guilty of any crime at a trial, but the victim's family received a settlement of millions.

If the cop's actions were justified why the settlement?

It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.

Xenomancers wrote:
Blackie wrote:
One of the things about America that I've never understood is how a cop kills a citizen, usually unarmed, is found not guilty of any crime at a trial, but the victim's family received a settlement of millions.

If the cop's actions were justified why the settlement?

It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.

I don't get it ether. In this case I think it worked something like this. The cop was tried for manslaughter but he was deemed not guilty. The family then sued the police department and rather than take it to trial they just cut their losses to avoid bad exposure to the public and insurance covers a lot of that bill anyways. Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.

Civil and criminal are two different animals. And it's not an indication of guilt (criminally) on the part of the defendant.

It's been that way for a long time now. It's a product of the litigious nature of modern America and the greed of lawyers that's mostly to blame here.

**LordofHats**

The same thing happened in the OJ Simpson case. Guy was acquitted of criminal charges but ended up paying for wrongful death in civil court. The standards of evidence between the two are very different.

In this case there was no need to prove criminal wrong doing on the part of the officer, only that he caused harm which is pretty easy to do. He did fire into a vehicle on nebulous reasons after all and someone died. I agree that it's a really shallow outcome and not real justice but it's better than nothing.

**cuda1179**

kronk wrote:
Cites, counties, and states have been paying out settlements for years for "bad" shootings.

Nothing will change from that.

Charging and actually convicting cops for bad shootings is what's required. Until the US makes a concerted effort to actually do that, to be willing to send bad cops to jail, the bad shootings will continue.

There have been a few cops recently that have faced police brutality/murder (can't recall offhand). Perhaps that will help them boys in blue pause now and again.

Maybe.

Cities and counties have also been paying out for good shootings too. It seems like no matter what happened there's a decent chance of a lawsuit. Around here we call it the redneck/trailer park/ghetto lottery.

**Mario**

cuda1179 wrote:
Hey, there are a plethora of videos that make Americans not want to encounter Russian cops.

Why the comparison to Russia, doesn't the USA see itself as a first world country anymore (you know, all the talk about "USA being number one")? How about Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or one of the Scandinavian countries?