Another black man shot by police in USA
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 7mins  In the bush 12 Dec 17 4.12pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
The criminal defense attorneys for the officers involved were annoyed because the settlement obviously could prejudice their case. But just because they claimed not yet to have seen the evidence doesn't mean - as you claim - that the city just wrote a check for 7 million over Gray's cooling corpse. The city would have been in possession of all the witness statements and they would have seen all the video evidence. But, at the end of the day, officers took into custody a healthy man and delivered to lock-up a man in a coma with a fatal spine injury (amongst other injuries). It's pretty hard to deny liability for his death at that point. Can you point out where I have adjusted the timeline? I said they paid out before the Court case and before a lawsuit was submitted. Do you think police released evidence to the city insurers before the defence attorneys? You’re making stuff up.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| 7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 4.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
The criminal defense attorneys for the officers involved were annoyed because the settlement obviously could prejudice their case. But just because they claimed not yet to have seen the evidence doesn't mean - as you claim - that the city just wrote a check for 7 million over Gray's cooling corpse. The city would have been in possession of all the witness statements and they would have seen all the video evidence. But, at the end of the day, officers took into custody a healthy man and delivered to lock-up a man in a coma with a fatal spine injury (amongst other injuries). It's pretty hard to deny liability for his death at that point. What’s my agenda Ray?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 4.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Is my agenda not jumping to concessions? Or am I a “Uncle Tom” or coconut? Maybe a self-hating mixed race guy... who doesn’t like the fact one parent was black? I’ve heard it all before... it’s just argument suppression as far as I’m concerned. You carry on with your knee-jerk reactions.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Dec 17 4.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
What’s my agenda Ray? This should be the title of a dance track by Voodoo Ray
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Ray in Houston  Houston 12 Dec 17 7.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
Can you point out where I have adjusted the timeline? I said they paid out before the Court case and before a lawsuit was submitted. Do you think police released evidence to the city insurers before the defence attorneys? You’re making stuff up.
The police are city employees so, yes, the city would have had the right - and ample opportunity - to investigate the conduct of its employees. They would have been able to share this information with their insurer as part of the settlement decision-making process. The defense attorneys you keep going back to are those who were retained by the individual officers who faced individual criminal charges, separate from any liability the city had to Gray's family. Those criminal charges are brought by the District Attorney, and it is the DA's office who is responsible for disseminating information to the defense attorneys in accordance with legal procedures. I call it an agenda because you keep making the same "mistake" in furtherance of the same - anti-BLM - point. You want it to be that the city rushed to settle because of BLM and the Ferguson riots (which were a year prior to settlement). The actual timeline doesn't fit this theory - the city took 5 months to work out a settlement - so you adjust and obfuscate it (with distractions like the criminal defense attorneys).
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 7.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
The police are city employees so, yes, the city would have had the right - and ample opportunity - to investigate the conduct of its employees. They would have been able to share this information with their insurer as part of the settlement decision-making process. The defense attorneys you keep going back to are those who were retained by the individual officers who faced individual criminal charges, separate from any liability the city had to Gray's family. Those criminal charges are brought by the District Attorney, and it is the DA's office who is responsible for disseminating information to the defense attorneys in accordance with legal procedures. I call it an agenda because you keep making the same "mistake" in furtherance of the same - anti-BLM - point. You want it to be that the city rushed to settle because of BLM and the Ferguson riots (which were a year prior to settlement). The actual timeline doesn't fit this theory - the city took 5 months to work out a settlement - so you adjust and obfuscate it (with distractions like the criminal defense attorneys). OK Ray... I clearly said it was my theory.... I did not present it as fact. They did however voluntarily offer 6.4m before a lawsuit was filed and before a court case was to begin. That is a fact.... When has a city offered such a sum before?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 7.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Actually..... you have put forward a great set of arguments Cities always offer millions to people that haven't asked for it, before a massive court case. BLM are lovely people that deal in facts only and don't promote lies and violence. I totally believe your stories of doing 50 in a 30 and the cop treating you different because of your skin colour. Juries aren't needed when you can quite clearly determine guilt from YouTube. And people the use "" are my favourite type of people.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ray in Houston Houston 12 Dec 17 7.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
OK Ray... I clearly said it was my theory.... I did not present it as fact. They did however voluntarily offer 6.4m before a lawsuit was filed and before a court case was to begin. That is a fact.... When has a city offered such a sum before? Settlements in advance of a suit are preferred by insurers in cases of obvious liability, as is the case here. There is nothing sinister about it. At all. In fact, it's likely that the insurers were driving the decision to settle because one thing they hate is uncertainty. Get 'em a number and a release from further claims and you've made an insurer's day. You can have your opinion on BLM, but your negative mindset towards the movement is, at best, clouding your interpretation of the customary machinations of tort liability settlements.
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 8.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
Settlements in advance of a suit are preferred by insurers in cases of obvious liability, as is the case here. There is nothing sinister about it. At all. In fact, it's likely that the insurers were driving the decision to settle because one thing they hate is uncertainty. Get 'em a number and a release from further claims and you've made an insurer's day. You can have your opinion on BLM, but your negative mindset towards the movement is, at best, clouding your interpretation of the customary machinations of tort liability settlements. You sure?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ray in Houston Houston 12 Dec 17 8.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
You sure?
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 8.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
I can smell something...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 8.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
Very common you say?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.