Baltimore To Pay $6.4 Million To Freddie Gray's Family
 

And it's a 'disclosed settlement.' That's good.

Will be staying tuned for more justice.

They will be rolling in crack if thats the case.

That should be paid out of the Baltimore Police Pension fund and the formula for calculating their pensions adjusted accordingly.

What a phucking joke... no suit has even been filed. :confused:

Extortion, but that's ok like I said the money will be squandered just like most lottery winners.

This just says the city thinks it would cost more to defend against this bullshit: they're paying off the animals which is a sound idea if you can do it so effectively.

Via taxes, penalties on criminal activity and fines from necessary increased enforcement?

This costs nada.

Yep trying to stave off riots and burning the city down.

Well, do you mean to imply that it's legitimate to 'increase enforcement' to increase revenue? Will you endorse that idea openly?

Only an idiot would think other wise, the same goes for federal govenment with taxes and fines.

Both forms of govenment exist because of taxes and finds as they do not produce a product. Any money they ever pay out for anyhing is yours so that's your 6.5 million being extorted.

Increased enforcement is merely a demanded byproduct of the need to maintain society under assault from those same types who eventually destroyed Rome.

That it will generate revenue acting as wolf meat for the same people is just a convenient byproduct. :cool:

Fuck'em.

Whatever your opinion of the situation, the city, by reaching a settlement, is admitting guilt in the death of Freddie Grey before the trial of the 6 officers accused has even begun.

This effectively taints any jury pool - "if they are not guilty, why did the city pay 6.4 million dollars?"

The city has perverted the course of justice and dealt a serious blow to the officers' right to a fair trial.

You are delusional and filled with hate. I hope you get help before you act out.

Rome was 'destroyed' by it's selfish, greedy, hedonistic, amoral slave-holding ruling class, of course. And the demise of that horrible murderous society took many centuries too long.

I find I am more gratified by the swift and sure justice provided to the brutalized family, than I am upset by whatever level of 'perversion' of the course of justice has occurred in the accused officer's cases.

Yep this is and outlandish act agaist justice.

This is a statment against the rule of law, so if you feel that way no one broke any laws because you do not need them.

Your view is mob rule.

An award based on economics and the trials moved to areas friendly to law enforcement. In New York Bronx is avoid in case of such trials. :D

This method: award placates the mobs and the transfer to another area frees/lessens - penalty of the police.

Common sense.

That is the law of the jungle - I am sorry you feel that way.

I don't have to tell you the law exists for a fair and just hearing for the accused, regardless of the feelings of any one individual or group.

The officers have not had a trial, no evidence has been given, no testimony heard - the city has pronounced them guilty with this settlement and denied them that right.

There won't be any Jury.

The Cops will take trial by Judge, because Judges are always in the tank for the Cops. They'll walk. When it comes to cops murdering black men, there is no justice.

We will see - up to this point the officers' defense attorneys have been requesting a change of venue, citing the impossibility of an impartial jury in Baltimore.

The city's preemptive settlement will no doubt affect their defense strategy - I do not know if they do or do not now have the option to request trial by judge according to applicable statutes.

Remember when I said I would ban myself for two weeks if I ever slip up and respond to him again?

Well I'm amending that.

It's now a 30 day self ban.

A trial of the perpetrators for abuse of authority resulting in death, and compensation for the family of the deceased seems reasonable. How the family uses the money is up to them, tho mandating a trust fund for surviving dependents to be administered by a trusted agent, and perhaps something directed to mentoring as a memorial would be appropriate.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

It is just feelings, and I so identified them. But you wax hyperbolic. Law of the jungle would be throwing them to the mob. There will still to be trials, and their outcome is hardly certain.

Anyway, we're just arguing opinion. How 'fair and just' would the trials have been? How 'fair and just' will they be now? The thing cannot be measured. Is the quanta of negative 'fairness and justness' greater or lesser than the positive quanta (if any, you seem inclined to be unsure) of granting monetary recompense to the family now, and through a final settlement, instead of years from now after a court action and a string of appeals? That also cannot be measured. So your sorrow for my feelings is just more feelings. I'm tempted to say 'thanks for sharing.' :)

You're being too rough on yourself.

Is that what they call members of that community?:rolleyes:

You are welcome.

I will amend "law of the jungle."

Deliberately contravening the legal process and rights of the accused is more accurate.

Doesn't matter.

Their lawyers will still get 1/3 of that off the top.

Said 'deliberate contravening' of the rights of the accused is not shown. It may, to whatever extent it exists, just be a by-product of the deliberate haste to provide for the family.

The $$$ is cheaper than defense and quells a barbarian rabble.

Wolf meat or government cheese, call it either.

And the vermin will wind up paying for it, anyway, through increased enforcement.

Too perfect once officers are appropriately exonerated.

I bet the Gray family will be spending that settlement somewhere else.

No, they're not. They are acknowledging that Freddie Gray died unnecessarily while in custody. That much has been obvious and uncontested from the beginning. This makes the city liable for damages but it does not imply criminal behavior on the part of the 6 officers.

I am certain that the settlement does not include admission of a specific guilt and further, no other lawsuits can be filed. Cost of defense will far exceed the settlement since the first mission of plaintiff's attorneys is to jack up billable hours and keep them counting, especially when they are up against deep pockets.

I disagree - it is being contested by the defendants and their attorneys.

From a legal standpoint, the city was within it's rights to settle the suit. Also from a legal standpoint, the defense attorneys will no doubt use this as ammunition in attempts to change the venue or even dismiss, depending on how they think the wind is blowing.

The fact that Freddie Gray died of injuries sustained while in police custody is uncontested and uncontestible.

I do not know if that is true - I know what has been reported.

Did he have an injury and not alert the police?

Did he injure himself while in policy custody through no fault of the police?

Did the police cause his injury?

I do not know - I have not seen or heard the evidence. The burden of proof is much less in civil cases, so the city settled, but I believe it to be a dangerous precedent.

You just said that you do not know what the evidence shows. How, then can you know that it was improper for the city to settle?

Regards,

D-Ray

Can't buy a judge for 6.4 million? Now that is guilty.:p



Carl

Nor has the city seen/heard all the evidence in the criminal proceedings against the 6 officers and their guilt or innocence has not been determined.

As I posted above, the city is within it's legal right to settle the suit. As the civil and criminal cases are connected - the prosecution alleges the wrongful death was caused by the police - I believe it was prejudicial and damaging to do so and severely hinders the chance of a fair and impartial trial.

I'm not sure i get it. Are you saying they had a right to settle the case, and a duty not to?

I believe that the most accurate statement is that the city had significantly more information in its possession than either of us do. Is it possible that it sold out the defendants to limit its own exposure? I wouldn't doubt it.

Regards,

D-Ray

Duty? No. I'm sure the attorneys on the board can speak better than I can to the gray areas and overlaps between civil and criminal cases that can cause problems for both the prosecution and the defense.

I think this is a case where the fairest course of action for the defendants would have been to wait for the adjudication of their criminal trials before agreeing to a civil settlement, as the two are joined at the hip.

Also, depending on the attorneys, judges rulings, and the mood of the jury, the city may have given the defense grounds for at least a change of venue.