Baltimore To Pay $6.4 Million To Freddie Gray's Family - Page 4

Rajoo · #31 09-09-2015, 12:17 PM

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.

catswiththum · #32 09-09-2015, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boreas

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 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.

Boreas · #33 09-09-2015, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catswiththum

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

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

catswiththum · #34 09-09-2015, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boreas

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.

d-ray657 · #35 09-09-2015, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catswiththum

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

CarlV · #36 09-09-2015, 01:40 PM

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

Carl

catswiththum · #37 09-09-2015, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

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

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.

donquixote99 · #38 09-09-2015, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catswiththum

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?

d-ray657 · #39 09-09-2015, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catswiththum

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 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

catswiththum · #40 09-09-2015, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99

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

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.