Seattle Pays 10 Mil For Body Slam

[phylodog]

You mean like "Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights" under a state or fed prosecution? No way.

However, we are in a civil world, not criminal, where more likely than not controls. Actually it was a civil settlement world so all kinds of stuff comes into play.

The officer was wrong. That is what the $10 million settlement acknowledges, nothing more. I guess the department's lawyers are intelligent enough to realize that when brought up in civil court, not specifically telling their officers not to body check someone into a brick wall equals negligence and they should just pay up. Makes about as much sense as the settlement to the lady who burned herself with a cup of hot McDonald's coffee. Common sense is absolutely forbidden in civil litigation.

You have yet to show anything that demonstrates the department trained that officer to do what he did. The officer was wrong. Perhaps the department was negligent for hiring him in the first place. If there were incidents of excessive force with that officer previously they should have taken steps to ensure this didn't happen. I'm not arguing against the settlement, I have no problem with it. What I take issue with is your idea that the settlement means the city, department and every officer on it bears responsibility for the decision that officer made on that day. I guess there is no money in seeing things clearly though.

 

[CarmelHP]

Actually, if you knew anything about civil cases involving municipalities, you'd find that paying a settlement is sometimes the less expensive option than going to court, regardless of actual legal responsibility. In this particular situation, the video looks bad, and juries are emotional. Considering the plaintiff's injuries, $10 million was probably a reasonable option. It doesn't necessarily mean that the defendant is admitting responsibility. One would be naive to think that actual responsibility was the only factor in civil cases.

Besides, phylodog's comment about Kirk's noble quest to find someone, anyone, or anything to blame for his paying clients' actions other than the actual person responsible, refers to criminal cases, not civil cases. (Committing a crime) Civil cases usually involve comparative or contributory negligence, unlike the legal standard in criminal cases.

Actually, if you knew anything about civil cases...period...you would know that writing a check for 8 figures without waiting to see the trial results is only the result of knowing that you have pretty clear liability.

Tuesday's settlement — the largest individual award ever paid by the county, according to county spokeswoman Christine Lange — came as a civil trial over the lawsuit was under way in Tacoma. Paul, who never has spoken publicly about the incident, was scheduled to testify Tuesday.

Yup, just a normal everyday settlement, but you're the legal expert, right?

 

[CarmelHP]

The officer was wrong. That is what the $10 million settlement acknowledges, nothing more. I guess the department's lawyers are intelligent enough to realize that when brought up in civil court, not specifically telling their officers not to body check someone into a brick wall equals negligence and they should just pay up. Makes about as much sense as the settlement to the lady who burned herself with a cup of hot McDonald's coffee. Common sense is absolutely forbidden in civil litigation.

Negligence is the absence of reasonable care. I'm glad the legal experts are willing to lie and distort and make ignorant references like the "McDonald's coffee case," which, for the record:

1. The infamous McDonalds coffee which the coffee cup lady (Stella Liebeck) bought was 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees Celsius) at standard atmospheric pressure. 185 degree liquid can cause third degree full-thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds. McDonald's admitted that coffee could not be consumed at those temperatures.
2. Before the coffee cup lady got burned, 700 other McDonalds customer who were burned by McDonalds coffee had brought claims against the restaurant during the preceding 10 years.
3. When the coffee cup lady spilled her McDonalds coffee into her lap, the car was parked and she was in the passenger, not driver, seat. She was NOT trying to drive and drink coffee at the same time.
4. The coffee cup lady suffered third degree burns from her McDonalds spilled coffee to her groin, thighs, genitalia and buttocks. She had to spend 7 days in the hospital, 3 weeks at home, skin grafts and at one point, her life was thought to be in jeopardy.
5. After judgment, the judge reduced the jury’s punitive award from $2.7 mil. to $640k.
6. The coffee cup lady had initially asked McDonalds to pay $2k for medical bills plus her daughter’s lost wages. McDonalds played hardball and refused to offer more than $800.

But you armchair experts go ahead and spout about how unfair civil awards are and aren't based on any culpability. I'm sure that's why this department paid their highest civil settlement ever to keep this absolutely spotless, blameless peace officer from testifying. I'm sure they weren't afraid of him saying something that reflected badly on the department.

 

[phylodog]

You can spout off until your last breath about how "fair" civil litigation is in this country and you'll fail to convince me in the least. As I stated, just because it's done regularly does not make it right.

The only people who find "justice" in the exorbitant settlements commonly handed out in civil cases are the attorneys. I don't claim to be a legal expert, I have no desire to walk into a civil court and for damned good reason. Common sense is left outside the door and that's just how the "experts" like it.

You can keep that part of your world. It doesn't pass the smell test for most.

 

[phylodog]

I'm sure that's why this department paid their highest civil settlement ever to keep this absolutely spotless, blameless peace officer from testifying. I'm sure they weren't afraid of him saying something that reflected badly on the department.

I'm sorry, did you see me defending him in any way, shape or form?

 

[phil]

I'm sorry, did you see me defending him in any way, shape or form?

If you aren't defending him, and you're not blaming him....then what the hell are you babbling about?????

 

[theweakerbrother]

IBTL!

 

[phylodog]

If you aren't defending him, and you're not blaming him....then what the hell are you babbling about?????

How many times do I have to say that the officer is responsible for what he did? Have you actually read anything I've posted?

 

[jeremy]

Actually, if you knew anything about civil cases...period...you would know that writing a check for 8 figures without waiting to see the trial results is only the result of knowing that you have pretty clear liability.



Yup, just a normal everyday settlement, but you're the legal expert, right?

Huh...

Sounds like maybe you might know WTF you are talking about...

How many times do I have to say that the officer is responsible for what he did? Have you actually read anything I've posted?

You have posted something on this thread?!

 

[Love the 1911]

After reading and participating in this case study, I have come away with a few conclusions:

1: A department and a city can be responsible for "body slamming" someone against a wall. Regardless of what officer was in this situation, just by being employed by the department and the city, the outcome would be exactly the same.

2: A tin foil hat is as effective as keeping irrational thoughts in as they are in keeping the government out. Apparently, as a result of a tin foil hat, multiple people believe that every LEO on this site defend this officer's actions despite me not seeing any examples of this, even after asking outright.

3: Any officer in a tactical uniform also would have slammed this guy against a wall. The dark coloration of the uniform apparently bleeds into the brain of whomever is wearing it and clouds their judgement.

Against my better judgement, I will once again explain my stance on this issue. The officer in this video was in the wrong. It was an accident that it ended this way but the amount of force was not necessary. This officer needs to be punished for his actions, up to and including termination. Despite the intention, an incident like this can not be ignored or minimized. The civil suit against the city is the correct outcome for this situation. It is not right for the family of the victim of the tac uniform to have to pay out of pocket for injuries that he didn't deserve, whether they could have been avoided or not by not running from someone who's not dressed like a nurse.

Tin foil hat guys: see what you can take out of context here to show how I said that the guy deserved what he got, the officer acted perfectly, and the tactical uniforms are cool and unidentifiable as being worn by police officers.

 

[level.eleven]

Just to add, the paramedic that arrived on the scene testified that he didn't think the law enforcement officer was an actual policeman. Other witness testified that they thought the men were nightclub bouncers or security guards.

The officers involved were "Metro Transit".

Local News | Paramedic testifies deputy said man ran into wall | Seattle Times Newspaper

 

[Benny]

Just to add, the paramedic that arrived on the scene testified that he didn't think the law enforcement officer was an actual policeman. Other witness testified that they thought the men were nightclub bouncers or security guards.

The officers involved were "Metro Transit".

Local News | Paramedic testifies deputy said man ran into wall | Seattle Times Newspaper

3: Any officer in a tactical uniform also would have slammed this guy against a wall. The dark coloration of the uniform apparently bleeds into the brain of whomever is wearing it and clouds their judgement.

Yep, that's why people are complaining about the black uniform.

Well done, sir.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The officer in this video was in the wrong. It was an accident that it ended this way but the amount of force was not necessary. This officer needs to be punished for his actions, up to and including termination.

Both officers should be fired and charged with consipiring to obstruct justice. The assaulting officer should be charged with assault and / or any other applicable charge. Bring in witnesses and let a jury decide if they looked like and identified themselves as LEOs or if it was reasonable for Mr. Harris to run and be slammed into a wall. That's our system. Charge, try, verdict. Let the evidence be presented and a decision rendered.

That should be fair regardless of your position, right?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

A tin foil hat is as effective as keeping irrational thoughts in as they are in keeping the government out. Apparently, as a result of a tin foil hat, multiple people believe that every LEO on this site defend this officer's actions despite me not seeing any examples of this, even after asking outright.

Well, there is a tendency to generalize in commenting on specific cases.

However, it is important to recognize those in law enforcement that are quick to condemn this act and to train others not to engage in such behavior.

The uniform issue may be collateral but I think it is fair to comment on it given what happened and that the witnesses involved did not realize that the officer in black was a police officer.

 

[Love the 1911]

After reading this article from 1/24, I would agree more with the uniform issues. Most "tactical" uniforms are easily recognized as being police uniforms. This was obviously not the case here, per the eyewitness accounts.

My bigger concern is the 2nd officer who "chuckled" while confirming the 1st officer's story. I missed the joke in the video or in the story that would lead a human being to chuckle about someone else having the back of their head caved in.

As for criminal charges, it is unfortunate that the prosecutor did not find reason to file any charges in this case. In Indiana, the filing of all charges is up to the prosecutor and no one else. The prosecutor does not answer to anyone until election time about why they did or did not file charges on someone. Not organizing a grand jury seems like an easy point of evidence to point to corruption between the police force and the prosecutor's office. From the stories that have been submitted by the papers and the obvious video evidence, criminal charges seem like a given. I believe bouncers, security guards, loss prevention, etc. would have been charged as well as any other citizen if similar circumstances had involved them.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My bigger concern is the 2nd officer who "chuckled" while confirming the 1st officer's story.

Don't be too hard on him. In the face of a horrific event, motor vehicle crash or the like, some people will giggle/laugh as a coping mechanism to the shock. It is another thing to be laughing a week later.

 

[hornadylnl]

After reading this article from 1/24, I would agree more with the uniform issues. Most "tactical" uniforms are easily recognized as being police uniforms. This was obviously not the case here, per the eyewitness accounts.

My bigger concern is the 2nd officer who "chuckled" while confirming the 1st officer's story. I missed the joke in the video or in the story that would lead a human being to chuckle about someone else having the back of their head caved in.

As for criminal charges, it is unfortunate that the prosecutor did not find reason to file any charges in this case. In Indiana, the filing of all charges is up to the prosecutor and no one else. The prosecutor does not answer to anyone until election time about why they did or did not file charges on someone. Not organizing a grand jury seems like an easy point of evidence to point to corruption between the police force and the prosecutor's office. From the stories that have been submitted by the papers and the obvious video evidence, criminal charges seem like a given. I believe bouncers, security guards, loss prevention, etc. would have been charged as well as any other citizen if similar circumstances had involved them.

And people wonder why we believe there are 2 justice systems. One for the peasants and one for the king's men.

 

[level.eleven]

Does anyone have any insight to the advantages of having police that dress like soldiers, in all black, patrol subways and bus routes?

 

[Ash]

Does anyone have any insight to the advantages of having police that dress like soldiers, in all black, patrol subways and bus routes?

Conditioning?

 

[steveh_131]

Does anyone have any insight to the advantages of having police that dress like soldiers, in all black, patrol subways and bus routes?

+10 str
+20 dex
-70 int