Replies

I have a hard time with this one. According to the article, the victim of the crime identified the suspect as the person who assaulted her. Second, if it is known that the backpack did not have his finger prints, then the backpack was taken into evidence.

So I'm thinking that the officer did what he was supposed to do. For example, person 1 accuses person 2 of a crime. Officer arrests person 1 and collects evidence and turns over to forensics for analysis (fingerprints). If the system works anything like what my cop friends tell me, at that point in time, the DA takes over the case, reviews the evidence and decides to go to trial.

I don't see how an officer can prevent evidence from being turned over to the DA or how he is responsible for the victim incorrectly identifying him as the perp.

Based upon what limited information is in the article... I have a hard time finding fault with the officers actions.

Based upon what limited information is in the article... I have a hard time finding fault with the officers actions

What do you want, the transcripts of the trial?

Seriously, both sides made their cases to the jury and the jury found the police liable. I will trust the jury on the decision against the police.

What seems to be in dispute is what is to be fair compensation, yet you are suggesting the jury was wrong in finding him guilty? At first I thought 18 million was high, but consider that this cost this guy his job, time in jail, his reputation, his chances of future employment and has dragged on for what, maybe three or four years?

I have a hard time with this one. According to the article, the victim of the crime identified the suspect as the person who assaulted her

Such identifications, even made in good faith, are routinely wrong.

The problem is the blind faith people have in such IDs of perps by victims.