Posted on 04/23/2013 7:14:38 PM PDT by Alaska Wolf
LOS ANGELES | Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:38pm EDT
(Reuters) - The city of Los Angeles will pay $4.2 million to a mother and daughter who were caught in a hail of bullets in February when police mistook their truck for one driven by renegade ex-policeman Christopher Dorner and opened fire, officials said on Tuesday.
The settlement, which allows both sides to avoid a trial, brings the Los Angeles Police Department nearer to closing what had been an embarrassing chapter in its search for Dorner. The department still is reviewing the actions of two officers.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Plaintiffs and their attorneys are always looking for the deepest pockets.
Why do you suppose the plaintiffs didn't want to go to trial?
Did I not clarify it in post 67? Let me repost the relevant part of post 67:
“There was no good excuse for “these” LE officers to fire into the “back” of “this” vehicle. None.”
If you like arguing for arguing’ sake - go for it. You are still wrong.
That wasn’t a dumba^^ statement. It was illustrating the absurdity of your logic by being absurd.
Not only dumbass, but absurd!
Words have meanings. When one carelessly posts or posts without thinking through what they mean, they have a tendency to contract foot in mouth disease. Being factual and accurate is a reliable cure.
I have to say I admire you unflinching defense of a class of mentally disabled americans who are too developmentally challenged to be held accountable for their actions. I mean , what else would these high school wrestling team rejects do for a living if there weren’t police departments to pay them to carry a badge and a gun?
And as a bonus, they can shoot all the Mexican ladies they wish. You can’t beat that with a stick.
I'm not defending you.
Did you read the article?
"Los Angeles police spokesman Chris No said the settlement does not affect the department's investigation into the shooting by the two officers.
I see what you did there....! Of course you’re not defending me. You’re defending law enforcement, the only profession I’ve heard of where having too high of an IQ is a court approved disqualification for the job. All those high functioning morons on the force need all of the excuse making for their behavior that you can provide.
Well, you have convinced me that you believe a police officer is allowed to fire his weapon at someone for little or no reason. Suspicion of being the wrong person apparently is a capital crime now.
You have also convinced me that contemporary news, conglomerated by digesting multiple sources, might possibly be wrong, so no such information should ever be considered factual. After all, the people involved in a situation obviously can’t describe the happenings accurately. Supposition and innuendo after the fact is much better in establishing what happened.
Good luck with those beliefs.
If that's what you've gained from this discussion, I have to question your ability to comprehend English.
You have also convinced me that contemporary news, conglomerated by digesting multiple sources, might possibly be wrong, so no such information should ever be considered factual.
See above, Mortimer.
From what? Were you ever incarcerated?
Nice ad hominem.
You asserted that the women may have failed to stop quickly enough (although all reports I have seen indicated they weren’t told to stop), and intimated that (because there was a manhunt going on) the shooting may have been warranted.
You have also asserted that some contemporary reports were incorrect, and therefore more definitive information is needed. Yes, some contemporary reports were incorrect. That is why I always try to read multiple sources, getting the different sides to the story, before making a judgment based on the preponderance of evidence. Some reports were incorrect - but that does not mean all information from contemporary reports was wrong. Your argument relies on treating all such reports as factually challenged, even when they are corroborated by multiple sources.
And, in the end, you devolve into telling me you doubt my ability to understand the written language when I challenged the premises of your argument.
Nice ad hominem.
No, I did not assert. Words have meanings, you know that don't you?
all reports I have seen indicated they weren’t told to stop
Can you link me to some of them? Why do you believe neither party wanted a court case?
all such reports as factually challenged, even when they are corroborated by multiple sources.
So then provide me with some of those corroborating sources. I know how sloppy and inaccurate "reporter/journalists" are when the pressure is on to be first in breaking a story.
All we know is that the cops opened fire on the truck. I don't know if the driver failed to stop when and if flashing lights and sirens were used or what occurred prior to the shooting.
As I said, you asserted that the women may have failed to stop. Your quote shown above supports my statement.
Now, if you have similar links that show the women failed to stop, or somehow caused the police to decide their vehicle needed to be shot at, please provide them.
Sentences are composed of words and punctuation.
Assert - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively.
No, is that a requirement for you?
will they ask a similar question if you bash sodomy? Will they demand that you have had to try it first?
I see - you are predicating your objection to assert on the forcefulness/aggressiveness component of that definition.
I am using the common engineering usage of the word, which follows the 3rd definition from dictionary.com:
3. to state as having existence; affirm; postulate
Further, I said that you asserted (postulated) that the women *may* have failed to stop.
Now, since we have hashed out the semantics of the post, would you care to offer any links to stories in which the women are identified as having precipitated the shooting?
What exactly in this discussion has to do with engineering?
Further, I said that you asserted (postulated) that the women *may* have failed to stop.
If they had stopped, why were all the bullet holes that I saw in the back of the pickup truck? Why do you believe neither party wanted this event laundered in a public courtroom?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.