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 ...
Again, you dodge the question at hand.
I am an engineer, so I tend to use some words in their engineering frame of reference. The word “assert” includes as one of its definition the meaning I used.
With respect to stopping, the women claim they were never given an indication that they were supposed to stop. There was no warning before the police opened fire, which is stated in both of the articles I linked.
With respect to why there was a settlement as opposed to a full-blow lawsuit, your apparent assumption that the settlement implies wrongdoing on the women’s part is absurd. You have no evidence that they failed to comply or otherwise precipitated the incident, yet you imply that they are somehow culpable.
It’s been interesting debating with you, but the lack of factual argument is tiresome. If you wish to continue, please point to some evidence that supports your position, and keep in mind that restating your opinion is not evidence.
I have presented my evidence. If you can contradict the articles I cited with similar attributed statements or accounts, then we will have something to discuss further. If you cannot or will not do so, then further discussion is pointless and boring.
What did the cops say? They aren't allowed to say are they?
your apparent assumption that the settlement implies wrongdoing on the women’s part
No, that is your own assumption. I only posed the question. There must be a logical explanation. You claiming to be an engineer, I thought you might have a logical theory.
Again, no evidence.
You postulated a theory, and tell me I have to disprove it. You apparently cannot support your theory, hence the lack of evidence.
Since you cannot support your argument with documentation, it must be disregarded as opinion. Game, set, match.
“...why were all the bullet holes that I saw in the back of the pickup truck?”
The cops ran out of ammo before they could surround the truck?
How does ANYONE justify shooting 100 rounds at two women when you are looking for a 270 lb black guy in a different truck?
Do you believe the cops should conduct a manhunt by shooting everyone is sight, and checking with the morgue to find out if they hit the right person?
I did no such thing.
One more post, then I will ignore this thread and your comments.
You included in your position the idea that the women *may* have failed to stop on command. You have clung to that theorem throughout the discussion, neither providing any evidence that they were commanded to stop, nor providing contradicting evidence to the stories I cited. You further use innuendo that the women not pursuing a lawsuit through the entire process, instead opting for a settlement, means that they have something they did not wish to publicize in court.
That is the theory you postulated. You have not provided evidence, nor have you countered the contrary evidence I provided. Argument by innuendo is another logical fallacy - a flaw in the shape and content of one’s position.
Have a good evening, FRiend.
Yeah, that's the ticket.....lunatic!
I postulated no theory. I posed a question and you have repeatedly refused to address it. Your choice.
What is your rational theory that justifies shooting 100 rounds at a couple of older hispanic women when you are looking for a 270 lb black guy?
Was it incorrect information or were the cops anti Hispanic misogynists?
I have no theory. It was dark and as far as I know there were no cruisers on scene at the time of the shooting. You'll have to get an answer from the cops involved or the investigation.
There IS no justification for shooting at a vehicle without knowing who is inside.
You're WRONG!
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.