Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the civil case, discovery makes a much broader universe of information available--there is a broad standard for the information that can be discovered, and it would certainly cover, for example, a pattern of "rough rides" in the department, past similar incidents involving these officers and their supervisors, complaints to the police department about brutality, testimony from officers around the department about explicit and implicit policies and guidance on the treatment of arrestees, etc. There would be a lot of opportunities for damaging information to arise that do not exist in a criminal trial.
Some weird aspects of that though... no civil suit had been filed, and the settlement does not shield the individual officers from liability. So, not only was there no direct risk of discovery filings yet, but the settlement itself does not protect the city from discovery in any subsequent civil suits against the individual officers.
(Also, the city already went through a jury trial and a near identical "rough ride" case, so presumably much of the information that could come to light already came to light in that case. As well, settling to avoid discovery only encourages more cases, even near frivolous cases, just to get to the discovery stage and force another large settlement; making it a very bad tactic to settle just to avoid discovery.)
Some weird aspects of that though... no civil suit had been filed, and the settlement does not shield the individual officers from liability. So, not only was there no direct risk of discovery filings yet, but the settlement itself does not protect the city from discovery in any subsequent civil suits against the individual officers.
(Also, the city already went through a jury trial and a near identical "rough ride" case, so presumably much of the information that could come to light already came to light in that case. As well, settling to avoid discovery only encourages more cases, even near frivolous cases, just to get to the discovery stage and force another large settlement; making it a very bad tactic to settle just to avoid discovery.)
And perhaps it is obvious to the City that they are liable. Thus, settling right now saves the needless litigation expense and ongoing public embarrassment. The spotlight shines brighter in the Gray case than past brutality suits against Baltimore. It is quite common in civil cases for a pre-filing discussion of settlement to occur.
A better result could have been obtained if the cops had simply done their job.
The cops have been proven guilty? WOW, do you have a link? Or is this the "I don't like it and they are wrong AND guilty before they even go to trial" leftist rant?
The city of Baltimore's insurer decided this amount was the amount needed to settle. They must have decided there was greater risk taking the issue to court and having the police deposed.
A private company made this decision. Insurers tell the insured what will be done not the other way around.
Settlements often occur before trial. In a high-profile case, a defendant may want to settle early to avoid being forced to release damaging information. Settlements can avoid the discovery process, which can uncover all sorts of information that the City would not want readily available to the public when the national spotlight is focused upon it.
The insurance carrier (and more importantly, the City) needs to fear that refusing to accept a settlement would lead to higher liability in the future.
No claim was filed so there is no other rational basis to provide a settlement except to avoid a legal cap to what the family gets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow
Municipalities and police officers get sued all the time for negligence and police misconduct. I doubt if there's a city with more than 5,000 people that hasn't been sued in the whole U.S. The city has attorneys who represent it and they usually represent the individual defendants as well. The attorneys look at the evidence, which I'm sure includes much that has not been made public, and decides whether to settle the case or try it. There must have been fairly compelling evidence against the officers or the attorneys would not have advised a settlement.
Also, the standard of proof in a civil action is a "preponderance of the evidence," or 51%, whereas in a criminal case it's "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a much higher burden to meet. A civil case will often settle even when a criminal defendant might decide to go to trial.
See the answer above. To add to that what the city did was to prejudice any potential juror who thinks along the lines you're giving here.
See how well that worked for the city? Just so y'all know, they don't give a rats behind about those cops. What they DO care about is the riots busting out and burning,looting (again) making their city the laughing stock of the nation and completely destroying any chance any tourist would go there. Oh, they also don't want to be called "racist" or "bigoted" against poor people (even though they burned through millions upon millions in federal aid and didn't help anyone but themselves)
I know that while my family and I enjoyed our vacation in Baltimore and rode all around/walked all over the good and bad parts I'll never,ever risk myself and my family's safety by returning.
Sad because I found several places I'd love to go back to like a wonderful Italian bakery, a great old school deli, a wonderful looking soul food place as well as the port/little Italy area.
MODS: this is not a advertisement, I hope the old couple that owns this place have survived as they have the BEST Italian pastry I've ever eaten. http://piedigrottabakery.net
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
And perhaps it is obvious to the City that they are liable. Thus, settling right now saves the needless litigation expense and ongoing public embarrassment. The spotlight shines brighter in the Gray case than past brutality suits against Baltimore. It is quite common in civil cases for a pre-filing discussion of settlement to occur.
No, it's obvious to the city that they need to pander/pay/hope their way out of further destruction from the cabal that inhabits the area.
They've just set a very dangerous precedent being that any person who's even bumped by a cop will be on the hunt for a lotto ticket punch. The ghetto theme song will now be "claim to get hurt by a cop and you'll be movin' on up, to the east side, to a deeluxe apartment in the sky"
$6.4 Million
I bet Black lives matter now!
Stupid cops should have taken better care of him. This whole, "Lets take Toby on down to the lumber yard and teach him some manners" Crap is not going to play 2015. We have Camera's now
A fair settlement is based on the decadent's income expectancy during his life. Based on Gray's educational background which wasn't much, his lack of real work skills of any kind Gray had no such expectation to earn that type of money through out his life time. Illegal drug dealing proceeds and public assitance is not considered income. The most the family should have received was $500,000
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
