# It's all about the money



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Family of black Ferguson teen killed by police to sue city | Reuters


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

I thought everyone had realized that Wilson was in the right on this deal? Brown attacked him and went for the gun. He got shot for it. What legal grounds do they have to stand on for wrongful death when Wilson was cleared of the criminal charges?


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

Worth a try, right?!!!!


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Well he was "Bigger"


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

They only have to convince 51% of a jury. And what the hell it's worth it to see if the city will spring for a couple of bucks so momma and dada can take a trip to get over their grief at losing their beloved son


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Yep. Criminal law is way different then civil. (Pain and suffering?) The lawyers have put it in the low information, less then intelligent, parents minds that they can sue. Maybe win or at the very least get a settlement. Maybe if they win the city, county, and nation should submit a bill for services rendered for having to deal with a bully, thug, and criminal that they raised and unleashed on the public. It's a damn shame if they get anything but misery the rest of their pathetic lives.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Too many lawyers with no other way to pay the bills.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

then all the businesses that were damaged, looted, or burned down should sue the family, the school should sue the family too for having to be closed for a week or so as well.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

This does not surprise me in the least bit...the world done gone crazy...


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

I just hope this goes to a public trial. That way we'll finally be exposed to the evidence, not just what the prosecutor says was presented to the grand jury.


----------



## GasholeWillie (Jul 4, 2014)

NO,NO,NO they just have to get the case filed, make it so expensive for the city to defend and settle on the courthouse steps. The lawyer gets his cut and the family gets the rest. This has nothing to do with legalities, right and wrong, lawful or unlawful. We're waaaaaaay past that.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> Family of black Ferguson teen killed by police to sue city | Reuters


That's pretty much true for everything, unfortunately.

Right or wrong doesn't matter, just payday.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> I just hope this goes to a public trial. That way we'll finally be exposed to the evidence, not just what the prosecutor says was presented to the grand jury.


have you even taken a look at what all was presented to the grand jury.

if i'm not mistaken it was published on line.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> have you even taken a look at what all was presented to the grand jury.
> 
> if i'm not mistaken it was published on line.


Yes and I don't believe we have the complete story. For instance, if you accept that Wilson simply told Brown to get out of the middle of the street and then Brown attacked Wilson, the next question is why? On the other hand if Wilson used an verbal inciter, then events make more sense. I've never seen anything on what Wilson said to Brown. Since Wilson can not be prosecuted now, I would expect him to testify in a civil proceeding against the city. What was said is an obvious question.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Duh, little mikey was a source of they're free money supply, so what if he had to steal from others to get it. Like hillary says, "what difference does it make now" they lost some of their income so now others will just have to cough up for the loss and mom and dad don't care who has to pay up as long as they get more free money.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> Yes and I don't believe we have the complete story. For instance, if you accept that Wilson simply told Brown to get out of the middle of the street and then Brown attacked Wilson, the next question is why? On the other hand if Wilson used an verbal inciter, then events make more sense. I've never seen anything on what Wilson said to Brown. Since Wilson can not be prosecuted now, I would expect him to testify in a civil proceeding against the city. What was said is an obvious question.


Perhaps you really don't know the law.

Having a case no true billed by a grand jury is not the same as being tried and found not guilty.

The county attorney can always return to the grand jury if new evidence becomes available.

So don't expext Mr. Wilson to testify, it's not in his best interests


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I simply don't care what was said or what happened before the asshat attacked the cop. He was shot attempting to do the same thing to the cop that he had gotten away with on the shop keeper. He died because he thought he could strong-arm the wrong guy. It would have happened sooner or later and I'm just glad it happened before he could bully anyone else.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> Perhaps you really don't know the law.
> 
> Having a case no true billed by a grand jury is not the same as being tried and found not guilty.
> 
> ...


If the town wants to escape civil liability, they will have to defend in court. Information will come out. Remember that OJ was found not guilty, but still lost in civil court. I wouldn't be surprised at such an outcome here. I suspect that any public trial will bring out details that are currently not widely known.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Remember the city's job is to settle for as small an amount as possible. While the suit may start out at several million, the two mopes will probably settle out of court for a whole lot less and no one will testify.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Even if the cop had been tried and found "not guilty" the family can still sue. (in most states - there is one state that just passed a law that protects anyone using force in self defence from a civil suit. (sorry It was in a NRA-ILA update and I don't remember which state it was). Some states also protect cops from civil suit in the lawful execution of their duties.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

I hope the Lawyer ends up with 95% of what ever they get. And then some gang banger steals the 5%.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Lawyers rarely take more than 30 - 40%. Sometimes the courts will only allow a certain amount over the "true cost" of the action. (usually no less than 25% plus expenses)


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

From what I've seen in Chicago, it's always been about money. A 12 year old in ILLannoyed get PG, has a baby and is entitled to lots of money. She has her 50 year old grandmother watch the baby while she goes out to party and gets PG again and get more money, Ad Nauseam. Grandma watches the babies while granddaughter makes more.


----------



## James L (Feb 7, 2015)

SARGE7402 said:


> have you even taken a look at what all was presented to the grand jury.
> 
> if i'm not mistaken it was published on line.


He wasn't just cleared by a Grand jury. He was ALSO cleared in a Federal investigation. He was cleared TWICE.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

James L said:


> He wasn't just cleared by a Grand jury. He was ALSO cleared in a Federal investigation. He was cleared TWICE.


right you are. however only the grand jury testimony has been published.


----------



## GasholeWillie (Jul 4, 2014)

Diver said:


> Yes and I don't believe we have the complete story. For instance, if you accept that Wilson simply told Brown to get out of the middle of the street and then Brown attacked Wilson, the next question is why? On the other hand if Wilson used an verbal inciter, then events make more sense. I've never seen anything on what Wilson said to Brown. Since Wilson can not be prosecuted now, I would expect him to testify in a civil proceeding against the city. What was said is an obvious question.


Are you serious? The HolderDOJ wanted nothing more than to come up with evidence that Wilson was a racist cop that killed this kid because he was black. They dismantled the town and it police force and it's District Justice. Yet Wilson was scott free according to the DOJ. What are you hoping will come out?


----------



## GasholeWillie (Jul 4, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> I hope the Lawyer ends up with 95% of what ever they get. And then some gang banger steals the 5%.


the 5%? You mean the aunt that was out trying to sell t shirts over the death? Is she the gang banger? Yeah she wants her cut too.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

GasholeWillie said:


> Are you serious? The HolderDOJ wanted nothing more than to come up with evidence that Wilson was a racist cop that killed this kid because he was black. They dismantled the town and it police force and it's District Justice. Yet Wilson was scott free according to the DOJ. What are you hoping will come out?


and you trust the Holder DOJ? I don't.

I am not hoping for anything to come out other than the truth. Let the chips fall where they may in public.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

GasholeWillie said:


> Are you serious? The HolderDOJ wanted nothing more than to come up with evidence that Wilson was a racist cop that killed this kid because he was black. They dismantled the town and it police force and it's District Justice. Yet Wilson was scott free according to the DOJ. What are you hoping will come out?


Diver on cops is worse than BHO and EH.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> Diver on cops is worse than BHO and EH.


I have been entirely consistent on this thing. A public trial is needed for all the evidence to come out and for us to know the maximum amount about what actually occurred. I'm making no accusations about the cops here. I am saying I don't think we know the full story. I don't trust the powers that be in Ferguson, including the Prosecutor who made public what he chose to make public, and gave the appearance of making a lot public, but maybe did, maybe didn't. I don't trust the Holder DOJ either. However, a public trial will result in both sides making their best case in public and we will finally get to learn the maximum amount that can be known. You've got a whole town police force accused of being racist. That could be cleared up with a public trial, . . . or not. So far everything that has been revealed has been developed behind closed doors and we are supposed to just believe what they say without hearing the other side.

I'm skeptical.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> I have been entirely consistent on this thing. A public trial is needed for all the evidence to come out and for us to know the maximum amount about what actually occurred. I'm making no accusations about the cops here. I am saying I don't think we know the full story. I don't trust the powers that be in Ferguson, including the Prosecutor who made public what he chose to make public, and gave the appearance of making a lot public, but maybe did, maybe didn't. I don't trust the Holder DOJ either. However, a public trial will result in both sides making their best case in public and we will finally get to learn the maximum amount that can be known. You've got a whole town police force accused of being racist. That could be cleared up with a public trial, . . . or not. So far everything that has been revealed has been developed behind closed doors and we are supposed to just believe what they say without hearing the other side.
> 
> I'm skeptical.


First you've obviously never been on the end of a civil law suit.

90% of the testimony is done by deposition and 9 times out of 10 it's settled out of court for pennies of what the plainif's asked for.

Lastly you are making accusations against the entire judicial system because in your opinion it didn't give you the warm fuzzy that you expected.

Again I ask have you read the grand jury testimony? I seriously doubt it.

While I wouldn't trust Mr. Holder, remember he had an agenda. Civil Rights violation of an oppressed minority. Funny thing his own folks couldn't prove it.

As far as a whole town's police force being racist, I believe that about as much as I believe that you or I are absolutely innocent of ever doing anything wrong.

Actually you're not skeptical, skeptical is like I've said in the other thread about the Baltimore incident - it's very strange. You're not happy that the cops weren't punished. You're not happy that the cop was found by a Grand Jury to have been telling the truth.

Just like these folks they're not happy that their little boy didn't turn out better, these folks are not happy that h'es dead. These folks are not happy and not willing to look deeply into how they brought little mikie up and see that they have probably not done as good a job of upbringing that they should have. And someone has to pay! It's got to be someone elses fault.

Remember that everytime someone points a finger and says it's your fault, there's three other fingers pointing right back at them.

Take a few minutes, pull up the online testimony from the grand jury and read a bit.


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

Keep in mind that OJ was found not guilty of murder but was found guilty in civil court.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> First you've obviously never been on the end of a civil law suit.
> 
> 90% of the testimony is done by deposition and 9 times out of 10 it's settled out of court for pennies of what the plainif's asked for.
> 
> ...


If it is settled out of court, then we won't get the public trial I am saying I would like to see.

I am not "accusing" anyone of anything. I am expressing a healthy skepticism for processes that have gone on exclusively behind closed doors.

If you don't believe the whole police force is racist then you don't believe the Holder DOJ either so we actually agree there. That leaves only the Grand Jury, held in secret, with only one side being presented. I seriously doubt that represents the whole story.

Your spin on me and my motives is quite insulting, so to be blunt, I don't trust you either. Your purpose is consistently to defend cops and not seek the truth of the matter, while I do not automatically trust what a cop, or in this case a prosecutor, says without also hearing the other side.

In order for the Brown family to win this case, they will have to present one. I would like to hear it. Maybe the case will be weak and reinforce your views. Maybe it won't. However, I would like to hear what gets presented.

As for skeptical, this case is very strange. The prevailing view right now is an unarmed 18 year old, who is walking down the middle of the street, suddenly decided to attack an obviously armed cop, i.e. suicide by cop. Really? I am still skeptical.


----------



## James L (Feb 7, 2015)

A grand jury is used to decide if there should be a public trial. The grand jury decided there was not sufficent evidence to have a trial....somethng completely supported by an independent Federal investigation. Hence a public trial is not warranted.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

James L said:


> A grand jury is used to decide if there should be a public trial. The grand jury decided there was not sufficent evidence to have a trial....somethng completely supported by an independent Federal investigation. Hence a public trial is not warranted.


Only on the question of whether Wilson should be tried on criminal charges, not on whether the town of Ferguson should be held civilly liable.

If the Brown family wants this case heard, all they have to do is refuse to settle. That's the system. I've been criticized here for not trusting the criminal justice system. Well folks, do you not trust the civil court system?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

If there was no crime committed then what is the civil suit based on? 
If it was wrongful death it would not have been a justified shooting.
Race didn't play into it - that would have been a crime.
So what is the basis of the suit?


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

PaulS said:


> If there was no crime committed then what is the civil suit based on?
> If it was wrongful death it would not have been a justified shooting.
> Race didn't play into it - that would have been a crime.
> So what is the basis of the suit?


You can sue anyone for anything. It doesn't mean you'll win. Most civil suits do not involve a crime. Whatever the Brown family and their lawyers care to choose is their choice, and part of their overall case. As for whether it was a justified shooting, we've had no court ruling on that, since it hasn't been brought to trial. I'd say if Wilson had been tried and acquitted the town would be in a better position on that aspect. However, if we have a civil trial on that subject, the civil court is not restricted even if there had been a criminal trial, note the OJ verdicts again.

BTW: I believe NYC has been sued by Eric Garner's family as well.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

*we've had no court ruling on that*

Wrong slick. The grand jury returned a no true bill. And that for you legally challenged folks is a court ruling by a Grand Jury.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> *we've had no court ruling on that*
> 
> Wrong slick. The grand jury returned a no true bill. And that for you legally challenged folks is a court ruling by a Grand Jury.


Okay, we've had no PUBLIC presentation of evidence. We've also had nothing that prevents a civil case from being brought. The system allows the Browns to bring a case. I believe that if they have a case they deserve their day in court.

We still have a case in which an unarmed 18 year old supposedly commits suicide by cop for no obvious reason. You're ready to blame Michael Brown, but even thugs are not suicidal. I don't believe we've heard the full story and I am more than willing to listen to evidence presented at a PUBLIC trial.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Diver,

What you fail to comprehend is the reason WHY Lil' Mike-Mike attacked a cop...and that reason is HE WAS A MENTALLY DEFICIENT THUG WHO HAD BEEN BRAINWASHED BY HIS IGNORANT AND HATEFUL MENTORS SINCE BIRTH THAT EVERYONE OWED HIM SOMETHING AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IS INHERENTLY AGAINST HIM AND HIS ILK. Add the fact that he was high, had just committed a crime and had a witness that could have done irreparable damage to his street cred had he simply surrendered to the Cop...and you have the result. 

This is hard for many people to understand. But its a cultural thing, nonsensical as it may sound.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Diver said:


> The prevailing view right now is an unarmed 18 year old, who is walking down the middle of the street, suddenly decided to attack an obviously armed cop, i.e. suicide by cop. Really? I am still skeptical.


The prevailing view is that a very large 18 year old MAN who had just finished completing a STRONG armed robbery was asked to move off the road by a police officer... whatever was passed between them for words we will never know but the large male assaulted the officer and tried to take his weapon... within minutes the large man was dead shot several times in the FRONT as he attacked.

If there was any way that the DOJ could have used evidence to arrest the officer they would have...

I agree with an earlier statement... The 18 year old was heading for a bad end and if not that day it would have been another day... I wish it would have been another strong armed thug that killed him instead of ruining this officers life


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

I'm still not buying the wrongful death claim. We know enough already to see that it was not "suicide by cop" or some other excuse. The guy just robbed a convenience store. There are other examples of his bad behavior as well. Like this video of him beating and robbing an old guy. Watch at your own risk it shows thugs doing what they do best, prey on the weak. 




Many want to paint Wilson as a racist. IMO he simply defended himself from great bodily harm or even death at the hands of a terrible person. A person with no respect for anyone other than himself and his crew of like minded thugs. He should have known better than to fight the police, or rob stores, or beat up old men and who knows what else. The bad choices that led to his death were not Wilson's fault. They were Browns. And now his family wants compensation for those bad decisions. Sorry they lost their boy but they don't deserve money for it. JMO.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

If there isn't evidence against the town, the Browns will lose. There is no harm I can see from the evidence on both sides becoming public.

I'm not so sure we won't learn what the exchange between the two of them was, even without Wilson's testimony. There were witnesses. They have not testified in a public courtroom.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

*I'm not so sure we won't learn what the exchange between the two of them was, even without Wilson's testimony. There were witnesses. They have not testified in a public courtroom.*

It is quite obvious that you have not read the over 4000 pages of published testimony that was presented to the grand jury. If you had you would have found that Officer Wilson did testify before the grand jury.

Ferguson Documents: Officer Darren Wilson's Testimony : The Two-Way : NPR


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> *I'm not so sure we won't learn what the exchange between the two of them was, even without Wilson's testimony. There were witnesses. They have not testified in a public courtroom.*
> 
> It is quite obvious that you have not read the over 4000 pages of published testimony that was presented to the grand jury. If you had you would have found that Officer Wilson did testify before the grand jury.
> 
> Ferguson Documents: Officer Darren Wilson's Testimony : The Two-Way : NPR


The Grand Jury was not public and no I haven't read 4000 pages of testimony. I would like to see testimony in a PUBLIC courtroom. Furthermore the rules of evidence are different in a civil vs. criminal court. What was excluded in the Grand Jury that might come out? What are you afraid might be revealed?


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Diver said:


> The Grand Jury was not public and no I haven't read 4000 pages of testimony. I would like to see testimony in a PUBLIC courtroom. Furthermore the rules of evidence are different in a civil vs. criminal court. What was excluded in the Grand Jury that might come out? What are you afraid might be revealed?


The grand jury is selected from the local PUBLIC. Although they meet in private (remember courts can also meet in private) the people are part of the local public.. the grand jury is a not a bunch of good old boys..it is mom and dad and the local store owner, candy company owner, teacher..etc


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Maine-Marine said:


> The grand jury is selected from the local PUBLIC. Although they meet in private (remember courts can also meet in private) the people are part of the local public.. the grand jury is a not a bunch of good old boys..it is mom and dad and the local store owner, candy company owner, teacher..etc


It still isn't held in public like a civil suit would be. The Browns have every right to sue and I am sure things will get publicized that haven't been up to this date.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Diver said:


> It still isn't held in public like a civil suit would be. The Browns have every right to sue and I am sure things will get publicized that haven't been up to this date.


If it happens, it will more than likely just confirm what most of us already know. That everything Wilson did was justified and the family won't get a dime. You are correct that they can sue, but I believe it will only lead to more riots when they lose the case. We shall wait and see. But that's my guess.


----------

