El Rojo
Member
Hey KBR80,
Think about the articles you posted. The first one was obviously biased to the extreme. It made this blind lady sound innocent and helpless. Who do you think supplied the information for that article? I would bet dollars to donuts it was the attourney. You don't know that "little old lady". Think about all of the "victims" in society who were just minding their business when the cops came up to them and started harrassing them. I work in a federal prison and I talk to a lot of them daily. They did nothing wrong. The cops were just after them.
Do not believe everything you hear. Are there cases of police abuse out there? Yes. Should we fight against that? Yes. However, I know a few criminals and generally shady people. They are not honest. They will sell you out in a heart beat if it gets them something. Like I said, I work with a guy who walks around in sun glasses and uses a cane. However, that same "blind" guy sits and types on the typewriters without brail or someone to assist him! Do you think that he just "touch types" and has no idea what his final product looks like? Do you think he is going to waste his time and energy making mistakes and having no way of knowing for sure if he has corrected them? He is blind when it suits him and brings him special treatment.
I do know this, if you fight the cops, they will fight you back. There are things worth fighting for. Physically fighting the cops is not one of them. The system is set up to help them win when you physically fight them. Think of how much stronger that old ladies case would have been if she had been complacent and talked with the officer and asked him to make sure her red wagon was not taken by the city officials and then they beat her up anyway? Wait, they probably wouldn't have done anything to her if she had cooperated with the officers. I wasn't there, so I am not going to make any assumptions. I do know that there are good cops out there and there are two sides to this story. So far we have heard a biased article that tells the "old bats" side. Am I surprised it portrays her as a sweet innocent victim of police oppression? Of course not, anything else would hurt her case and her lawyer won't allow that.
Just remember there are two sides to every story. You appear to blindly believe that this woman was victimized and you assume because she is a 71 year old "blind woman" that she wouldn't lie. I know better. She just made $145,000. She wouldn't have made that money making herself sound like the aggressor. Another question you have to ask is do you think $145,000 is worth what she went through? If the cops had done this to your mother, would you settle for $145,000? Wouldn't you tell them to go to hell and take the thing all the way to trial? Why would you decide to settle for a mere $145,000? If the cops are innocent, why would they settle? Why wouldn't they fight it all the way through?
My theory is she was happy to take $145,000 for fighting the police. The police were happy to stop paying their lawyers and get out cheap instead of risking a jury hitting them for a lot more money. It happens all of the time, people settle in order to reduce their cost. It doesn't mean they are guilty or not guilty of anything. If the cops admitted they had used excessive force, we wouldn't be seeing a settlement. Read the lawyer speak, "there is risk the City may be found liable." All that means is it is cheaper to pay $145,000 now than risk a jury giving her a few million.
Just ask yourself, if you knew you were right and that your rights had been violated, would you settle for $145,000? You want to talk about something things worth fighting for. What happened to the fight in this "old bat" that she would settle for a mere $145,000? Wait, the lawyer still needs their cut. She isn't even going to get $145,000 and the cops are still working. Would you settle if it involved anything less than those bad seeds getting fired? So on one hand we have people saying we should stand up for something and we are looking at this little old lady as another victim of the Jack Booted Thugs, but in reality she sold out. Actually, she only sold out if she was suing by principle. If she was just trying to make some money at the advice of a lawyer, she cashed in. I guess it just depends on how you want to look at it.
Think about the articles you posted. The first one was obviously biased to the extreme. It made this blind lady sound innocent and helpless. Who do you think supplied the information for that article? I would bet dollars to donuts it was the attourney. You don't know that "little old lady". Think about all of the "victims" in society who were just minding their business when the cops came up to them and started harrassing them. I work in a federal prison and I talk to a lot of them daily. They did nothing wrong. The cops were just after them.
Do not believe everything you hear. Are there cases of police abuse out there? Yes. Should we fight against that? Yes. However, I know a few criminals and generally shady people. They are not honest. They will sell you out in a heart beat if it gets them something. Like I said, I work with a guy who walks around in sun glasses and uses a cane. However, that same "blind" guy sits and types on the typewriters without brail or someone to assist him! Do you think that he just "touch types" and has no idea what his final product looks like? Do you think he is going to waste his time and energy making mistakes and having no way of knowing for sure if he has corrected them? He is blind when it suits him and brings him special treatment.
I do know this, if you fight the cops, they will fight you back. There are things worth fighting for. Physically fighting the cops is not one of them. The system is set up to help them win when you physically fight them. Think of how much stronger that old ladies case would have been if she had been complacent and talked with the officer and asked him to make sure her red wagon was not taken by the city officials and then they beat her up anyway? Wait, they probably wouldn't have done anything to her if she had cooperated with the officers. I wasn't there, so I am not going to make any assumptions. I do know that there are good cops out there and there are two sides to this story. So far we have heard a biased article that tells the "old bats" side. Am I surprised it portrays her as a sweet innocent victim of police oppression? Of course not, anything else would hurt her case and her lawyer won't allow that.
Just remember there are two sides to every story. You appear to blindly believe that this woman was victimized and you assume because she is a 71 year old "blind woman" that she wouldn't lie. I know better. She just made $145,000. She wouldn't have made that money making herself sound like the aggressor. Another question you have to ask is do you think $145,000 is worth what she went through? If the cops had done this to your mother, would you settle for $145,000? Wouldn't you tell them to go to hell and take the thing all the way to trial? Why would you decide to settle for a mere $145,000? If the cops are innocent, why would they settle? Why wouldn't they fight it all the way through?
My theory is she was happy to take $145,000 for fighting the police. The police were happy to stop paying their lawyers and get out cheap instead of risking a jury hitting them for a lot more money. It happens all of the time, people settle in order to reduce their cost. It doesn't mean they are guilty or not guilty of anything. If the cops admitted they had used excessive force, we wouldn't be seeing a settlement. Read the lawyer speak, "there is risk the City may be found liable." All that means is it is cheaper to pay $145,000 now than risk a jury giving her a few million.
Just ask yourself, if you knew you were right and that your rights had been violated, would you settle for $145,000? You want to talk about something things worth fighting for. What happened to the fight in this "old bat" that she would settle for a mere $145,000? Wait, the lawyer still needs their cut. She isn't even going to get $145,000 and the cops are still working. Would you settle if it involved anything less than those bad seeds getting fired? So on one hand we have people saying we should stand up for something and we are looking at this little old lady as another victim of the Jack Booted Thugs, but in reality she sold out. Actually, she only sold out if she was suing by principle. If she was just trying to make some money at the advice of a lawyer, she cashed in. I guess it just depends on how you want to look at it.
Again, do we have any evidence of this? No. Just accusations based upon an inherent dislike of law enforcement. This attitude is so tiring. "More likely". Why is it more likely? Care to offer any evidence? Don't bother trying, you can't. You can give me a list of many other abuse cases, but what does that have to do with our two officers here? Nothing.More likely, the cops knew they could do what they wanted, and they'd be damned if some citizen got in their way.