Portland settles again

[ob1]

the guy that said that Islamic terrorists are "those that don't like us and have courage to stand up to us"...?

yea, i've had the opportunity to study the guy a bit

Not to forget Gretchen Kafoury, the would-be gun banning commisioner of the seventies ound:

 

[el gringo loco]

The other thing I'd like to point out is that one of those men were a CHL holder. So he's a law abiding gun owner, who has passed several background checks, and has been required to take firearms training. Or in other words he's one of us.

I would just like to point out that the cops are law abiding gun owners, who have passed several background checks and have been required to take firearms training. From that perspective the cops are one of us too. Let's face it, the standards to get a CHL in Oregon are pretty low. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but I think it precludes using a CHL as a standard for whether or not someone is a stand up guy.

The city of Portland has historically shown a willingness to settle litigation when they see a potential liability. I think the fact that the city attorneys took this to trial demonstrates that, objectively, the officer's actions were defensible, and likely justified given a set of dynamic and rapidly evolving circumstances. That said, a civil trial is determined at a standard of preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that the jury is simply deciding which side of the 50 yard line the facts lie, not a true determination of what happened to a high degree of probability. Large amounts of facts are excluded from these trials on the basis of avoiding prejudice. The paper has inlcluded facts, readily available in their archives, about the officers that were likely excluded from the jury's ears. I wonder what facts about the plaintiffs were excluded at trial but not mentioned in the article.

This story fits nicely into a popular narrative about race- young black men harassed by white cop- that I'm sure was exploited by the plaintiff's attorney and resonated well with a jury who sees this on tv and in movies. However, there was no evidence that these men were hurt, only scared, and they were detained for less than an hour. I think the jury saw deep pockets, an easy narrative to believe, and made a choice. But, if we are going to question the integrity of the cops, I think we need a lot more info.

 

[USMC1911]

However, there was no evidence that these men were hurt, only scared, and they were detained for less than an hour. I think the jury saw deep pockets, an easy narrative to believe, and made a choice. But, if we are going to question the integrity of the cops, I think we need a lot more info.

Well it seemed the third party witness would disagree with you.

 

[el gringo loco]

The witnesses, a young college couple, saw the entire episode and corroborated the stories of the three men: Harold Hammick, Ri'Chard Booth and Alex Clay.

The two witnesses who scrunched down in their car seat so they could watch the confrontation said all three men pleaded with passers-by not to leave them alone with police.

I noticed that the witnesses corroborated the statements of the three men not necessarily those of Kafoury the attorney. I can't see anything the article attributes to the witnesses statements other than that the men were scared. All of the accusations and insinuations seem to be attributed to the plaintiff's attorney, Kafoury, the only guy on that side NOT under oath and NOT present at the time of the incident.

 

[gunnails]

Gunnails, a little strange that you would choose a video clip showing OJ Simpson to make your point :huh:

Sorry, maybe I am showing a little bias here, not racial, just any case that Greg Kafoury would be involved in.

============================================

Not a video clip, it's called a Gif, I have no idea what Gif stands for.

I didn't think about OJ's history when I selected it, just thought it was a funny face palm Gif.

 

[smithmax]

So one officer has cost Portland $675,000. How much longer is he going to be employed there? I don't think I'd still have a job after the first settlement.

PS - Google Officer Besner and you will find that he is a "bad apple" or has a tendency to abuse his power, however you want to see it. Whether that is a result of poor training by the PPB or his character I don't know, but it certainly seems like PPB would do well to get rid of officers like Besner.

 

[jordanvraptor]

============================================

Not a video clip, it's called a Gif, I have no idea what Gif stands for.

I didn't think about OJ's history when I selected it, just thought it was a funny face palm Gif.

That is Avery Brooks from Star Trek Deep Space Nine.
Yes, I'm a Trekkie...

 

[22many]

So one officer has cost Portland $675,000. How much longer is he going to be employed there? I don't think I'd still have a job after the first settlement.

PS - Google Officer Besner and you will find that he is a "bad apple" or has a tendency to abuse his power, however you want to see it. Whether that is a result of poor training by the PPB or his character I don't know, but it certainly seems like PPB would do well to get rid of officers like Besner.

I totally agree with this statement. The cop has cost US money, slaps a law abiding citizen in the nuts, makes statements about his manhood, and Is still employed. Wow............

Ive always disliked cops mainly because the majority of people that become cops are the people with control issues.

 

[ob1]

That is Avery Brooks from Star Trek Deep Space Nine.
Yes, I'm a Trekkie...

Dude..................wrong clip ! the one above well ..it was there, gunnails must have removed it before you saw it. And ya, I remember deep space nine too.. (Sisko no comparison to Kirk.... imo)

 

[Gunner3456]

I would just like to point out that the cops are law abiding gun owners, who have passed several background checks and have been required to take firearms training. From that perspective the cops are one of us too. Let's face it, the standards to get a CHL in Oregon are pretty low. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but I think it precludes using a CHL as a standard for whether or not someone is a stand up guy.

The city of Portland has historically shown a willingness to settle litigation when they see a potential liability. I think the fact that the city attorneys took this to trial demonstrates that, objectively, the officer's actions were defensible, and likely justified given a set of dynamic and rapidly evolving circumstances. That said, a civil trial is determined at a standard of preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that the jury is simply deciding which side of the 50 yard line the facts lie, not a true determination of what happened to a high degree of probability. Large amounts of facts are excluded from these trials on the basis of avoiding prejudice. The paper has inlcluded facts, readily available in their archives, about the officers that were likely excluded from the jury's ears. I wonder what facts about the plaintiffs were excluded at trial but not mentioned in the article.

This story fits nicely into a popular narrative about race- young black men harassed by white cop- that I'm sure was exploited by the plaintiff's attorney and resonated well with a jury who sees this on tv and in movies. However, there was no evidence that these men were hurt, only scared, and they were detained for less than an hour. I think the jury saw deep pockets, an easy narrative to believe, and made a choice. But, if we are going to question the integrity of the cops, I think we need a lot more info.

I agree with everything you said except for the broad-brush statement I put in bold. I've seen plenty of cases where cops weren't law abiding, although I agree most are.

Don't misunderstand. I hold the profession of police officer in the highest regard, being fully aware that any one of them would come running to my aid and put his life on the line to protect me. Without them we would have chaos. I admire them as a group.

However, just because they are LEO's doesn't mean they are incapable of wrongdoing in a given circumstance. They are human. A small percentage is attracted to the profession for the wrong reasons, too.

Also, you made a very good explanation of "the preponderance of the evidence" which means it's "just a little bit more likely true than not" as opposed to the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court.