Another black man shot by police in USA

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Another black man shot by police in USA

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 56 of 60 < 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 >

7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 4.12pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Once again, you are adjusting a timeline to support your agenda. Freddie Gray died on April 12, the settlement was made on September 9 - that's five months later. The criminal defense attorneys for the officers involved were annoyed because the settlement obviously could prejudice their case. But just because they claimed not yet to have seen the evidence doesn't mean - as you claim - that the city just wrote a check for 7 million over Gray's cooling corpse. The city would have been in possession of all the witness statements and they would have seen all the video evidence. But, at the end of the day, officers took into custody a healthy man and delivered to lock-up a man in a coma with a fatal spine injury (amongst other injuries). It's pretty hard to deny liability for his death at that point. Can you point out where I have adjusted the timeline? I said they paid out before the Court case and before a lawsuit was submitted. When the court case started, they didn’t want a repeat of Ferguson, so 6.4m was paid out. Do you think police released evidence to the city insurers before the defence attorneys? You’re making stuff up.
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 12 Dec 17 4.12pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Once again, you are adjusting a timeline to support your agenda. Freddie Gray died on April 12, the settlement was made on September 9 - that's five months later.

The criminal defense attorneys for the officers involved were annoyed because the settlement obviously could prejudice their case. But just because they claimed not yet to have seen the evidence doesn't mean - as you claim - that the city just wrote a check for 7 million over Gray's cooling corpse.

The city would have been in possession of all the witness statements and they would have seen all the video evidence. But, at the end of the day, officers took into custody a healthy man and delivered to lock-up a man in a coma with a fatal spine injury (amongst other injuries). It's pretty hard to deny liability for his death at that point.

Can you point out where I have adjusted the timeline? I said they paid out before the Court case and before a lawsuit was submitted.
When the court case started, they didn’t want a repeat of Ferguson, so 6.4m was paid out.

Do you think police released evidence to the city insurers before the defence attorneys?

You’re making stuff up.

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 4.16pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Once again, you are adjusting a timeline to support your agenda. Freddie Gray died on April 12, the settlement was made on September 9 - that's five months later. The criminal defense attorneys for the officers involved were annoyed because the settlement obviously could prejudice their case. But just because they claimed not yet to have seen the evidence doesn't mean - as you claim - that the city just wrote a check for 7 million over Gray's cooling corpse. The city would have been in possession of all the witness statements and they would have seen all the video evidence. But, at the end of the day, officers took into custody a healthy man and delivered to lock-up a man in a coma with a fatal spine injury (amongst other injuries). It's pretty hard to deny liability for his death at that point. What’s my agenda Ray?
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 12 Dec 17 4.16pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Once again, you are adjusting a timeline to support your agenda. Freddie Gray died on April 12, the settlement was made on September 9 - that's five months later.

What’s my agenda Ray?

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 4.21pm
Is my agenda not jumping to concessions? Is my agenda, sticking to facts. Is my agenda thinking for myself, and not making rash judgments based on a 5min video clip? Is my agenda believing in trail by jury? Or am I a “Uncle Tom” or coconut? Maybe a self-hating mixed race guy... who doesn’t like the fact one parent was black? I’ve heard it all before... it’s just argument suppression as far as I’m concerned. You carry on with your knee-jerk reactions.
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 12 Dec 17 4.21pm

Is my agenda not jumping to concessions?
Is my agenda, sticking to facts.
Is my agenda thinking for myself, and not making rash judgments based on a 5min video clip?
Is my agenda believing in trail by jury?

Or am I a “Uncle Tom” or coconut? Maybe a self-hating mixed race guy... who doesn’t like the fact one parent was black? I’ve heard it all before... it’s just argument suppression as far as I’m concerned.

You carry on with your knee-jerk reactions.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Dec 17 4.56pm
Originally posted by 7mins What’s my agenda Ray? This should be the title of a dance track by Voodoo Ray "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 12 Dec 17 4.56pm

Originally posted by 7mins

What’s my agenda Ray?

This should be the title of a dance track by Voodoo Ray

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 12 Dec 17 7.27pm
Originally posted by 7mins Can you point out where I have adjusted the timeline? I said they paid out before the Court case and before a lawsuit was submitted. When the court case started, they didn’t want a repeat of Ferguson, so 6.4m was paid out. Do you think police released evidence to the city insurers before the defence attorneys? You’re making stuff up. You claimed that they rushed to make a settlement, so much so that they did it without even seeing the evidence. In reality, it was five months later after pretty much all the facts would have been seen and assessed. The police are city employees so, yes, the city would have had the right - and ample opportunity - to investigate the conduct of its employees. They would have been able to share this information with their insurer as part of the settlement decision-making process. The defense attorneys you keep going back to are those who were retained by the individual officers who faced individual criminal charges, separate from any liability the city had to Gray's family. Those criminal charges are brought by the District Attorney, and it is the DA's office who is responsible for disseminating information to the defense attorneys in accordance with legal procedures. I call it an agenda because you keep making the same "mistake" in furtherance of the same - anti-BLM - point. You want it to be that the city rushed to settle because of BLM and the Ferguson riots (which were a year prior to settlement). The actual timeline doesn't fit this theory - the city took 5 months to work out a settlement - so you adjust and obfuscate it (with distractions like the criminal defense attorneys). We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 12 Dec 17 7.27pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Originally posted by 7mins

Do you think police released evidence to the city insurers before the defence attorneys?

You’re making stuff up.

You claimed that they rushed to make a settlement, so much so that they did it without even seeing the evidence. In reality, it was five months later after pretty much all the facts would have been seen and assessed.

The police are city employees so, yes, the city would have had the right - and ample opportunity - to investigate the conduct of its employees. They would have been able to share this information with their insurer as part of the settlement decision-making process.

The defense attorneys you keep going back to are those who were retained by the individual officers who faced individual criminal charges, separate from any liability the city had to Gray's family. Those criminal charges are brought by the District Attorney, and it is the DA's office who is responsible for disseminating information to the defense attorneys in accordance with legal procedures.

I call it an agenda because you keep making the same "mistake" in furtherance of the same - anti-BLM - point. You want it to be that the city rushed to settle because of BLM and the Ferguson riots (which were a year prior to settlement). The actual timeline doesn't fit this theory - the city took 5 months to work out a settlement - so you adjust and obfuscate it (with distractions like the criminal defense attorneys).

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 7.46pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston You claimed that they rushed to make a settlement, so much so that they did it without even seeing the evidence. In reality, it was five months later after pretty much all the facts would have been seen and assessed. The police are city employees so, yes, the city would have had the right - and ample opportunity - to investigate the conduct of its employees. They would have been able to share this information with their insurer as part of the settlement decision-making process. The defense attorneys you keep going back to are those who were retained by the individual officers who faced individual criminal charges, separate from any liability the city had to Gray's family. Those criminal charges are brought by the District Attorney, and it is the DA's office who is responsible for disseminating information to the defense attorneys in accordance with legal procedures. I call it an agenda because you keep making the same "mistake" in furtherance of the same - anti-BLM - point. You want it to be that the city rushed to settle because of BLM and the Ferguson riots (which were a year prior to settlement). The actual timeline doesn't fit this theory - the city took 5 months to work out a settlement - so you adjust and obfuscate it (with distractions like the criminal defense attorneys). OK Ray... I clearly said it was my theory.... I did not present it as fact. They did however voluntarily offer 6.4m before a lawsuit was filed and before a court case was to begin. That is a fact.... When has a city offered such a sum before? BLM are a hateful and deceitful ideology. I stand by that.
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 12 Dec 17 7.46pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

OK Ray... I clearly said it was my theory.... I did not present it as fact.

They did however voluntarily offer 6.4m before a lawsuit was filed and before a court case was to begin. That is a fact.... When has a city offered such a sum before?
BLM are a hateful and deceitful ideology. I stand by that.

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 7.50pm
Actually..... you have put forward a great set of arguments Cities always offer millions to people that haven't asked for it, before a massive court case. BLM are lovely people that deal in facts only and don't promote lies and violence. I totally believe your stories of doing 50 in a 30 and the cop treating you different because of your skin colour. Juries aren't needed when you can quite clearly determine guilt from YouTube. And people the use "" are my favourite type of people.
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 12 Dec 17 7.50pm

Actually..... you have put forward a great set of arguments

Cities always offer millions to people that haven't asked for it, before a massive court case.

BLM are lovely people that deal in facts only and don't promote lies and violence.

I totally believe your stories of doing 50 in a 30 and the cop treating you different because of your skin colour.

Juries aren't needed when you can quite clearly determine guilt from YouTube.

And people the use "" are my favourite type of people.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 12 Dec 17 7.58pm
Originally posted by 7mins OK Ray... I clearly said it was my theory.... I did not present it as fact. They did however voluntarily offer 6.4m before a lawsuit was filed and before a court case was to begin. That is a fact.... When has a city offered such a sum before? BLM are a hateful and deceitful ideology. I stand by that. Settlements in advance of a suit are preferred by insurers in cases of obvious liability, as is the case here. There is nothing sinister about it. At all. In fact, it's likely that the insurers were driving the decision to settle because one thing they hate is uncertainty. Get 'em a number and a release from further claims and you've made an insurer's day. You can have your opinion on BLM, but your negative mindset towards the movement is, at best, clouding your interpretation of the customary machinations of tort liability settlements. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 12 Dec 17 7.58pm

Originally posted by 7mins

OK Ray... I clearly said it was my theory.... I did not present it as fact.

Settlements in advance of a suit are preferred by insurers in cases of obvious liability, as is the case here. There is nothing sinister about it. At all. In fact, it's likely that the insurers were driving the decision to settle because one thing they hate is uncertainty. Get 'em a number and a release from further claims and you've made an insurer's day.

You can have your opinion on BLM, but your negative mindset towards the movement is, at best, clouding your interpretation of the customary machinations of tort liability settlements.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 8.03pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Settlements in advance of a suit are preferred by insurers in cases of obvious liability, as is the case here. There is nothing sinister about it. At all. In fact, it's likely that the insurers were driving the decision to settle because one thing they hate is uncertainty. Get 'em a number and a release from further claims and you've made an insurer's day. You can have your opinion on BLM, but your negative mindset towards the movement is, at best, clouding your interpretation of the customary machinations of tort liability settlements. You sure? Before a court case? I worked as head of HR for several big companies... I've dealt with insurers professionally.... they've never ever offered to pay out before any claim was made. Maybe it's a American thing... maybe insurance companies always give money to people that haven't asked for it before a big court case... I trust you Ray... you seem a very good egg... not the type to bulls*** at all.
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 12 Dec 17 8.03pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Settlements in advance of a suit are preferred by insurers in cases of obvious liability, as is the case here. There is nothing sinister about it. At all. In fact, it's likely that the insurers were driving the decision to settle because one thing they hate is uncertainty. Get 'em a number and a release from further claims and you've made an insurer's day.

You can have your opinion on BLM, but your negative mindset towards the movement is, at best, clouding your interpretation of the customary machinations of tort liability settlements.

You sure?
Before a court case?
I worked as head of HR for several big companies... I've dealt with insurers professionally.... they've never ever offered to pay out before any claim was made.
Maybe it's a American thing... maybe insurance companies always give money to people that haven't asked for it before a big court case... I trust you Ray... you seem a very good egg... not the type to bulls*** at all.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 12 Dec 17 8.28pm
Originally posted by 7mins You sure? Before a court case? I worked as head of HR for several big companies... I've dealt with insurers professionally.... they've never ever offered to pay out before any claim was made. Maybe it's a American thing... maybe insurance companies always give money to people that haven't asked for it before a big court case... I trust you Ray... you seem a very good egg... not the type to bulls* at all. I am a 35 year veteran of the insurance industry, having practiced in the UK and US. I'm very sure. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just waing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 12 Dec 17 8.28pm

Originally posted by 7mins

I am a 35 year veteran of the insurance industry, having practiced in the UK and US. I'm very sure.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 8.34pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston I am a 35 year veteran of the insurance industry, having practiced in the UK and US. I'm very sure. I can smell something...
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 12 Dec 17 8.34pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

I am a 35 year veteran of the insurance industry, having practiced in the UK and US. I'm very sure.

I can smell something...

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 12 Dec 17 8.40pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston I am a 35 year veteran of the insurance industry, having practiced in the UK and US. I'm very sure. Very common you say?
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 12 Dec 17 8.40pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

I am a 35 year veteran of the insurance industry, having practiced in the UK and US. I'm very sure.

Very common you say?

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 56 of 60 < 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Another black man shot by police in USA

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors