MAGAtards arrest man over being black

userque said:
No. I'm going on the current US Justice System standard; which was initially derived from the English system.

For centuries, we've had punitive justice.

Our system is also one of fairness. For centuries, victims have collected punitive rewards. If it is to stop, then legislate it. Advocate for a change in the system, rather than attacking one case.

Does it work?

I'm not going to research the pros and cons; but I can speak from a common sense perspective.

I believe punitive settlements etc. allow the judicial system to make penalties proportionate to one's ability to pay. Corporations can be penalized more for the same infraction; while penalizing Mom-and-Pop businesses less. Both have the same, proportional, economic effect.

A one-size-fits-all will make monetary penalties meaningless to the wealthy and large businesses; or make them exorbitant to most everyone else.

The ability to adjust damages is helpful, imo.

A meaningful conclusion would require more research than I care to entertain, at this time. I'm simply not that interested as I'm OK with the status quo for now.

...ok...

Body cams are better than no body cams. They are not perfect, and need support. What if an office turns it off? Erases it? Destroys it? They need laws, and punishments, to support them.

Of course crime won't be zero. But it should see a reduction with surveillance, actual damages, AND punitive damages. So we disagree on punitive damages.

Show me the judicial plan that doesn't include punitive damages. I'd have to see the replacement before I'd even entertain getting rid of something.

That's kinda like kicking people off ObamaCare ... without having a well prepared replacement ready to go. Makes no sense at all.

What's the value of a human life? How do we know that the victim would not have gotten lucky in Vegas, with the lottery, at the race track?

How do you put a value on pain and suffering.

As long as lawyers are paid based on the judgments/settlements; and as long as lawyers become judges and politicians; and as long as people want the ability to win a big settlement when it's 'their turn,' getting rid of punitive damages will be a steep, uphill battle.

And my guess is that if any change does occur, it'll be semantical. They will simply bake punitive damage dollar amounts into: pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc. etc.
More...
Quantifying feelings in terms of monetary settlements is tough. I personally believe that feelings are best meant to be settled in criminal court. You obviously can't say how much somebody would have made or not made. You have to look at averages like they do for improper incarceration. Obviously some people will benefit from that and some will lose. Somebody like Floyd is likely to benefit. Honestly, most people killed by police officers are. It's generally not rich people getting murdered by them. If Jeff Bezos/Bill Gates/Elon Musk/etc are murdered by a police officer they're not going to get a fair amount. No state can afford $10 billion from their annual budget to his estate for 20 years.
 
Here's an interesting scenario. Imagine it wasn't MN police that killed Floyd. It was Walmart security alleging he stole an item, asking him for his receipt. If Walmart security had their knee on him for 9 minutes, waiting for the police to arrive, I wonder what the settlement would be. $27 million? Walmart might fight that type of settlement to lower it. Walmart might not, given their size, and because of PR. However, lots of companies would definitely fight that amount.
 
I thought this thread was about Michele's nude body and her shaven beaver under her bathrob...

You guys still talking about the Black dude ?

giphy.gif


wrbtrader
 
kmgilroy89 said:
This was the most obvious case in my lifetime:
https://www.industryweek.com/archiv...strikes-down-290-million-verdict-against-ford

They tried to go after Ford with $290M in punitive damages.
More...
You said, lots of companies would definitely not settle (they don't have to 'fight' a settlement offer) for what Minn. settled for.

I asked for your source.

You supplied an article about SCOTUS returning a case to a lower court for reconsideration? Because $290 million might be too high? But the Floyd settlement was a mere $27 million?

Anyway, let me say this:

MN AGREED to the Floyd settlement.

Every situation is different. What Ford is willing to settle for in a car crash case, doesn't have to correlate to what they'd settle for if their security guard did what happened to Floyd.

IOW, you can't cite a source that tells you that lots of companies would not have taken that $27 million dollar settlement.

Finally, consider this: Walmart settled for $65 million over some chairs.
http://www.ubf.consulting/walmart-settles-suitable-seating-paga-claim-for-65-million/

And a basic google search would reveal that they regularly settle discrimination cases for $20 million.

Floyd wasn't a discrimination case; he was killed, slowly.

And we can't even talk about the non-disclosed settlements. Any idea why they wouldn't want it disclosed? Rhetorical question.
 
userque said:
You said, lots of companies would definitely not settle (they don't have to 'fight' a settlement offer) for what Minn. settled for.

I asked for your source.

You supplied an article about SCOTUS returning a case to a lower court for reconsideration? Because $290 million might be too high? But the Floyd settlement was a mere $27 million?

Anyway, let me say this:

MN AGREED to the Floyd settlement.

Every situation is different. What Ford is willing to settle for in a car crash case, doesn't have to correlate to what they'd settle for if their security guard did what happened to Floyd.

IOW, you can't cite a source that tells you that lots of companies would not have taken that $27 million dollar settlement.

Finally, consider this: Walmart settled for $65 million over some chairs.
http://www.ubf.consulting/walmart-settles-suitable-seating-paga-claim-for-65-million/

And a basic google search would reveal that they regularly settle discrimination cases for $20 million.

Floyd wasn't a discrimination case; he was killed, slowly.

And we can't even talk about the non-disclosed settlements. Any idea why they wouldn't want it disclosed? Rhetorical question.
More...
MN took it, because of politics. Would every state? I'm not sure. The blue ones probably would. When companies settle lawsuits it's about the bottom line. How much of a PR hit there will be continuing is a major factor. However, what you're asking for obviously doesn't exist. You want me to find a company's position on the George Floyd's settlement? That doesn't mean I can't claim they wouldn't. As many do in politics, I'm using inference to make a prediction to a hypothetical scenario. I feel pretty strongly that my prediction would be right, but I've been wrong before. $27 million is a lot of money to a lot of companies even with a potential PR hit.
 
kmgilroy89 said:
That doesn't mean I can't claim they wouldn't. As many do in politics,
More...
When you say 'lots of companies definitely would not settle,' you'll likely get challenged.
But if you say, 'I doubt most companies would settle,' ... not so much.
 
userque said:
When you say 'lots of companies definitely would not settle,' you'll likely get challenged.
But if you say, 'I doubt most companies would settle,' ... not so much.
More...
I'm pretty confident about this, but if you want me to be semantically correct as if I'm writing a dissertation, sure. I don't proofread everything I write and I'm not immune to all logical/semantical errors. There's always room to re-think something, especially when dealing with incomplete information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top