Law Florida jury gives family $.04 for wrongful death

NEWS

Family stunned after jury awards 4 cents in dad’s death by cop
By Lia Eustachewich

June 1, 2018 | 10:33am

florida-cop-shooting.jpg

Gregory Hill, his fiancee and two of his childrenGoFundMe
The fiancée of the armed Florida man killed by cops responding to a noise complaint said her “heart just dropped” when she learned the jury awarded the grieving family a mere 4 cents.

Monique Davis stormed out of the courtroom when the miserly award was announced in court Thursday, according to NBC News.

“My heart just dropped,” Davis recalled. “It was like, are y’all serious?”

SEE ALSO

Family awarded 4 cents for man's death by cop
Davis’ husband-to-be, Gregory Vaughn Hill Jr., was killed in 2014 by sheriff’s deputy Christopher Newman, who had responded to the 30-year-old’s Fort Pierce home on a complaint of loud music.

Newman — who claimed Hill pulled a gun out — shot the father of three as his garage door was closing.



Hill was later found with an unloaded gun in his back pocket.

His mother filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Newman and St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara — and jurors effectively cleared the cops of any wrongdoing.

After 10 hours of deliberations, they found Mascara was just 1 percent responsible for the shooting death — and assigned 99 percent blame to Hill, who was drunk at the time.

Jurors awarded $1 for funeral expenses to Hill’s mom and a buck each to his three kids, ages 7, 10 and 13. The total award was reduced to just 4 cents, though, because of Mascara’s 1 percent of negligence.

The family’s lawyer, John Phillips, was stunned.

“I’d have rather seen a zero than have to tell the children that their pain and suffering for losing their father is only a dollar,” he said Thursday. “Either it was punitive or they viewed these children’s pain as virtually worthless.”
 
Are we seriously arguing whether or not the cop was in the right for killing a guy in his own home for playing his music too loud? lol he fucking wasn’t, that’s insane. And this town’s police force and justice system deserve to be universally laughed at for treating his family like it’s a cross between pre-Civil War and satirical dystopian future.
Some people here just really want to blame black people for everything, and don't think they are ever unfairly targeted or treated at all. Like, there is a middle ground between being a massive blm supporter, and thinking stuff like this is justifiable somehow.
 
Some people here just really want to blame black people for everything, and don't think they are ever unfairly targeted or treated at all. Like, there is a middle ground between being a massive blm supporter, and thinking stuff like this is justifiable somehow.

I'm sure that if he was a person of any color other than "black american" he'd have had no problems, even when leveling a gun at police officers.
 
If this guy was white nobody would be trying to defend the cop.
If this guy were white I don't think people would care as much either. Because then it would just be police brutality and not a race issue.

I don't think that the shoot first ask questions later mentality is good. But I can legitimately believe that some undertrained underpaid police officer who may not have had much experience in dangerous situations (I don't know exactly how much real world experience you need to be a sheriff's deputy) could have panicked when seeing somebody intoxicated with a gun in their back pocket. From a distance I doubt you could tell that it isn't loaded. Just having a visible gun on your person probably isn't a good idea (even if you're in your home, in which case why are you even walking around with a loaded gun when it can look threatening? Yeah it's your constitutional right in the US to own weapons but you also need to accept that it can make you look dangerous) when there's an armed police officer present, if anything carrying it in your home when police officers are in front may actually look worse than having one on your person in public because they might think you were planning to shoot them. Now I'm not saying the man deserved to be shot, I can just understand if they thought the situation was dangerous, especially if their hand was anywhere near their pocket (this last part is just to specify what could be seen as dangerous, I'm not saying that actually happened).
 
Última edición:
This is one of those reports where it's so weird and unbelievable that you know something is being left out, something that would explain it and it'd all make sense. The cops don't show up and start blasting niggers unprovoked, opposite a school. Nobody on the farms is retarded enough to think that. Just like when someone is describing an argument they had with their boss or whatever and they say he JUST SUDDENLY did something outrageous: Something else happened that isn't getting reported because it doesn't fit the narrative.

There was probably some jury instruction that they had to find the cop culpable because they didn't dispute shooting the guy or something, but they did believe the drunk black dude was actually the aggressor so decided to follow the instruction but do it in a way that is more in tune with what they felt was just. Or he was a known to all and sundry as a noisy, aggressive nigger. Or maybe this is the pushback against HE DINDU NUTHIN' that we've been waiting for. Or maybe everyone in Florida hates The Niggers.

Either way shooting someone through a garage door is pretty lol but getting away with it is priceless.


If he was white everyone would be up in arms about an American dying for excersicing his second amendment rights. The headlines write themselves.
If he was white it wouldn't have been reported on because the cops killing whites doesn't move any agendas along
 
even if you're in your home, in which case why are you even walking around with a loaded gun when it can look threatening? Yeah it's your constitutional right in the US to own weapons but you also need to accept that it can make you look dangerous
No. Rights are exactly that: rights.

Walking around in klan robes looks threatening to a lot of people, but it's your goddamn first amendment right to do so.

I'm not saying you won't get attacked for indulging in those rights, you very well might. But wheedling about the attackers motivations is irrelevant.

You don't need to justify usage of your rights based on context, if the context is otherwise legal.
 
Either way shooting someone through a garage door is pretty lol but getting away with it is priceless.

I don't know what happened in this case, but I do know the jury doing this was a highly calculated expression of contempt, and there had to be some reason for that.

Possibly, the jury really all was deranged Klan members and their jury deliberations consisted of saying "LOL NIGGERS" to each other.

I seriously do suspect they had some more rational basis for their decision, though.

Remember, any time you read a story about a court case where a jury made a decision, you've read like a page about the case in your life, unless you were specifically following it and researching it. The jury listened to hours and maybe days or even weeks or, sometimes, months of testimony presented by both sides.

They are not generally the complete idiots people say juries are.

I generally presume juries had some reason for coming to the decision they did other than stupidity.

How is this website so racist and so cuck libreal at the same time?

Because contrary to popular opinion, we aren't actually just a bunch of Nazis?
 
I don't know what happened in this case, but I do know the jury doing this was a highly calculated expression of contempt, and there had to be some reason for that
Exactly. Something happened that hasn't been reported because it spoils the story about DEM RAYCISS COPS DONE SHOOTED HIM
 
I don't know what happened in this case, but I do know the jury doing this was a highly calculated expression of contempt, and there had to be some reason for that.

Possibly, the jury really all was deranged Klan members and their jury deliberations consisted of saying "LOL NIGGERS" to each other.

I seriously do suspect they had some more rational basis for their decision, though.

Remember, any time you read a story about a court case where a jury made a decision, you've read like a page about the case in your life, unless you were specifically following it and researching it. The jury listened to hours and maybe days or even weeks or, sometimes, months of testimony presented by both sides.

They are not generally the complete idiots people say juries are.

I generally presume juries had some reason for coming to the decision they did other than stupidity.



Because contrary to popular opinion, we aren't actually just a bunch of Nazis?
Is it possible the jury arrived at their verdict to spite the widow?
 
No. Rights are exactly that: rights.

Walking around with a gun looks threatening to a lot of people, but it's your goddamn second amendment right to do so.

I'm not saying you won't get shot for indulging in those rights, you very well might. But wheedling about the attackers motivations is irrelevant.

You don't need to justify usage of your rights based on context, if the context is otherwise legal.

hows that look now?
 
Atrás
Top Abajo