Sheriff Joe costs taxpayers 3.25 million in settlement over prisoner death

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
and destruction of evidence, conspiracy to cover up murder, falsifying documents, etc.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local...ail-death-suit-of-Deborah-Braillard-destroyed

axpayers will to have to fork over $3.25 million after attorneys for Arpaio, MCSO and the county chose to settle another jail death lawsuit.

Why would lawyers suddenly decide to settle after years of legal wrangling and three weeks of trial testimony rather than allow the case to go to the jury?

The ABC15 Investigators have obtained court records, documents and a judge’s ruling that show the jury was set to hear how key evidence in the case of Deborah Braillard was lost, deleted or "destroyed" by MCSO in an attempt to cover up the death of a Valley mother.

Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local...-of-Deborah-Braillard-destroyed#ixzz29bhnxFrk
Click to expand...

I guess people can still call this an 'isolated incident' and feel safer, right?
 
Did you move to Phoenix?

Unless the answer is "yes", Sheriff Joe didn't cost you a fucking dime.
 
\\((|))// said:
Since I didn't say I consider you "the ONLY taxpayer in the country", you lied again.
Click to expand...
considering that my post said 'taxpayers' and didn't say 'cost ME', we can deduce that you can't fucking read. now, do you have anything productive to say about the OP, or do you wish to fuck up the board some more?
 
Why would lawyers suddenly decide to settle after years of legal wrangling and three weeks of trial testimony rather than allow the case to go to the jury?
Click to expand...

Why would lawyers ask for and accept a settlement on such a slam dunk case?
 
Dixie said:
So, to the plaintiff, this was about money? ...nuff said!
Click to expand...
you can choose to believe that bullshit, if you like. that just makes you the typical statist. YOU know how the system is. Once a judgement gets out of the hands of a jury and in to the court system, the odds of the judgement being overturned or even reduced to less than the settlement offer increases exponentially. The settlement is most likely the ONLY justice she'd ever get for her mothers death, but you go ahead and feel better about yourself by thinking it was all about money.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you can choose to believe that bullshit, if you like. that just makes you the typical statist. YOU know how the system is. Once a judgement gets out of the hands of a jury and in to the court system, the odds of the judgement being overturned or even reduced to less than the settlement offer increases exponentially. The settlement is most likely the ONLY justice she'd ever get for her mothers death, but you go ahead and feel better about yourself by thinking it was all about money.
Click to expand...

Well it was obviously all about money, you said so yourself!
 
Dixie said:
Well it was obviously all about money, you said so yourself!
Click to expand...
you either didn't read what I posted, or just plain don't care either way. I also notice that you don't seem to care in the slightest that there's actual evidence out there that arpaio, mcso, and the county destroyed evidence, participated in the coverup, and is defending these criminal actions. that alone tells novels about your patriotism.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
you either didn't read what I posted, or just plain don't care either way. I also notice that you don't seem to care in the slightest that there's actual evidence out there that arpaio, mcso, and the county destroyed evidence, participated in the coverup, and is defending these criminal actions. that alone tells novels about your patriotism.
Click to expand...

Was this proven in a court of law? Then you have to have a big tall glass of STFU.. it wasn't proven!
 
Fluttershy said:
Outrageous. Why was he spared the death penalty?
Click to expand...

SmarterThanFew would apply it personally, but he can't figure out how to find the Sheriff. He asked, but Joe didn't answer.

165650_o.gif
 
Dixie said:
Was this proven in a court of law? Then you have to have a big tall glass of STFU.. it wasn't proven!
Click to expand...
you're full of all kinds of assumptions and ignorance. READ THE ARTICLE!!!! all of that 'evidence' was getting ready to be shown to a jury. It's why they offered the settlement.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you're full of all kinds of assumptions and ignorance. READ THE ARTICLE!!!! all of that 'evidence' was getting ready to be shown to a jury. It's why they offered the settlement.
Click to expand...

Ahh... getting ready to be... got it! Well, here in America, the evidence has to be shown, and the jury has to find guilt on a preponderance of the evidence, otherwise, we have to assume innocence. Regardless of why a settlement was offered, the settlement was accepted by the plaintiff, they didn't have to accept it. Again, if they had such a slam-dunk case, and sincerely sought justice, they should have pursued the case. Why 'settle' when victory is a sure thing? This leads me to think the "evidence" that was "getting ready to be presented" wasn't all that great. But even IF it was, you simply can't condemn the man on the basis of evidence that was never presented.
 
Dixie said:
Ahh... getting ready to be... got it! Well, here in America, the evidence has to be shown, and the jury has to find guilt on a preponderance of the evidence, otherwise, we have to assume innocence. Regardless of why a settlement was offered, the settlement was accepted by the plaintiff, they didn't have to accept it. Again, if they had such a slam-dunk case, and sincerely sought justice, they should have pursued the case. Why 'settle' when victory is a sure thing? This leads me to think the "evidence" that was "getting ready to be presented" wasn't all that great. But even IF it was, you simply can't condemn the man on the basis of evidence that was never presented.
Click to expand...
you seem to have zero problem doing that with your anti liberal posts, yet now that it's your esteemed sheriff joe, all of a sudden 'innocent until proven guilty' is the rule of the day. if it was all about the money and not justice, seems to me that the county should never have caved and surrendered 3.25 million of it's taxpayers money. wonder what they had to hide?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you seem to have zero problem doing that with your anti liberal posts, yet now that it's your esteemed sheriff joe, all of a sudden 'innocent until proven guilty' is the rule of the day. if it was all about the money and not justice, seems to me that the county should never have caved and surrendered 3.25 million of it's taxpayers money. wonder what they had to hide?
Click to expand...

Well, it's probably like you said, it was about the money. It was cheaper to pay a settlement than to retain lawyers fighting a possible appeal and whatnot. Again, the offering of a settlement is not confused in America for an admission of guilt, it never has been.

And I really have no idea of what you're talking about, re: my 'anti-liberal' posts. I am a fairly consistent believer in how our justice system works, and have never condemned someone as guilty who wasn't found guilty by a jury. If you have such an example as evidence, you should present it here, because I have no intentions of paying you a settlement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top