Sheriff Joe costs taxpayers 3.25 million in settlement over prisoner death

Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...
let's be honest here. YOU said it was about money, not I.

Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...
a believer in how our justice system works? then you, sir, are the perfect conservative who pretends to support the constitution while intentionally ignoring it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
let's be honest here. YOU said it was about money, not I.
Click to expand...

No, I am sorry, but YOU indicated that the plaintiff took a settlement because getting some money now was better than more money later. That means it was more about getting money than justice, in this particular case. Settlements are often about the money for the defendant as well, it's just what makes the old world go around, I suppose.


a believer in how our justice system works? then you, sir, are the perfect conservative who pretends to support the constitution while intentionally ignoring it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't get it... I am ignoring the constitution by insisting that people are innocent until proven guilty?
 
Dixie said:
No, I am sorry, but YOU indicated that the plaintiff took a settlement because getting some money now was better than more money later. That means it was more about getting money than justice, in this particular case. Settlements are often about the money for the defendant as well, it's just what makes the old world go around, I suppose.
Click to expand...
no, but you go ahead and keep that bit of idealism to your heart.


Dixie said:
I'm sorry, I don't get it... I am ignoring the constitution by insisting that people are innocent until proven guilty?
Click to expand...
you're right, you don't get it. you're making desh's claims of sociopathy look truthful, and that's pretty pathetic.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no, but you go ahead and keep that bit of idealism to your heart.
Click to expand...

So it is "idealism" to believe plaintiffs and defendants often reach settlements because money trumps justice?

you're right, you don't get it. you're making desh's claims of sociopathy look truthful, and that's pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now I am a "sociopath" idealist who believes people should be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
 
Dixie said:
So it is "idealism" to believe plaintiffs and defendants often reach settlements because money trumps justice?no, it's 'Idealism' to believe that it's only about money when plaintiffs settle instead of waiting 14 years to get justice. It's pretty easy to believe that when you're not the one dealing with it though.

Dixie said:
Oh, so now I am a "sociopath" idealist who believes people should be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
Click to expand...
No, you're a sociopath because you willfully ignore the real life issues that occur with these lawsuits, using obfuscation of the issue so you can maintain your idealism of justice.
Click to expand...
 
no, it's 'Idealism' to believe that it's only about money when plaintiffs settle instead of waiting 14 years to get justice. It's pretty easy to believe that when you're not the one dealing with it though.
Click to expand...

Well, that is what it's about, there is no other rational reason to settle. If an injustice occurred, and the case is a sure thing, why settle? Money is the only reason you've come up with, and I've agreed. But settlements don't mean the plaintiff can then run around claiming the case was proven and they won. Settlements also don't mean the defendant was guilty as charged, and the evidence against them, (which was never heard), is valid and legitimate. That's what you are attempting to argue here, and it flies in the face of how our justice system works.

No, you're a sociopath because you willfully ignore the real life issues that occur with these lawsuits, using obfuscation of the issue so you can maintain your idealism of justice.
Click to expand...

But I haven't willfully ignored anything, or obfuscated on anything. That appears to be what you are attempting to do here. You want to find someone "guilty" on the basis a case was brought and settled, without any evidence presented. That's not how American justice works. It's not sociopathic to point that out, it IS sociopathic to continue REJECTING that principle.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Not in a civil case.

You idiot.
 
Dixie said:
Well, that is what it's about, there is no other rational reason to settle. If an injustice occurred, and the case is a sure thing, why settle? Money is the only reason you've come up with, and I've agreed. But settlements don't mean the plaintiff can then run around claiming the case was proven and they won. Settlements also don't mean the defendant was guilty as charged, and the evidence against them, (which was never heard), is valid and legitimate. That's what you are attempting to argue here, and it flies in the face of how our justice system works.

But I haven't willfully ignored anything, or obfuscated on anything. That appears to be what you are attempting to do here. You want to find someone "guilty" on the basis a case was brought and settled, without any evidence presented. That's not how American justice works. It's not sociopathic to point that out, it IS sociopathic to continue REJECTING that principle.
Click to expand...
yes, dixie. you have willfully ignored things. that is completely obvious by the fact that you believe that a person, any person, would simple persevere against a defendant with unlimited, UNLIMITED, resources in order to get 'justice' in a civil suit. Also, what other JUSTICE do you think a civil suit against the government brings but money? Are you of the belief that should a defendant like arpaio lose in a civil suit, that they are then sentenced to prison?

you obviously have no idea how civil suits against the government work and that's pretty damned pathetic.
 
christiefan915 said:
I've been bitching about this p.o.s. for years but he wouldn't have so much power if the MC voters didn't keep re-electing him. Spread some of that anger around to the morons who let this happen.
Click to expand...
don't even try that shit. I 'spread my anger' about ALL misconduct and injustice to people on this board, but it's partisan fucktards like you that ONLY accept that which you are against. Accept it all, or stay ignorant. your choice.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
don't even try that shit. I 'spread my anger' about ALL misconduct and injustice to people on this board, but it's partisan fucktards like you that ONLY accept that which you are against. Accept it all, or stay ignorant. your choice.
Click to expand...

What a joke. You complain mostly about liberals and what they're against and from time to time throw in conservatives, almost as an afterthought. Because let's face it, most of the issues you're passionate about conservatives love and liberals hate.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
yes, dixie. you have willfully ignored things. that is completely obvious by the fact that you believe that a person, any person, would simple persevere against a defendant with unlimited, UNLIMITED, resources in order to get 'justice' in a civil suit. Also, what other JUSTICE do you think a civil suit against the government brings but money? Are you of the belief that should a defendant like arpaio lose in a civil suit, that they are then sentenced to prison?

you obviously have no idea how civil suits against the government work and that's pretty damned pathetic.
Click to expand...

I do know how civil suits work, and they are the same as criminal suits with regard to evidentiary procedure and finding. A charge is made, the defendant enters a plea, if it's not guilty, a trial takes place with a jury who hear evidence presented by the plaintiff. The defendant (this is important here) gets a chance to refute the evidence and present his/her defense! The jury then decides if the defendant is guilty based on the evidence presented. The defendant gets to appeal. We don't have any other set of laws for this.

I should think that, if Arpio were found guilty in civil case, he would have to resign as sheriff. I can tell you, if someone killed my mother, I wouldn't settle out of court unless he resigned from his job. No amount of money would come between me and that sentiment, but that's just me. For whatever reason, the plaintiff accepted a settlement, and that's the end of this. Arpio is not guilty, he wasn't found guilty, there was no evidence presented, he still remains Sheriff.

What you are now wanting to do, is take this settlement and prosecute the man as guilty anyway. And that is against everything our justice system stands for. Maybe Arpio was guilty as sin, we don't know, the evidence wasn't presented and a jury didn't hear it and make an impartial decision. If he was indeed guilty, the plaintiff obviously felt the monetary compensation of the settlement was good enough for them, and didn't pursue the case. Again, I can only speak for myself, if Arpio had killed my mother, and I could prove that he did beyond any reasonable doubt, there's no way in hell I would have settled. I would go to my grave trying to remove the man from his job, even if that's all I ever managed to accomplish, but I sure as hell wouldn't have settled for a little money and watched him get away scott free.

I think you need to think about this a little more. What if Arpio was some kind of sympathetic liberal figure who was being unjustly accused, and he settled to avoid a trial? Would you accept the trumped-up allegations made were true and he was guilty? I doubt that, but this is the legal standard you want to apply here. You have to remember that things cut both ways, and next time it might be someone you LIKE on trial, instead of Arpio, who you detest. It's best we agree that our justice system works on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial by a jury.

Stomping your feet like a 10-year-old and insisting you get your way, is not indicative of how justice needs to work in America.
 
christiefan915 said:
What a joke. You complain mostly about liberals and what they're against and from time to time throw in conservatives, almost as an afterthought. Because let's face it, most of the issues you're passionate about conservatives love and liberals hate.
Click to expand...
I have to seriously wonder if most of the people here are just so short of the ability to remember specifics about posters. you go ahead and focus on the belief that I mostly rail about Liberals, it works for you. I don't care anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top