Sounds like a jury with a grudge.

Yep. You take these jurors away from home, family and jobs to listen to days of testimony in a frivolous lawsuit that never should have gone to trial -- and only did so because the prosecutor and the judge were afraid of the black community.

Glad to see the jurors weren't. Nice play. I'd like to shake their hands.

I can understand a jury with a grudge. Some years back, I attended a major anti-SLAPP trial, a legal landmark in some ways. Just prior to the closing argument, the defense was playing tapes showing that the opponent's previous lawyer had perjured themselves and committed crimes (the lawyer testifying was in the process of being disbarred at the time). Then, only an hour or so later during closing arguments, the defense attorney tried to baldfaced lie to the jury about something that was directly contradicted by the testimony of criminality that they had heard only an hour before. And he lied and lied and kept lying. Like we were all idiots or something.

You could just feel the fury in that courtroom. Everyone knew this guy was a total scumbag of a lawyer. Like he was standing there naked, it was so obvious. If we'd had some rope, we probably would have hung him. It was kind of a passionate case, full of egregious offenses. It was, of course, a countersuit so there was a lot of bitterness and previous legal skirmishing on all sides. They had all been suing each other for some time.

Anyway, Crooked Attorney's client got quite a judgment issued against him by that jury.

So maybe something like that happened with this jury. It's such an odd verdict really.

It's such an odd verdict really.

I would've liked to have been a fly on the jury room wall to hear them debating the best way to send a message that they were really pissed off.

Or maybe one of of of the plaintiffs testified, "Hey, it ain't about the money" and the jury decided, "OK, we'll take you at your word".

There must be an interesting story but perhaps the jury won't talk and we'll never know.

From the other side of the coin, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murdering two people but went on to lose a very expensive civil suit for wrongful death. I’ve never understood how you build a successful case based on a claim that someone murdered another human being when the legal system was unable to prove the charge.

The answer to this is simple. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the civil trial the standard is preponderance of the evidence, or more likely than not. The admission or exclusion of evidence is also different.

A grand jury was convened to examine the case and they opted not to indict Newman, placing nearly all the blame on Hill for the result of the encounter.

That led to a wrongful death suit being filed by Hill’s family in civil court. That case drew to a close this week with the jury deciding to award damages to Hill’s family, but the number was shocking to almost anyone from either side of the dispute. They awarded four members of the family one dollar each.

It sounds like the grand jury and the civil jury were both very unsympathetic to Hill. The jury found that the requirements for an award for damage were met, and assessed the damages at four dollars.

Insufficient facts are provided to assess why they reached their conclusion, but the information below may prove helpful.

https://www.ajc.com/news/national/jury-awards-cents-family-black-man-killed-deputy-own-garage/6Pmw3rdUBz3sQTxw6psGlN/

Jurors were also asked to determine how much, if any, compensation Hill’s three children deserved for the loss of their father. They awarded Hill’s estate $4, $1 to his mother, Viola Bryant, for his funeral expenses and $1 to each of his children.

They determined, however, that Hill, 30, was 99 percent responsible for his own death because of his intoxication, court records show. TCPalm.com reported that Hill’s toxicology results showed his blood alcohol concentration was nearly .40, almost five times the legal limit for driving.

The jury found that St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara was 1 percent liable, according to the court records. ... The jurors found that Newman did not use excessive force against Hill.

[...]

Mascara said in statements following the incident that as the garage door opened, the deputies saw Hill with a handgun down at his side.

“Deputies ordered (Hill) to drop the gun. Instead of complying with the deputies’ commands, (he) raised the gun toward the deputies as he simultaneously pulled the garage door closed,” Mascara’s statement said, according to TCPalm.com.

That’s when Newman fired, killing Hill, investigators said. The deputies did not immediately realize Hill had been slain and a SWAT team was called in.

Deputies surrounded the home, believing that Hill had “barricaded” himself inside. The SWAT team ultimately used chemical agents and a robot to breach the garage, at which point they found Hill dead, the Times reported.

Note that it was the sheriff's office that was found 1% liable, not Deputy Newman.

The investigation concluded that Hill had pulled a gun on the Sheriff’s Deputies and was heavily intoxicated. They found the gun on him. That was apparently enough to justify the decision not to prosecute and the whole thing should have ended there.

How could he pull a gun on them when it was found later in his back pocket?

The Hill

Hill was shot three times by an officer responding to a report of loud music. Officers said he was holding a weapon, which was later found in his back pocket.

It was a wrong decision just like obozocare.

To say a man's life is worth four bucks is an insult.

Hill’s toxicology results showed his blood alcohol concentration was nearly .40, almost five times the legal limit for driving.

Drunk and stupid, shot by cops, likely bled out while the SWAT team was assembling.

How could he pull a gun on them when it was found later in his back pocket?

Hill was shot three times by an officer responding to a report of loud music. Officers said he was holding a weapon, which was later found in his back pocket.

He had the gun in his hand, got shot while closing the garage door, put the gun back in his pocket, and bled out while the SWAT team was assembling outside.

He had the gun in his hand, got shot while closing the garage door, put the gun back in his pocket,

Huh...what?

The guy was shot, bleeding to death, and you're saying that as he lay there dying, he put the gun in his back pocket?

I guess the jury bought that line of bullshit though.

Apparently the cop worshipers here do as well.

The guy was shot, bleeding to death, and you're saying that as he lay there dying, he put the gun in his back pocket?

Sure I am.

Maybe he was trying to barricade or lock windows/doors or just to look at his gunshot wound but didn't want to put his gun down. Maybe he had a habit of carrying his gun in his back pocket (since he was obviously a ginormus dumbass).

Maybe he was trying to barricade or lock windows/doors or just to look at his gunshot wound but didn't want to put his gun down. Maybe he had a habit of carrying his gun in his back pocket

It's more likely that the cops just made up the entire story of him shooting at them to cover their asses.

Were any of the supposed bullets fired by him ever found? Was the gun tested to see if it had been recently fired?

I doubt it.

It's more likely that the cops just made up the entire story of him shooting at them to cover their asses. Were any of the supposed bullets fired by him ever found? Was the gun tested to see if it had been recently fired?

I see no reporting that he ever shot the gun.

He raised the gun from his side as he closed the garage door and that is when the cop Feared For His Life™ and shot him. The cops, not sure if they hit him or not, then decided it was a SWAT situation and retreated. Some time later, the SWATs arrived and set up and finally broke in to find him dead.

Jury awards family four dollars

What are they complaining about? You can get a whole pint of Mad Dog with that.

LOL