That is so gay.

FTFA Anderson was charged with public intoxication and interference with official acts. Senior faced the same charges, as well as a disorderly conduct charge. Both pleaded guilty.


Summary judgment time. Heck, won't even get that far. Rule 12(b)(6) motion ("failure to state a claim").

Right or wrong is irrelevant. "Good ole boy network" or not is irrelevant.

I believe the women, and I believe that the cops were dirty. But, so what? The bottom line is that the police charged the two women with crimes ---- including interference with official acts ---- and they pleaded guilty. End of story.

The police said they did bad things. The women agreed. Their lawsuit is history.

lebians don't like to be manhandled? unpossible

Nuuu It states a claim. Cops beat the shiat out of them, that's a claim.


No, it does not state a claim. It states an event. That is all.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a police officer beating the beejesus out of someone. Or killing someone. Indeed, we as a society have given them special license to do exactly that. It's what we want them to do. Under the proper circumstances.

In order to state a claim, the women have to say that the circumstances were not appropriate. To simply state that they were beaten does not get them there.

Their lawyer is likely smart enough to understand this and has probably alleged an excessive use of force. But the problem with that claim is the guilty pleas. Public Intoxication. Disorderly conduct. Interference with official acts. Think about what that means. They were drunk and interfering with police business and acting in a disorderly fashion. That warrants arrest and it also warrants the use of some degree of force. The amount of force actually used was not deadly and, given their admittedly drunk and disorderly conduct, was not inappropriate (within the parameters of civil rights law).

If the lawsuit survives the 12(b)(6) motion and the inevitable summary judgment motion, settlement entreaties will likely occur. But the offer will be for costs of defense. If the women insist on a true-damages settlement, it'll go to trial where the jury will come back with a defense verdict.

josey_cuervo: sounds like 2 drunk chicks left the bar and found a dead goose in their car. when they call the cops and the cops can't magically find the people who did it, they pitched a drunken hissy. the cops had enough of it and arrested them. they play the "gay" card to try and scam the city out of some money.

or maybe im wrong, and these are 2 upstanding citizens and not some skanky bar dikes who harassed the other patrons enough to warrant a stupid prank.

Blowing a 0.084 doesn't make you shiat hammered. Just admit it, you don't like gay people don't ya? Cause things like this never happen right? Right?

submitter: Two lesbians leave a bar and find a dead goose in their car. Then things really go downhill

I liked where this was going until it hit "find a dead goose"

Bad bit in the bit bucket How dare you bring logic, reason, and information into a Fark thread!!


My view on the actual facts of the case pretty much parallel those of bottsicus. But I wouldn't be surprised to find, also, that the women got angry when the police officers didn't mount a crusade to right all the wrongs in the world.

I've handled civil rights lawsuits against police officers, cases with facts far, far more egregious than this one appears to be. It's very difficult to win one or to get a decent settlement.

Their lawyer said, "this one touched my sense of common civility." Lawyers sometimes take on cases where the defendant's conduct offends them, even though the prospects of winning are very slim and even though pressing the claim will likely be very expensive, as lawsuits like these tend to be.

rubblerubble: But the jokes traditionally start when the lesbians walk INTO the bar.