Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Family wins $37M judgement against cop who shot woman during standoff ... which is then overturned by judge. It's the Baltimore way. You get nothing. Good day   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Jury, Baltimore County, Maryland, Firearm, Kodi Gaines, Shotgun, Korryn Gaines' mother, warrant service officers, According to Jim  
•       •       •

6391 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2019 at 10:14 AM (21 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-02-16 09:13:03 AM  
FTA
"The evidence is clear," Norman's opinion read. "This Court has found that Corporal Ruby is entitled to qualified immunity and therefore, his shooting of Gaines was not unlawful."

I get it on a legal standpoint in class in that you/we must uphold the rule/line of law - and then you get this

Nothing to see here at all carry on and accept what happens to you.

/nothing like language
 
2019-02-16 09:55:06 AM  
Why on earth was qualified immunity analyzed AFTER the verdict?  The whole point of qualified immunity is immunity from suit.  This is very strange.
 
2019-02-16 10:01:00 AM  
If people don't want to to get murdered by police, then they shouldn't be near police?
 
2019-02-16 10:19:48 AM  
Gubbo: If people don't want to to get murdered by police, then they shouldn't be near police point Mossberg 12-gauge shotguns at police?
 
2019-02-16 10:20:32 AM  

Gubbo: If people don't want to to get murdered by police, then they shouldn't be near police?


Or firing shotguns at them.
 
2019-02-16 10:21:56 AM  
Good I have not problem with the criminals family not profiting from her death.
 
2019-02-16 10:22:54 AM  
"No" not not.
 
2019-02-16 10:22:55 AM  
I was surprised when I read TFA.

This lady was not exactly an innocent bystander.  She was an armed participant in the standoff and refused to let her child leave.  She professed readiness to die.

I think I am fine with her getting nothing and having her estate charged for the expense.

I'm not a gun person, an ITG, or a huge fan of the police, but I think I would have shot this lady.
 
2019-02-16 10:23:11 AM  
So given the choice between trying to de-escalate a situation where a child is involved and an obviously distraught person with a gun they decided to call in the SWAT team. That's some fine police work there Lou.
 
2019-02-16 10:23:18 AM  

lexnaturalis: Why on earth was qualified immunity analyzed AFTER the verdict?  The whole point of qualified immunity is immunity from suit.  This is very strange.


My guess is this is an appeal since the original award was by a jury.  The government must have appealed based on their belief qualified immunity was not properly determined in the original trial.  *Just a guess*

/ I wonder how much money the family has already spent, thinking they were about receive millions from the jury award.
 
2019-02-16 10:23:24 AM  
Since when does a cop have 37 million dollars? I mean other than Detective Mike Lowrey in Bad Boys. But how often do you get shot by the Fresh Prince? I mean that's a great award and all, but how would you actually get a cop to come up with 37 thousand dollars, let alone 37 million? You might as well make it 37 trillion. You might get a few bucks here and there each month left over from their paycheck, but you're never gonna see that money.
So unless you call J.G. Wentworth and tell them "it's my money and I need it now!", you're not gonna be any better off than before.
 
2019-02-16 10:26:00 AM  

lexnaturalis: Why on earth was qualified immunity analyzed AFTER the verdict?  The whole point of qualified immunity is immunity from suit.  This is very strange.


The judge done farked up, realized it, and tried to fix the fark-up ex post facto, which an appeals court is going to have fun with.
 
2019-02-16 10:26:35 AM  

Gubbo: If people don't want to to get murdered by police, then they shouldn't be near police?


Firing a shotgun in their direction while standing in front of your 5-year-old kid does seem to increase the likelihood that you're going to catch some lead.  Don't get me wrong, if you aren't shooting at them (or brandishing a knife or other deadly weapon), that likelhood should be, but isn't zero, and we should deal with that seriously.  But here?
If your relatives are trigger happy nutballs that tell SWAT that they're "ready to die"... maybe make a bigger effort to get the kids out of their arms' reach before that happens, and don't expect a massive wrongful death payout.
 
2019-02-16 10:27:05 AM  
So cops can not only legally murder people, the victims don't get any compensation for their loss.

What a country.
 
2019-02-16 10:27:16 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: Gubbo: If people don't want to to get murdered by police, then they shouldn't be near police point Mossberg 12-gauge shotguns at police?


Uhh, this...

I am rarely on the side of the police when it comes to shootings like this, but the moment you point a gun at a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) all sympathy evaporates.
 
2019-02-16 10:27:20 AM  
Did the sue the cop or the police department? Either way, it seems this immunity issue should had come up before the trial.

Also, it seems to me that Gaines had a gun and was using a 5-year-old as a human shield. The other person in the house GTFO and took a younger child out. The 5-year-old could had been sent out then. Only reason to keep the kid in the house during the standoff is as a hostage. Every adult in there remotely involved in the decision of using a kid that age as cover is a piece of shiat that deserves to die. No one should give a cent to those people. The kid may deserve some sort of payment for medical bills placed in some trust fund that the farkers that used him shouldn't touch.
 
2019-02-16 10:28:05 AM  

lolumadbro: FTA
"The evidence is clear," Norman's opinion read. "This Court has found that Corporal Ruby is entitled to qualified immunity and therefore, his shooting of Gaines was not unlawful."

I get it on a legal standpoint in class in that you/we must uphold the rule/line of law - and then you get this

Nothing to see here at all carry on and accept what happens to you.

/nothing like language


I'm not sure that's what Norman's going for here - the article mentions that he's granting a new civil trial.  In a civil trial, qualified immunity isn't going to help.  Neither are a lot of other things that the lawyers can bring in to play "Can't touch a cop."  Strongly suspect that he figured they'd just appeal the 37m decision - which they would - and get off on qualified immunity.  By making that call now, and throwing it into civil court, a decision that's gonna be hard to appeal becomes feasible.  Civil court also has far less in the way of damage award limits, police-specific conditions you can't argue with legally, etc.  Sure - Norman may just be an asshole - but granting an immediate civil trial doesn't really point in that direction.  This looks more like "You can't win here - take it to civil court where you can."
 
2019-02-16 10:28:43 AM  

DRTFA: lexnaturalis: Why on earth was qualified immunity analyzed AFTER the verdict?  The whole point of qualified immunity is immunity from suit.  This is very strange.

My guess is this is an appeal since the original award was by a jury.  The government must have appealed based on their belief qualified immunity was not properly determined in the original trial.  *Just a guess*

/ I wonder how much money the family has already spent, thinking they were about receive millions from the jury award.


Handle checks out. TFA states that this decision was rendered by the trial judge *post* verdict which, as I state above, is going to give the appeals court some rope to hang this judge with.
 
2019-02-16 10:29:24 AM  
I was prepared to be outraged, but then I RTFA.  Now I'm outraged about the fact that I can't get outraged.
 
2019-02-16 10:30:01 AM  

lolumadbro: FTA
"The evidence is clear," Norman's opinion read. "This Court has found that Corporal Ruby is entitled to qualified immunity and therefore, his shooting of Gaines was not unlawful."

I get it on a legal standpoint in class in that you/we must uphold the rule/line of law - and then you get this

Nothing to see here at all carry on and accept what happens to you.

/nothing like language


I hate the way this court decision might give way to precedent. It says because the defendant can't be sued due to qualified immunity, the shooting and killing is legal.

Now I read the article and if she was served with a warrant and was holding a shotgun at officers (hopefully not a no-knock warrant, and hopefully the police weren't lying about her dialogue with them about not caring about dying and about brandishing a shotgun; with if found that they were lies and proven in court may explain the initial lawsuit success), most likely result would be dead suspect. But it doesn't address that it seems (at least according to the article) and just says a sworn officer who carries qualified immunity has a legal right t shoot and kill you because of that immunity. That ruling frightens me.
 
2019-02-16 10:32:05 AM  

Voiceofreason01: So given the choice between trying to de-escalate a situation where a child is involved and an obviously distraught person with a gun they decided to call in the SWAT team. That's some fine police work there Lou.


I'm not a gun nut nor knee-jerk pro-police (especially Baltimore police) but I'm siding with the cops on this one.  She only had a bench warrant for traffic court, yet holed herself up with a shotgun and a toddler, telling the cops she's ready to fight to the death?  Not exactly the actions of a rational person.  Take her out any way possible and get the baby before she does something even stupider.  Her boyfriend had enough sense to get the hell out of there, even if it meant getting arrested.
 
2019-02-16 10:32:34 AM  

Some Junkie Cosmonaut: lolumadbro: FTA
"The evidence is clear," Norman's opinion read. "This Court has found that Corporal Ruby is entitled to qualified immunity and therefore, his shooting of Gaines was not unlawful."

I get it on a legal standpoint in class in that you/we must uphold the rule/line of law - and then you get this

Nothing to see here at all carry on and accept what happens to you.

/nothing like language

I'm not sure that's what Norman's going for here - the article mentions that he's granting a new civil trial.  In a civil trial, qualified immunity isn't going to help.  Neither are a lot of other things that the lawyers can bring in to play "Can't touch a cop."  Strongly suspect that he figured they'd just appeal the 37m decision - which they would - and get off on qualified immunity.  By making that call now, and throwing it into civil court, a decision that's gonna be hard to appeal becomes feasible.  Civil court also has far less in the way of damage award limits, police-specific conditions you can't argue with legally, etc.  Sure - Norman may just be an asshole - but granting an immediate civil trial doesn't really point in that direction.  This looks more like "You can't win here - take it to civil court where you can."


This *was* a civil trial... where the judge done farked up by not applying the whole "qualified immunity" thing right off the bat, which I am sure the appeals court that this is going to end up in front of will be sure to note.
 
2019-02-16 10:34:19 AM  
Better headline: dumb biatch trying to Facebook her holding a 5 year old hostage shoots at police officer, proving that she can't shoot straight. Heroic officer shoots her dead and her idiotic biatch family tried to sue
 
2019-02-16 10:35:43 AM  

Gubbo: If people don't want to to get murdered by police, then they shouldn't be near police?


When I have warrants against me and I hold my child hostage and point guns at people, I have the sense to do it when the police aren't around.
 
2019-02-16 10:36:52 AM  
I must be missing something.  A woman holds her own son hostage and is in an armed standoff with the police.  She is verified to have a shotgun.  It escalates to action, and people get shot.

I am missing something significant here.
 
2019-02-16 10:37:55 AM  

brigid_fitch: Voiceofreason01: So given the choice between trying to de-escalate a situation where a child is involved and an obviously distraught person with a gun they decided to call in the SWAT team. That's some fine police work there Lou.

I'm not a gun nut nor knee-jerk pro-police (especially Baltimore police) but I'm siding with the cops on this one.  She only had a bench warrant for traffic court, yet holed herself up with a shotgun and a toddler, telling the cops she's ready to fight to the death?  Not exactly the actions of a rational person.  Take her out any way possible and get the baby before she does something even stupider.  Her boyfriend had enough sense to get the hell out of there, even if it meant getting arrested.


Well don't worry, the cops got the baby. The cops shot the 5 year old twice!
 
2019-02-16 10:41:59 AM  
I can't for the life of me figure out why the qualified immunity analysis wasn't done earlier.

Also, that is a super excessive verdict even if qualified immunity didn't cover the officers' actions.
 
2019-02-16 10:42:17 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: So cops can not only legally murder people, the victims don't get any compensation for their loss.

What a country.


I just don't see it.  If I am in an armed standoff with police serving a warrant, and I am shot and killed by them, that seems more like reasonable justice than murder.

Granted, it is very bad that the child was shot.  If his mom had allowed him to leave, that would not have happened.  She is culpable for his injury, imho.
 
2019-02-16 10:42:53 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: lolumadbro: FTA
"The evidence is clear," Norman's opinion read. "This Court has found that Corporal Ruby is entitled to qualified immunity and therefore, his shooting of Gaines was not unlawful."

I get it on a legal standpoint in class in that you/we must uphold the rule/line of law - and then you get this

Nothing to see here at all carry on and accept what happens to you.

/nothing like language

I hate the way this court decision might give way to precedent. It says because the defendant can't be sued due to qualified immunity, the shooting and killing is legal.

Now I read the article and if she was served with a warrant and was holding a shotgun at officers (hopefully not a no-knock warrant, and hopefully the police weren't lying about her dialogue with them about not caring about dying and about brandishing a shotgun; with if found that they were lies and proven in court may explain the initial lawsuit success), most likely result would be dead suspect. But it doesn't address that it seems (at least according to the article) and just says a sworn officer who carries qualified immunity has a legal right t shoot and kill you because of that immunity. That ruling frightens me.


I did Grand Jury duty for 6 months in NJ a couple of years ago.  The number of laws using language to specifically absolve cops in almost every scenario will shock and disgust you.

Case in point: Guy flips off a cop from balcony of his apartment.  Cop gets pissed, KICKS IN THE GUY'S DOOR, beats the shiat out of him for "resisting" and arrests him.  Because the way the law is written, cop used "probable cause" (said he smelled weed) to enter the guy's apartment. Anything that happened after the probable cause absolves the cop as he's just doing his duty.
 
2019-02-16 10:46:59 AM  
"According to court documents, Gaines would not let her son leave. She was quoted in the documents as saying, "I have a gun you have a gun the only difference between you and me is that I'm ready to die and you're not.""

Strange thing to say to a 5-year old but the kid was armed. No wonder he got shot.
 
2019-02-16 10:47:31 AM  
She aimed a shotgun at the police multiple times and shot it once.

I'm ok with this outcome.
 
2019-02-16 10:48:38 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: So cops can not only legally murder people, the victims don't get any compensation for their loss.

What a country.


Can you point out to a single country on earth where if a woman is a actively firing a shotgun at police and they shoot back and kill her, it's murder?
 
2019-02-16 10:50:38 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: lolumadbro: FTA
"The evidence is clear," Norman's opinion read. "This Court has found that Corporal Ruby is entitled to qualified immunity and therefore, his shooting of Gaines was not unlawful."

I get it on a legal standpoint in class in that you/we must uphold the rule/line of law - and then you get this

Nothing to see here at all carry on and accept what happens to you.

/nothing like language

I hate the way this court decision might give way to precedent. It says because the defendant can't be sued due to qualified immunity, the shooting and killing is legal.

Now I read the article and if she was served with a warrant and was holding a shotgun at officers (hopefully not a no-knock warrant, and hopefully the police weren't lying about her dialogue with them about not caring about dying and about brandishing a shotgun; with if found that they were lies and proven in court may explain the initial lawsuit success), most likely result would be dead suspect. But it doesn't address that it seems (at least according to the article) and just says a sworn officer who carries qualified immunity has a legal right t shoot and kill you because of that immunity. That ruling frightens me.


You have it backwards. The office had immunity only because it wasn't an illegal killing.
 
2019-02-16 10:51:50 AM  

lexnaturalis: Why on earth was qualified immunity analyzed AFTER the verdict?  The whole point of qualified immunity is immunity from suit.  This is very strange.


The cops probably paid the judge a visit after it became clear he was going to lose.
 
2019-02-16 10:54:59 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: So cops can not only legally murder people, the victims don't get any compensation for their loss.

What a country.


You are either:
a) an idiot
b) guilty of posting an uneducated opinion without even skimming the facts
c) all of the above
 
2019-02-16 10:55:29 AM  

hubris73: What_Would_Jimi_Do: Gubbo: If people don't want to to get murdered by police, then they shouldn't be near police point Mossberg 12-gauge shotguns at police?

Uhh, this...

I am rarely on the side of the police when it comes to shootings like this, but the moment you point a gun at a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) all sympathy evaporates.


I used to agree with you.  But now that police departments have become thugs in blue, I see no reason why a person shouldn't shoot first if they feel threatened.  Attitudes like mine are what happens when you degrade the rule of law by failing to hold enforcers accountable when they violate it.

And a jury agreed with me to the tune of 40 million dollars.
 
2019-02-16 10:56:05 AM  

Voiceofreason01: So given the choice between trying to de-escalate a situation where a child is involved and an obviously distraught person with a gun they decided to call in the SWAT team. That's some fine police work there Lou.


Because Lou remembers the time an officer tried to de-escalate this kind of situation, and was killed.  So now they use the same officers with body armor.  Pretty much what SWAT is, just body armored cops with better weapons training.  The fact they took hours with her means they tried de-escalation.

meanmutton: Marcus Aurelius: So cops can not only legally murder people, the victims don't get any compensation for their loss.

What a country.

Can you point out to a single country on earth where if a woman is a actively firing a shotgun at police and they shoot back and kill her, it's murder?


Aureliuskastan.  Main export, the air in bubble wrap.  Not the bubble wrap itself, the air in bubble wrap.
 
2019-02-16 10:57:53 AM  
I hope none of the guns were hurt.
 
2019-02-16 10:58:13 AM  

backhand.slap.of.reason: And a jury agreed with me to the tune of 40 million dollars.


No, a jury felt really bad for a small child that lost his mother, and was also shot.  The recent sentiment towards cops played into the decision as well, but there wasn't much reason in their decision.  You can't tell me we can't find 12 rubes to put in a room.
 
2019-02-16 10:58:51 AM  

meanmutton: DarkSoulNoHope: lolumadbro: FTA
"The evidence is clear," Norman's opinion read. "This Court has found that Corporal Ruby is entitled to qualified immunity and therefore, his shooting of Gaines was not unlawful."

I get it on a legal standpoint in class in that you/we must uphold the rule/line of law - and then you get this

Nothing to see here at all carry on and accept what happens to you.

/nothing like language

I hate the way this court decision might give way to precedent. It says because the defendant can't be sued due to qualified immunity, the shooting and killing is legal.

Now I read the article and if she was served with a warrant and was holding a shotgun at officers (hopefully not a no-knock warrant, and hopefully the police weren't lying about her dialogue with them about not caring about dying and about brandishing a shotgun; with if found that they were lies and proven in court may explain the initial lawsuit success), most likely result would be dead suspect. But it doesn't address that it seems (at least according to the article) and just says a sworn officer who carries qualified immunity has a legal right t shoot and kill you because of that immunity. That ruling frightens me.

You have it backwards. The office had immunity only because it wasn't an illegal killing.


The article didn't put it in that description of how the judge ruled. Yes, if everything happened the way it was described,then the cop did fine (though tell them to aim a little better, kid got two holes inside him), but the way the article writes the judge's decision implies: The cop has qualified immunity, so the shooting is legal and doesn't describe the circumstances behind the shooting to make it legal.
 
2019-02-16 11:01:09 AM  
FTFA: According to court documents, Gaines would not let her son leave. She was quoted in the documents as saying, "I have a gun you have a gun the only difference between you and me is that I'm ready to die and you're not."

I clicked in expecting innocent bystander or excessive force. This was a crazy lady with a shotgun using her 5 year old as a human shield against police.   Fark her.
 
2019-02-16 11:04:10 AM  
Criminals acting like criminals die in an armed police standoff. How bout them apples. They should get NOTHING. Justice is served.

Prepare for weak-kneed liberal farker responses to ensue below.
 
2019-02-16 11:11:02 AM  
Am I the only person who read this and thought "Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiitttttttttt."
/fark you filter
//Really awful what happened with the child
 
2019-02-16 11:12:37 AM  

lexnaturalis: Why on earth was qualified immunity analyzed AFTER the verdict?  The whole point of qualified immunity is immunity from suit.  This is very strange.


The lower level judge farked up and allowed the lawsuit. This is an appeals court where a new judge said "LMAO, NO!"
 
2019-02-16 11:15:54 AM  

KamikazeCraig: Marcus Aurelius: So cops can not only legally murder people, the victims don't get any compensation for their loss.

What a country.

You are either:
a) an idiot
b) guilty of posting an uneducated opinion without even skimming the facts
c) all of the above


Ooh, ooh, it's C with a hell of a lot of A!
 
2019-02-16 11:15:59 AM  

lack of warmth: Because Lou remembers the time an officer tried to de-escalate this kind of situation, and was killed.  So now they use the same officers with body armor.  Pretty much what SWAT is, just body armored cops with better weapons training.  The fact they took hours with her means they tried de-escalation.


There's only so much deescalation you can do when the person is unstable and has a 5-year-old hostage. You gotta balance out stretching out the situation to try to get the kid out safely with the fact that every minute the child is in there, he's in danger. I mean, in theory, they could have waited her out to see if she'd fall asleep. But maybe she was on drugs and that could be days. And I have no idea what the stats say on waiting out for a hostage taker to fall asleep. Whether or not they attempted deescalation properly would generally depend on whether they follow the department's established procedures for this kind of hostage scenario.
 
2019-02-16 11:18:04 AM  

meintx2001: "No" not not.


I saw those guys open for Was (Not Was).  Damn good show!
 
2019-02-16 11:18:59 AM  
I am so happy I had a normal childhood.
1)  the odds of my Mom touching a shotgun. zero
2) the odds of my Mom having a standoff with police. zero
3) the odds my Mom would fire at police.  zero
4) the odds my Mom would use me as a human shield. zero
Thanks, Mom.
 
2019-02-16 11:26:22 AM  

wow just wow: KamikazeCraig: Marcus Aurelius: So cops can not only legally murder people, the victims don't get any compensation for their loss.

What a country.

You are either:
a) an idiot
b) guilty of posting an uneducated opinion without even skimming the facts
c) all of the above

Ooh, ooh, it's C with a hell of a lot of A!


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-02-16 11:32:06 AM  

SBinRR: I was prepared to be outraged, but then I RTFA.  Now I'm outraged about the fact that I can't get outraged.


Tony Harrison can help you with that.
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report