2aHawaii
General Topics => Off Topic => Topic started by: ren on May 20, 2016, 05:04:51 PM
-
http://khon2.com/2016/05/20/honolulu-to-settle-suit-from-same-sex-couple-jailed-after-kissing/ (http://khon2.com/2016/05/20/honolulu-to-settle-suit-from-same-sex-couple-jailed-after-kissing/)
anyone wanna make $40K ? :-*
-
Yeah I just seen that. Now what formula did they use to give my tax dollars in the amount of 80k?? Did someone lose a limb or permanent disability?? Wtf
-
good
hope the city pays more for these kinds of cases
off duty cops have no right to stop people
-
Yeah I just seen that. Now what formula did they use to give my tax dollars in the amount of 80k?? Did someone lose a limb or permanent disability?? Wtf
My feelings were hurt and there was a bruise on my arm.
-
http://khon2.com/2016/05/20/honolulu-to-settle-suit-from-same-sex-couple-jailed-after-kissing/ (http://khon2.com/2016/05/20/honolulu-to-settle-suit-from-same-sex-couple-jailed-after-kissing/)
anyone wanna make $40K ? :-*
Who wants to spend two days in jail like they did? Where's the story about a gay cop who treats a hetero couple the same way? And your tax dollars (a helluva lot more than went to the couple/their attorneys) are paying for the comfy retirement of the vigilant cop ("enforcing" no known law while breaking several) who was allowed to "retire" apparently without even a slap on the wrist.
-
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/hawaiian-locals-hate-tourists-so-much-there-are-new-adverts-reminding-them-to-be-friendly--WkmZLVMsWW (http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/hawaiian-locals-hate-tourists-so-much-there-are-new-adverts-reminding-them-to-be-friendly--WkmZLVMsWW)
Apparently they need one of these campaigns for HPD
-
It's not that much money all things considering. The girls got pushed around a bit, and their attorneys will take part of the settlement. The girls deserved at least that much money, if not far more.
-
http://khon2.com/2016/05/20/honolulu-to-settle-suit-from-same-sex-couple-jailed-after-kissing/ (http://khon2.com/2016/05/20/honolulu-to-settle-suit-from-same-sex-couple-jailed-after-kissing/)
anyone wanna make $40K ? :-*
Do you get more if you use tongue? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
This is probably another case of settling is cheaper than fighting, even if you can win the case. It happens all the time. The junk thing is people see the settlement and think it indicates guilt and the taxpayers have to pay for it.
I don't know if these ladies just had dollar signs in mind but I am skeptical of their version of events. I doubt this cop went out of his way, on his own accord, to stop people kissing in public.
In civil cases they can find parties partially at fault. That means if the lawsuit were for $1 million and the department or officer were found to be 10% at fault, they would still pay $100,000. Then the accused might still have to pay lawyer fees for the plaintiff on top of that.
-
I don't know if these ladies just had dollar signs in mind but I am skeptical of their version of events. I doubt this cop went out of his way, on his own accord, to stop people kissing in public.
Upon what factual basis are you "skeptical" of one version of the events as opposed to any other version of the events? Upon what factual basis do you "doubt this cop went out of his way, on his own accord, to stop people kissing in public"? You really think people, including (especially?) cops aren't that stupid? Or that (some) cops in specific don't think of themselves as some kind of empowered elites who can to impose their "authority" even if they really have no jurisdiction nor lawful authority in a particular situation? Seriously?
-
punaperson wrote exactly what I was going to say, except my version wouldn't have been so assertive. I just figured that maybe eyeeatingfish had some inside information or knew one of the parties of the case. If not, then yeah what punaperson just said. Who knows whether or not it is true, but it is an easily believable story.
-
Upon what factual basis are you "skeptical" of one version of the events as opposed to any other version of the events? Upon what factual basis do you "doubt this cop went out of his way, on his own accord, to stop people kissing in public"? You really think people, including (especially?) cops aren't that stupid? Or that (some) cops in specific don't think of themselves as some kind of empowered elites who can to impose their "authority" even if they really have no jurisdiction nor lawful authority in a particular situation? Seriously?
When the case first hit the news I did not see evidence to support the plaintiffs claim of mistreatment by the cops. It seemed to come down to a he said she said. If there is some new evidence I had need not seen before then I am always open to reconsidering my position.
The police get sued all the time. Don't get me wrong, there are many incidents where the police are sued for good cause but it seems that there are more instances where the police are sued without good cause. So if I took it as simply an odds thing, I would place my bet that the lawsuit was without good cause.
It is not the case that I believe cops are incapable of doing wrong, rather I recognize both that there are many reasons to make false complaints about police and that the media loves a story of police abuse regardless of whether it is true.
Those are my reasons for being suspicious.
I suspect there is some kernel of truth in the plaintiff's story but I also suspect they downplay their own blame and exaggerate the officer's blame.
And no, I don't have any inside information about that actual event.
-
When the case first hit the news I did not see evidence to support the plaintiffs claim of mistreatment by the cops. It seemed to come down to a he said she said. If there is some new evidence I had need not seen before then I am always open to reconsidering my position.
The police get sued all the time. Don't get me wrong, there are many incidents where the police are sued for good cause but it seems that there are more instances where the police are sued without good cause. So if I took it as simply an odds thing, I would place my bet that the lawsuit was without good cause.
It is not the case that I believe cops are incapable of doing wrong, rather I recognize both that there are many reasons to make false complaints about police and that the media loves a story of police abuse regardless of whether it is true.
Those are my reasons for being suspicious.
I suspect there is some kernel of truth in the plaintiff's story but I also suspect they downplay their own blame and exaggerate the officer's blame.
And no, I don't have any inside information about that actual event.
What a bunch of fucking bullshit.
You saw no evidence to support their claim, yet you conveniently fail to mention that you saw no evidence to contradict their claim. In other words, you saw no evidence at all to support any factual determination, yet you "are skeptical".
So based upon no evidence at all you conclude that the plaintiffs claim is false to one degree or another. Good job.
And why? Because you then claim that "it seems that there are more instances where the police are sued without good cause". Well, that's certainly backed up by solid corroborating evidence: "it seems". JFC! Do you stay up late at night making this shit up to master the art of trolling? Got any evidence? And are you including cases where the cops lie on the stand and get charges dismissed as "proof" of innocence? I suppose you think all the ATF agents and bureaucracy are innocent of all miscondcut in Fast and Furious because the Justice Department and ATF haven't filed charges or disciplined anyone? Is that how you "count" to get to your "it seems"?
So because "it seems" some way to you based upon no evidence that in fact it is so, and because you are playing "the odds thing" based upon your unsupported premise, you must therefore conclude that each and every instance of claimed cop malfeasance or misconduct, short of public presentation of independent corroborating evidence, is a false accusation (except for maybe possibly some minor "kernel of truth").
Please note that it's likely that independent corroborating (or not) evidence of the plaintiffs claims was available as either independent eyewitness testimony of patrons and/or employees of the store or store surveillance video, but the defendant/cops/city and county chose to not have a public presentation (at trial) of such independent evidence that would have cleared the cop of all wrongdoing. Yeah, I know, he could still be completely innocent, and the plaintiffs total fabricating liars, but it would cost more money to prove the cop innocent so they just gave them money to go away. Right. You've got all the answers. You're full of shit.
-
http://khon2.com/2016/05/20/honolulu-to-settle-suit-from-same-sex-couple-jailed-after-kissing/ (http://khon2.com/2016/05/20/honolulu-to-settle-suit-from-same-sex-couple-jailed-after-kissing/)
Wow, no one yet noted that at least they are somewhat hot, and not the usual obese examples I see vacationing in Kona?
Other than a wast of good looking women, hard to see what ticked off this cop, might have been fun to watch the show. But then, I am a dirty old man..............
-
I think it's misguided to side with police and authority by default, but you're entitled to your opinion.
-
So based upon no evidence at all you conclude that the plaintiffs claim is false to one degree or another. Good job.
It is quite clear in my statement that I concluded nothing. I clearly said that my stance was open to change as new information comes to me. Rather I explained that I am suspicious. Am I not allowed to be skeptical? I am skeptical of a lot of lawsuits. I have seen a fair number of them that were either entirely bogus or mostly made up that I always look at them with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Please note that it's likely that independent corroborating (or not) evidence of the plaintiffs claims was available as either independent eyewitness testimony of patrons and/or employees of the store or store surveillance video, but the defendant/cops/city and county chose to not have a public presentation (at trial) of such independent evidence that would have cleared the cop of all wrongdoing. Yeah, I know, he could still be completely innocent, and the plaintiffs total fabricating liars, but it would cost more money to prove the cop innocent so they just gave them money to go away. Right. You've got all the answers. You're full of shit.
Was one of the plaintiffs a friend of yours or something? Taking this way to personal.
-
It is quite clear in my statement that I concluded nothing. I clearly said that my stance was open to change as new information comes to me. Rather I explained that I am suspicious. Am I not allowed to be skeptical? I am skeptical of a lot of lawsuits. I have seen a fair number of them that were either entirely bogus or mostly made up that I always look at them with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Was one of the plaintiffs a friend of yours or something? Taking this way to [sic] personal.
Your typical avoidance and diversion answers, rather than directly responding to the statements I made.
Of course you're allowed to be skeptical. You're allowed to be stupid too. Or anything else. The question with you being skeptical and/or suspicious of only one side of a dispute, without any evidence at all, is that your skepticism and suspicion are based upon nothing at all other than your vague nonspecific personal anecdotal assessment of some unknown unspecified lawsuits. In other words, it's nothing but pure bias or prejudice. So according to your criteria, had the cop hassled some gay guys in the same situation and they beat the crap out of him (according to him) but miraculously left only a minor bruise here or there, and then the cop filed a civil suit against the purported assailants then you'd be skeptical of his lawsuit against the gay guys, right? Sure you would. Because, you know, you're equally skeptical and suspicious of ALL lawsuits.
Your answer to the other shortcomings of your failed argument and fallacious logic is to provide not even a weak defense, but merely to respond to your obvious logical flaws by asking me why I would ask such questions, and imply that anyone questioning your poor critical thinking skills must have some personal motive and that such questioning is inappropriate, because, for some unstated reason, you apparently think you ought not be held accountable to answer for your biased unfounded assertions.
Typical. Fail.
-
This is probably another case of settling is cheaper than fighting, even if you can win the case. It happens all the time. The junk thing is people see the settlement and think it indicates guilt and the taxpayers have to pay for it.
I don't know if these ladies just had dollar signs in mind but I am skeptical of their version of events. I doubt this cop went out of his way, on his own accord, to stop people kissing in public.
I normally hate quoting people like this for this purpose, so sorry to eyeeatingfish. You did write "probably" and "doubt" so your initial tone appears to be on the side of the police. To be fair, you did also write "skeptical" but I still wouldn't say your post was neutral.
It's fine to side against the plaintiffs, others did so as well. Though most of those who did spoke along the lines of "the girls got more money than they deserved" and I guess that's different from "the girls embellished the story." They might have, but punaperson pointed out that if you really think about it, it's unlikely. There were probably store cameras and eyewitnesses.
-
Ok, I will admit my bias here. I do know that cap, Harrison. I don't know him super well but enough that I would say the allegations are not characteristic of the way he acts. It doesn't seem like something he would do. I will admit that I could be wrong and he could have a dark side. That is the basis of my skepticism in this case. The fact that cases are routinely settled out of court to avoid the costs of a lengthy trial just tells me that the settlement does not suggest guilt.
And yes, I was basing my opinion on things I didn't have statistical data for but on anecdotes I have seen and read about. That is why I said "I think" instead of stating my stances as if it were fact. I combined those anecdotes with facts I do know: Police departments have deep pockets and a suspect may have multiple motives to make a false complaint.
I don't really know what happened and I don't claim to. I have said I am open to a position change given new information. Peashooter, "probably" was not the best choice of words, too strong perhaps, my bad.
-
Wow, no one yet noted that at least they are somewhat hot, and not the usual obese examples I see vacationing in Kona?
Other than a wast(e) of (two) good looking women, hard to see what ticked off this cop, might have been fun to watch the show. But then, I am a dirty old man..............
Maybe that's what ticked him off !
He wanted a pork sandwich. :-* : O0 :-*
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Ok, I will admit my bias here. I do know that cap, Harrison. I don't know him super well but enough that I would say the allegations are not characteristic of the way he acts. It doesn't seem like something he would do. I will admit that I could be wrong and he could have a dark side. That is the basis of my skepticism in this case. The fact that cases are routinely settled out of court to avoid the costs of a lengthy trial just tells me that the settlement does not suggest guilt.
And yes, I was basing my opinion on things I didn't have statistical data for but on anecdotes I have seen and read about. That is why I said "I think" instead of stating my stances as if it were fact. I combined those anecdotes with facts I do know: Police departments have deep pockets and a suspect may have multiple motives to make a false complaint.
I don't really know what happened and I don't claim to. I have said I am open to a position change given new information. Peashooter, "probably" was not the best choice of words, too strong perhaps, my bad.
So did you have conversations with your (now retired) cop buddy about homosexuality and/or public displays of affection? If not, what were your specific interactions with him that would lead you to logically conclude that his views on homosexual public displays of affection would be other than what he was accused of? What's the factual basis for your extrapolation?
I bet there's a way you could facilitate all of us knowing quite a bit more about what actually happened. Ask your buddy Harrison to have all the evidence accumulated by both sides' attorneys to be publicly released so he can be exonerated and everyone will see how he has been unjustly accused and forced to retire and live off his pension. If he says he can't or won't do that, ask why. If he says he can't because the couple granted the settlement signed a nondisclosure agreement of any sort, ask him why he didn't object to that inclusion in the settlement and instead ask that all evidence be publicly released. Why not demonstrate his innocence by letting us all see the eyewitness reports and surveillance footage and hear the 911 calls? Please report back to us ASAP, with the link to where the evidence can be viewed by all members of the public. Thanks.
-
Ok, I will admit my bias here. I do know that cap, Harrison.
If you know that cop then I understand your response. Can't speak for others, but I'm not pointing fingers at anyone for being a bad guy in this story. Even if everything happened exactly as accused, I don't have any problem with what that cop did. I just said that I thought the girls did deserve the amount of money they got, which probably wasn't that much after attorney fees. Could have been nothing for all we know. The amount attorneys take in settlements is generally not disclosed.
I guess it's legal to kiss in public, but it's illegal to run around naked or make a porno in the grocery store. Maybe the girls were getting pretty X-rated when the cop intervened. After that, I can imagine the women going into a huff and talking back to the cop, and things escalating from there. Possibly some fault on both sides. :-*
-
I guess it's legal to kiss in public, but it's illegal to run around naked or make a porno in the grocery store. Maybe the girls were getting pretty X-rated when the cop intervened. After that, I can imagine the women going into a huff and talking back to the cop, and things escalating from there. Possibly some fault on both sides. :-*
I like the way you spin hypotheticals based upon absolutely no facts at all other than your apparent attempt to defend one side against the other. I'm pretty sure that if the women were engaging in naked sex acts in the aisle of the store the cop would have at least informed them of their illegal activity and possible imminent arrest rather than telling them to "take it outside". I notice you didn't provide a hypothetical along the lines of "Maybe the cop was on crack or drunk or mentally ill and lost it when someone challenged ("talking back" as you prejudicially and pejoratively put it) his (non)authority to boss them around when they weren't doing anything illegal". I have to wonder why the bias?