• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ferguson attorney: Brown family settlement $1.5 million

ColdPizza

Banned
As far as settlements go, and based on others around the country, I think they got lowballed here.

ST. LOUIS — The insurance company for the city of Ferguson, Missouri, paid $1.5 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Michael Brown's parents, the city attorney said Friday.

Attorney Apollo Carey disclosed the amount in an email in response to an open records request. The settlement of the federal lawsuit was announced Tuesday, but financial details were not initially released.

Carey declined further comment on the settlement. A phone message seeking comment from the attorney for the family, Anthony Gray, was not immediately returned.

Brown, 18, was black and unarmed when he was fatally shot by white officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9, 2014. Wilson was cleared of wrongdoing, but the shooting led to months of protests in the St. Louis suburb.

Wilson resigned in November 2014, soon after a St. Louis County grand jury decided not to indict him. The U.S. Department of Justice found no grounds to prosecute Wilson, but the shooting led to a Justice Department investigation that resulted in a consent agreement requiring Ferguson to make significant changes to address racial bias in its police department and municipal court.

Michael Brown Sr. and Lezley McSpadden sued the city, former Police Chief Tom Jackson and Wilson in 2015, citing a police culture hostile to black residents and claiming Wilson used excessive force.

Ferguson, Jackson and Wilson denied the allegations.

The parents also argued that the death of their son deprived them of financial support through his future potential wages.

U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber approved the settlement but disclosed nothing about the amount, saying only that it was "fair and reasonable compensation for this wrongful death claim and is in the best interests of each Plaintiff," with the money to be split between the parents.

Webber also wrote that the agreement "shall remain sealed by this Court and shall be considered a closed record" because disclosure of the information "could jeopardize the safety of individuals involved in this matter, whether as witnesses, parties, or investigators."

Settlements involving public money and public entities like cities are typically open under Missouri law, but Webber wrote that the value of opening the record "is outweighed by the adverse impact to Plaintiffs." He did not elaborate.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fe...million/ar-BBD564e?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
 

azyless

Member
I don't understand how it's possible to get something out of a wrongful death lawsuit while the shooter doesn't face any trial. Either something was wrong or it was not.

Anyway, I guess that's how much a black life is worth then. Sad.
 

The Llama

Member
I don't understand how it's possible to get something out of a wrongful death lawsuit while the shooter doesn't face any trial. Either something was wrong or it was not.

Anyway, I guess that's how much a black life is worth then. Sad.
Civil lawsuits have a lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence, AKA more likely than not) than criminal trials (beyond a reasonable doubt).
 

Fuchsdh

Member
I don't understand how it's possible to get something out of a wrongful death lawsuit while the shooter doesn't face any trial. Either something was wrong or it was not.

Anyway, I guess that's how much a black life is worth then. Sad.

Civil court has a much lower burden of proof.

You'd think so many cities paying out so much for wrongful death suits would push the needle towards more accountability, but even hitting them in the pocketbook hasn't.
 
It is absolutely nasty to put a value on human life, but the family agreed to it and it is at least something. Maybe the city's premiums will go up or their policy will get cancelled because cop violence is out of control... Yeah...
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Civil lawsuits have a lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence, AKA more likely than not) than criminal trials (beyond a reasonable doubt).

The best way to think of this is the jury has to be 90% sure to convict in a criminal trial, but you have to be 51% sure to win a civil trial.
 

azyless

Member
Civil lawsuits have a lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence, AKA more likely than not) than criminal trials (beyond a reasonable doubt).
Civil court has a much lower burden of proof.
You'd think so many cities paying out so much for wrongful death suits would push the needle towards more accountability, but even hitting them in the pocketbook hasn't.
Yeah but I don't find that very logical frankly.
 
Setting aside that money couldn't possibly replace a child, you think 1.5 would be enough! It's a human life guys not a fucking bank investment.
 

The Llama

Member
The best way to think of this is the jury has to be 90% sure to convict in a criminal trial, but you have to be 51% sure to win a civil trial.
I think a better way is >50% in a civil trial, and there's no way to put a criminal trial into mere percentages. A prosecutor may say a jury only needs to be 90% sure, but no public defender or private defense attorney would ever suggest a percentage that low.
 

Kettch

Member
Civil lawsuits have a lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence, AKA more likely than not) than criminal trials (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Eh, this didn't make it to a criminal trial. It failed at the grand jury stage. You only need "probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by a criminal suspect" there, which I assume is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Top Bottom