Man paralyzed by police bullet loses award

[#98QBKiller]

Interesting....

http://www.kgan.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/25d9aa84-www.kgan.com.shtml

<H1>Man paralyzed by police bullet loses award

June 04, 2008 08:52 EDT

NEW YORK (AP) -- New York City doesn't owe a dime to a man who sued over a police shooting.

The city's top lawyer says the case had become "a poster child for the need for tort reform."

In 1998 a jury awarded Darryl Barnes more than 76 million dollars after he was paralyzed by a police officer's bullet. But New York's highest court has ruled that the only thing he'll get is a bill -- for 100 dollars in court costs.

Barnes said he was shot from behind, point-blank, while unarmed. The officer who shot him said Barnes didn't stop and didn't drop a gun.

The city appealed, saying the court had excluded proof that Barnes was a member of an anti-white, anti-police group that advocates violent resistance to arrest. A second jury awarded Barnes 51 million dollars.

The appeals judges reversed the second verdict and dismissed the case because Barnes stayed away from the trial.

[Destino]

I really hate reports like this. We are way beyond the point where it should be known if he had a gun or not. If he's the member of a group doesn't matter. Was an unarmed man shot at point blank range in the back... or not?

[DjTj]

I really hate reports like this. We are way beyond the point where it should be known if he had a gun or not. If he's the member of a group doesn't matter. Was an unarmed man shot at point blank range in the back... or not?

From reading the news articles it sounds like:

(1) He was armed.

(2) He was shot in the back.

...I don't really know what the verdict should be in that case.

The reversals don't really seem to be based on that though ... the court determined that they shouldn't have withheld from the jury that he was a member of the anti-police group. Then, in the second trial, the plaintiff refused to testify (to presumably answer some questions about his membership in the anti-police group), claiming he was mentally and physically ill, but he provided no evidence of his illness.

Sounds like there were a lot of lawyer shenanigans.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jmDnyZ0oLqymb2Fu07wOJ4v9sujwD91360GG6

[Larry]

Normally, I'm really big on reciting the claim that "if 12 people sat in a room, looked at the evidence, and 12 out of 12 of them agreed . . . "

But I'd be real curious of how the plaintiff could win a case like this, without even showing up.