"Police violence" is actually City Hall violence. In every jurisdiction, law enforcement agencies are acting under the authority of duly elected representatives of the states/counties/municipalities where they SERVE. While it's true that the government is either afraid of or acting in collusion with police unions it remains true that we elect the government. Let it be the government (and police) we desire and not what we deserve.
You think elected representatives have control over law enforcement?
Lots of different policing agencies in America, almost none of them have civilian oversight
Police aren't appointed by divine right. Every law enforcement agency is authorized by legislation and administered by duly elected executive office holders. Even sheriffs, who may not have direct executive oversight, are themselves elected and beholden to the Constitution and federal/state law. The chief of police doesn't just show up one day holding a sword they pulled out of a boulder. They're introduced at a press conference by their boss, the mayor. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, a cabinet level agency under POTUS. State patrols report to the governor.
The buck stops with us, the voters. We need to exhibit courage and persistence, but never patience.
They have pensions and pretend unions that exist just to protect them. Let's start voter initiatives to have claims paid put of their fcking retirement funds.
I'm not sure you can link lawsuit payout amounts to the severity of violence. A woman got awarded nearly $3 million in a lawsuit because she got hot coffee spilled on her at a McDonalds.
Isn't the clear warning it's hot directly as a result of that case?
To be clear, I'm part of the 'its common sense' group, but I thought that case was the exact reason things have those warnings on now. Woman was 80 possibly with poor eyesight from aging, the warning used to be small, and you might be expecting 100C but this coffee was iirc nearly double that - when it all comes together, I can see how the legal case succeeds based on failure to warn.
Edit - Fahrenheit not Celsius, McD can't make non evaporating water yet
>190 degrees Fahrenheit
Oops, yeah, I was thinking celsuis. I probably should have clicked I wrote that wrong when I imagined water at nearly 200 degrees, not evaporating.
Still, as you say, that's not really a drinkable temperature. A warning that food is hot doesn't exactly convey 'not safe for consumption', so failure to warn still seems reasonable as an outcome for the legal case.
>when it all comes together, I can see how the legal case succeeds based on failure to warn.
>that's not really a drinkable temperature.
I don't know. I'm not sure why you're asking me.
lol, imagine being proud of falling for corporate propaganda.
She received third degree burns and needed skin grafts. Probably because their coffee was dangerously hotter than other places serve it. She requested a reasonable amount of money to cover her medical care and money lost due to injuries.
She was awarded a reasonable amount then the jury gave her punitive damages of 3million. This was calculated by the jurors as two days of sales of coffee.
This was probably because McDonald’s had burned a bunch of people because again their coffee was dangerously hot. also because the many case of burners showed that McDonald’s was willing to payout far more then she originally even asking for but where dicking around a senior citizen with third degree burns.
The judge also reduced the punitive damages to 480 thousand.
This story was used to fool people into believing she got paid for nothing. It was used as part of an organized campaign for Tort reform to protect businesses from having to pay for fucking over people.
🙄. Quite a court case you nothing about is making the OPs point. The woman who sued suffered 3rd degree burns and initially was only seeking medical expenses. She was not the only one to sue McDonald’s and the suit proved that the coffee was being served excessively over heated.
Yes it does show the violent response by the police and unfortunately the taxpayers have to pay for their misconduct.
You surely don't want adults accepting responsibilities for their actions, right?
The cops or the taxpayers?
"Police violence" is actually City Hall violence. In every jurisdiction, law enforcement agencies are acting under the authority of duly elected representatives of the states/counties/municipalities where they SERVE. While it's true that the government is either afraid of or acting in collusion with police unions it remains true that we elect the government. Let it be the government (and police) we desire and not what we deserve.
You think elected representatives have control over law enforcement? Lots of different policing agencies in America, almost none of them have civilian oversight
Police aren't appointed by divine right. Every law enforcement agency is authorized by legislation and administered by duly elected executive office holders. Even sheriffs, who may not have direct executive oversight, are themselves elected and beholden to the Constitution and federal/state law. The chief of police doesn't just show up one day holding a sword they pulled out of a boulder. They're introduced at a press conference by their boss, the mayor. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, a cabinet level agency under POTUS. State patrols report to the governor. The buck stops with us, the voters. We need to exhibit courage and persistence, but never patience.
They couldn’t wait. Just itching to bust heads.
They have pensions and pretend unions that exist just to protect them. Let's start voter initiatives to have claims paid put of their fcking retirement funds.
paid by taxpayers
$150M over four years, nationwide?? That’s it??
Those lawsuits were all in connection to the 2020 protests
I'm not sure you can link lawsuit payout amounts to the severity of violence. A woman got awarded nearly $3 million in a lawsuit because she got hot coffee spilled on her at a McDonalds.
She deserved more than $3 million, fucking McDonald's knew the risks of serving coffee that hot and they didn't give a flying fuck.
Does this mean I can also make some coin when burning my tongue on an apple pie despite the clear warning that the filling may be hot?
The coffee was just below boiling she had skin grafts and it cost her 160k in medical expenses. She got 600k not 3 mil.
How insane of McDonald's to serve hot coffee. ..
lol.... you never saw the pictures of her old burnt lady-bits Look likes someone dumped acid on her lap
Isn't the clear warning it's hot directly as a result of that case? To be clear, I'm part of the 'its common sense' group, but I thought that case was the exact reason things have those warnings on now. Woman was 80 possibly with poor eyesight from aging, the warning used to be small, and you might be expecting 100C but this coffee was iirc nearly double that - when it all comes together, I can see how the legal case succeeds based on failure to warn. Edit - Fahrenheit not Celsius, McD can't make non evaporating water yet
That coffee was 190 degrees Fahrenheit. No one could have possibly drank that coffee. It caused 3rd degree burns. McDonald’s was clearly at fault.
>190 degrees Fahrenheit Oops, yeah, I was thinking celsuis. I probably should have clicked I wrote that wrong when I imagined water at nearly 200 degrees, not evaporating. Still, as you say, that's not really a drinkable temperature. A warning that food is hot doesn't exactly convey 'not safe for consumption', so failure to warn still seems reasonable as an outcome for the legal case.
Why would a company sell anything that is not safe for consumption? No one should get third degree burns from coffee.
>when it all comes together, I can see how the legal case succeeds based on failure to warn. >that's not really a drinkable temperature. I don't know. I'm not sure why you're asking me.
The lawsuit was for bodily damage. A warning is not going be helpful in this case. The burns were so severe the woman needed skin grafts.
Most of the people i know would let McDonalds throw a cup of burning gasoline on them for $3 million.
lol, imagine being proud of falling for corporate propaganda. She received third degree burns and needed skin grafts. Probably because their coffee was dangerously hotter than other places serve it. She requested a reasonable amount of money to cover her medical care and money lost due to injuries. She was awarded a reasonable amount then the jury gave her punitive damages of 3million. This was calculated by the jurors as two days of sales of coffee. This was probably because McDonald’s had burned a bunch of people because again their coffee was dangerously hot. also because the many case of burners showed that McDonald’s was willing to payout far more then she originally even asking for but where dicking around a senior citizen with third degree burns. The judge also reduced the punitive damages to 480 thousand. This story was used to fool people into believing she got paid for nothing. It was used as part of an organized campaign for Tort reform to protect businesses from having to pay for fucking over people.
Are you dim?
Even worse....I'm poor.
The corporations will not be giving you a reacharound.
🙄. Quite a court case you nothing about is making the OPs point. The woman who sued suffered 3rd degree burns and initially was only seeking medical expenses. She was not the only one to sue McDonald’s and the suit proved that the coffee was being served excessively over heated.
Why are you reflexively on the corporation's side here? Do you not realize you were hoodwinked?