The following is the link to the ABC story: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/jury-awards-2-million-protester-shot-face-nonlethal-125043462?cid=social_twitter_abcn&s=03

As with essentially all news stories and reporting, unless perhaps it is a very in depth investigation and report, I note that this article does fail to include some significant legal, factual, and evidentiary information, including a discussion about the defenses that were asserted including special defenses that might be available to police officers, whether the officer felt that he or she was in physical danger from some source, and presumptions and burdens of proof; however, based on the information that the article does provide and considering that this was a Los Angeles jury (and jury verdicts in Los Angeles can be very, very high), this verdict could have been higher and the defense should be relieved that it wasn’t. The plaintiff also might decide to appeal, although based on the article it sounds like there are deliberations that are still to be made and that the final verdict amount still might change either down or up.

As you might already know, I am big on governance and risk management processes, including legal risk management processes. As this situation and the injuries occurred several years ago (yes the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel stuck with this case for a long time), I would assume that what occurred and the force that was used were reviewed and evaluated internally with a view toward possible changes or perhaps not. A final comment, the injuries were significant – thankfully they were not worse for the plaintiffs as they could have been in different circumstances.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.