Family of man shot dead by sheriff's deputy awarded $4 damages. - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44328047 He was found with an unloaded gun, but whether he was holding it is disputed. A judge asked the jury to decide if Mr Hill's constitutional rights had been violated and, if so, whether his family should receive compensation.After hours of deliberation, the jury awarded $1 to his mother for funeral costs and $1 to each of his three children. The jury found that Christopher Newman, the sheriff's deputy who shot Mr Hill three times, had not used excessive force. It also ruled that Mr Hill was 99% responsible for his own death, meaning the sheriff's department is only required to pay 1% of the damages. This would leave the family with four cents.This amount is expected to be reduced to zero because Mr Hill was intoxicated, Mr Phillips says. Don't think hes innocent? Fine, but to "pay" compensation of a single dollar for each member is insulting.

Lmao at that point the money is just out of spite

1$ might as well be spitting in their face at that point.

That has to be out of spite. There's no way there was any kind of good intention involved in paying out a dollar each.

So if they get $1 for 1% of damages because he's "99% responsible" does that mean if he was 100% not responsible for his death and the police were completely at fault, they would pay $100? What kind of stupid logic is this judge using?

Yeah the whole thing seems like someone incredibly petty trying to sound smarter than they are. By this same logic the family could argue that a human life is worth far more than ~$100~ and massively inflate the 1% by whatever random amount they felt was right.

Aren't your judges elected, rather than selected based on their qualifications? Would explain a lot of things to be honest.

Not sure but I read it as, the damages awarded were $4, but as he was 99% responsible for his own death the police department only needs to pay 1% of the damages. So the actual amount being paid to the family is 4 cents.

Smells like a re-trial to me, that is completely unacceptable.

So... Did he or did he not point a gun at cops? He had one on him according to the article, but was he menacing police with it or anything? It says all he did was open the garage door and close it, but why mention the gun then? Why would a cop shoot anyone just for closing the door on them? "They're above the law!" except they aren't. I feel like I'm genuinely missing some key details here about what actually happened. No, one penny, which will round down to zero because the guy was intoxicated, just like the article says. This was a Jury decision by the way, so multiple people came to this conclusion. This man was judged by a jury of his peers in a wrongful death suit, and the jury determined that he was guilty of his crimes, and that the police did not violate his constitutional rights, nor did they use excessive force based on the evidence at hand (which we do not have and I am currently looking for.)

It varies by state, most states even have the state Supreme Court be an elected position. Interestingly, some states like Arizona mandate Supreme Court justices retire at 70, and in Alabama you can't run for the position if you're over 70.

The common sense side of me is expecting a pretty simple scenario here. "Drunk man hears loud banging on his garage door while he's jamming out, so he decides to pull out an unloaded gun and scare off (menacing with a firearm) whoever is interrupting his jam session. When he opens the door, he notices it's the police and not just some random angry neighbor. Upon realizing his immense fuck-up, he decides to immediately drop the door. Cop sees the gun in his hand, and instinctively shoots upon seeing the threat." Still looking for any background info on what actually happened, since the article is just about the wrongful death payout and not the actual events leading up to it. This headline is the only thing that shows up for Gregory Vaughn Hill Jr though, which is making this exceedingly difficult.

the death payout is probably the only noteworthy thing about this case if they actually included the details (which im sure they've excluded on purpose) it'd be an open-close case but thats not what gets you headlines

Holy fuck this is like The Onion/Robocop levels of satire... Except its real life. Fucking kill me...

This is what they think his life was worth. 4 dollars.

So heres the deal guys. The lawsuit was filed in 2016 by Mr. Hill’s mother, Viola Bryant, on behalf of his estate. Mr. Phillips said that although he had deferred to the jury, he had signaled in court that the estate was seeking at least several hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. The case initially went to court to determine of the Officer was guilty of murder, manslaughter, whatever. The Officer was not convicted of any offenses, and it was determined that Hill was guilty of drawing a firearm on the Officer, provoking him to shoot him down. Then, Hill's estate filed a lawsuit against the department seeking hundreds of thousands in damages from the department for the wrongful death of Hill. All of the above is the facts we know. Why the estate probably got $4 in damages is because they feel pretty strongly that the evidence determined Hill to be at fault and that the estate is seeking a cash-grab despite their son pulling a gun on a cop. Now these wrongful death civil trial lawsuits aren't all that uncommon post-murder trial. OJ Simpson was found guilty in a civil trial after the murder trial and was forced to pay tens of millions in damages to the families of those he did not murder, as far as the courts are concerned anyways. OJ's case aside, it's a pretty shitty precedent to force a non-guilty party to pay for the actions of a dead man. If you have time taken away from your life to sit on a civil trial jury over a case thats already closed, and decide whether or not a family is deserved money because their relative pulled a gun on a deputy, it's pretty understandable to want to be vengeful or spiteful. Not necessarily justified but I can sympathize with it.

Who the fuck did they get to serve in their jury panel? How did a group of people come to the conclusion that 4 fucking dollars was at all acceptable. Holy shit

I just find it odd that he was found with a gun, but was shot through the garage door. Like if he dropped the door, why did the cops shoot at him if they didn't know exactly where he was. You could risk killing a bystander, including the three kids. Not to mention all this started with a noise complaint. It doesn't matter if he was in the wrong or not, people shouldn't basically spit on the family for being upset. And the judge's reasoning with the "hes 99% at fault so the department has to pay a penny" is disgusting and unprofessional.

I mean you could go google a news article about the initial trial like I did, but I guess I can spoon feed it too you. A noise complain was called in because the guy lived next to a school and was blasting a Drake song full of profanity. Sherrifs arrived and beat on his garage door. He opened the garage door holding a gun, then quickly closed it. The one sherrif opened fire through the door and killed him. Bottom line is that the guy opened the door with a gun in his hands in response to the police knocking on the door. The initial case isn't whats in question here. It was so cut and dry it barely made the news 4 years ago. Yea the Judge is an asshole but I guarantee you he's probably not going to get elected again.

And you're going wrong assuming lethal force was still acceptable in that situation. It didn't make news 4 years ago because these barely justifiable acts of homicide by the police on people (who are usually black) happen all the time. This one makes the news because the conclusion was especially insulting.

I'm not assuming anything, thats literally what a court determined lmfao. The officer was completely authorized in his use of lethal force because a dood answered his door with a gun in his hand. "It happens all the time!" Yea but it actually doesn't dood. The fact that the handful of unjustified acts get reported every time they happen is proof enough. Get real and drop the edgelord misconceptions.

Thanks for confirming how dumb it is to just shoot at someone you cant see through a solid wall.

Did you miss the part where the guy answered the door with a gun in his hands? Or do you think it's completely reasonable to open a door with a gun in your hand just because someone knocked on it?

Well as long as the gun isn't pointed at those in the doorway, then it's essentially the exact same as open carrying so that should be logically consistent to you, right?

Yeah, pardon me for being an "edgelord" for thinking the police may have been wrong when they murdered someone and gave his family $4. The US's "criminal justice" system is provably corrupt and biased, these incidents are reported a lot, and either no one cares, or they make excuses about them like you're doing now. I don't feel any better when the system that perpetuates poverty and abuses its authority to commit violence tells me that their officers aren't a problem. They're playing for the same team.

You're equating a gun on your hip or over your shoulder to a gun in your hand?

As long as it isn't aimed at anyone and it has the safety on (assuming it has one), sure.

They didn't murder him. They used justified lethal force. The family was not justified in asking for reparations for the death of their relative. The judge should have been more impartial and awarded them nothing, but the result is the same. You can say the system is ~probably~ corrupt but it doesn't make the initial case any less cut and dry. You can bring up other problems within the US but that doesn't mean that Hill's death was unjustified.

They used "justified lethal force" because the justice system (which is in their favour, I'll remind) decided that they used justified lethal force. The system isn't ~probably~ corrupt, it IS corrupt, case in point, deciding someone on the opposite side of a closed garage door is a threat to your individual safety is apparently totally bueno. He answered the door, probably told them to get lost, and closed the door. There's absolutely no reason he should have to "play nice" with police officers.

He answered the door with a gun in hand dood. It's really cut and dry. I really don't think you understand the concept of the US justice system. A jury of 12 impartial citizens deciding not to convict a sheriff for killing a man who greeted them with a gun is not an example of the system not working. Have you read anything at all about this or are you basing all your ignorance on a brief BBC article?