Victim's family sues city, officers

Attorney Mark Geragos holds a news conference to announce a civil lawsuit against the La Habra Police Department in connection with the fatal New Years Eve shooting by police of UCLA grad Michael Cho.

[You Got To Be Kidding Me]

I guess when your case is weak, you hire the big name lawyers to go after the little shit. Here comes the "smoke and mirrrors" case. "It's not what the SUSPECT did, it's what the officers did that were going to try."

I love what Greedy-gos said about being shot in the back....."did not pose a threat to public safety." Yeah, some guy carrying a tire iron and walking away from officers isn't a threat to public safety? Ok.....meet me in a parking lot and I'll show you what I can do with those same facts.

Again.....we could save the tax payers money if we had a hearing....

[dobberman]

Mark Geragos isn't such a good att'y. For some reason he's just famous. He has lost alot of big cases, but he still gets paid. And oh boy, does he like the camera action.

[Mufon]

You know, Dobberman, I've thought the same thing. He either plea bargains or loses all his cases. I guess he was just the most convincing of all the attorneys that invariably descended on this grief-stricken family after the incident, like a school of piranha around a meal.

And re being shot in the back, study after study has disclosed that reaction time causes these types of injuries. When a person with a gun sees the threat, processes it, then fires their weapon, in that short period of time, their assailant actually has time to turn around in response. So an officer shooting at a target directly facing them often hits them in the side or back after the suspect reacts. Of course, in a press release, it sure sounds evil to say your client was shot in the back, doesn't it? And that's what is all about, sound bytes and publicity. But it's not about the money...

[just Rog]

I wonder how Mark (the shyster) Geragos got this case in the first place. Did he show up at the funeral and offer his business card, like some ambulance chaser ? Geragos is no different than a personel injury lawyer. He just charges more. Its attorneys like Mark Geragos that remind me of my favorite Lawyer joke. "What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of a lake,?.. A good start".

[LCR]

Money talks as usual and Mark Geragos is no dummy but knows where he can cash in. He didn't do too shaby w/an $18-million judgment he won from the owner of a celebrity jet service who secretly videotaped Wacko Jacko talking with his lawyers. So I would not consider this lawyer at the bottom of the lake.

[DESERT RAT]

He is at the bottom of the lake. A prosperous bottom feeder.

LCR wrote:

Money talks as usual and Mark Geragos is no dummy but knows where he can cash in. He didn't do too shaby w/an $18-million judgment he won from the owner of a celebrity jet service who secretly videotaped Wacko Jacko talking with his lawyers. So I would not consider this lawyer at the bottom of the lake.

[LCR]

If that is your view, then that would go the same w/Gloria Allred, who is currenlty in spotlight of this ape story Moe.

DESERT RAT wrote:

He is at the bottom of the lake. A prosperous bottom feeder.
<quoted text>

[Dumbghettocrackb abies]

Maybe he was doing the Crouching Tigers and Hidden Dragons thing when the cops arrived.

[Not justified]

How can anyone in their right mind think that this murder was justified? The guy had a tire iron. Not a gun, not a knife, but a tire iron. The police had many options to subdue the suspect and decided to any other alternative methods.

Let's not make this about which atty they decided to use and lets make it about the options the police used to subdue the suspect. 1 man , 1 tire iron, 2 police officers , 11 shots. Think about that for a moment...

[crackbabies]

and to dumbghettocrackbabies...do not be so ignorant. one day it just might be you who ends up with 11 shots to your back

[DESERT RAT]

I think you meant Gorilla Allred.

LCR wrote:

If that is your view, then that would go the same w/Gloria Allred, who is currenlty in spotlight of this ape story Moe.
<quoted text>

[DESERT RAT]

So is the cop supposed to go and get a tire iron?

Not justified wrote:

How can anyone in their right mind think that this murder was justified? The guy had a tire iron. Not a gun, not a knife, but a tire iron. The police had many options to subdue the suspect and decided to any other alternative methods.
Let's not make this about which atty they decided to use and lets make it about the options the police used to subdue the suspect. 1 man , 1 tire iron, 2 police officers , 11 shots. Think about that for a moment...

[WhiteGirl81]

There was no need to shoot him so many times. maybe if he had a gun and was shooting back at the officers. i'm sure he posed as a threat but they should have shot him in the foot to get him down. not in the back. i think the police academy and the sheriffs dept are training to take out instead of take down.

[Monte Boy]

Everyone is just talking smack, attorney this, money hungry that, etc.

the truth is everyone of you would cash in were you in the same situation as the cho family.

or who knows, there are many of you who would spread your cheeks on command and be ok with it if a cop asked you to.

you are all a buch of hipocrits.

I hope the cho family get as much money as they can.

[Reality Check]

Without being there, here are some facts:
1. A tire iron can kill you or create major injuries, hence it is considered a lethal threat
2. Cops are not taught to fight equal force on force but rather use necessary force to do the job, which allows for batons against empty hands, or guns versus knives
3. Shooting at the suspect's foot or leg to disable him may sound good in theory but to do it in a dynamic situation is not that easy to do and cops are trained not to "kill" but to "stop" the threat and that means shooting center of mass, i.e. torso
4. I do not know of any cop out there that wants to kill someone in the line of duty, it's a necessary part of the job but that doesn't mean it's something to look forward to

[DESERT RAT]

That. WHITE GIRL, is 100% correct.

Remember that when you takle a tire iron to a potential gun fight.

WhiteGirl81 wrote:

There was no need to shoot him so many times. maybe if he had a gun and was shooting back at the officers. i'm sure he posed as a threat but they should have shot him in the foot to get him down. not in the back. i think the police academy and the sheriffs dept are training to take out instead of take down.

[Mufon]

Monte Boy, not everyone reading this would ask for money, because for many of us, most of us, money is not the overriding aspect of any bad incident. We aren't looking to cash in on a tragedy. It's easy to do, and popular and risk-free, but that doesn't make it right.

And most of the posters here don't have officers asking us to "spread our cheeks," because we don't engage them with tire irons or attack them, and we follow the laws. It isn't that hard not to be searched or shot by the police. Don't commit violent crimes.

And what are you doing to change things? Why don't you join the police department in your home town? Make a difference! It's a potential employee's market, departments are actively recruiting, take their jobs from them. Change the corrupt system from within.

[just Rog]

LCR wrote:

Money talks as usual and Mark Geragos is no dummy but knows where he can cash in. He didn't do too shaby w/an $18-million judgment he won from the owner of a celebrity jet service who secretly videotaped Wacko Jacko talking with his lawyers. So I would not consider this lawyer at the bottom of the lake.

Whats your story LCR, we don't hear from you for about 5 days at a time. Are you like incarcerated at the Sheriff's Department Biscailuz Center a few days a week, and then given a furlough ? Come on fess up. Inquiring minds want to know.

[WhiteGirl81]

Reality Check wrote:

Without being there, here are some facts:
1. A tire iron can kill you or create major injuries, hence it is considered a lethal threat
2. Cops are not taught to fight equal force on force but rather use necessary force to do the job, which allows for batons against empty hands, or guns versus knives
3. Shooting at the suspect's foot or leg to disable him may sound good in theory but to do it in a dynamic situation is not that easy to do and cops are trained not to "kill" but to "stop" the threat and that means shooting center of mass, i.e. torso
4. I do not know of any cop out there that wants to kill someone in the line of duty, it's a necessary part of the job but that doesn't mean it's something to look forward to

YOU MUST BE A COP

[Reality Check]

I only stated facts to the best of my knowledge. I don't make the rules and criminals don't obey the rules anyway. There, that's another fact for ya!

Here's a thought, to stop a threat, you have to incapacitate, not just immobilize. A crazed Columbine-type shooter with a leg wound is just going to be a shooter that isn't walking while shooting. He's still going to be shooting!

The best chance to incapacitate (wound effectiveness + hit probability in a fight) is the center of mass shot, not a fancy shoot the gun out of his hand shot or the brain shot.