LA agrees to pay Kobe Bryant widow almost $29m

Just curious how you guys feel about this one?

The LA police acted wrongly. I don't think there's any question of that.

$29M is a LOT of pain and suffering. Especially considering the average American household's net worth is like $125K.

Yes, she's donating it to charity, but OTOH, she's worth like $600M, so if she wanted to donate $29M she could have done it herself.

I think the term "courageous battle" is a bit much.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806905

Fuck the police. Especially the LA police.

TravelinMan wrote:Just curious how you guys feel about this one?

The LA police acted wrongly. I don't think there's any question of that.

$29M is a LOT of pain and suffering. Especially considering the average American household's net worth is like $125K.

Yes, she's donating it to charity, but OTOH, she's worth like $600M, so if she wanted to donate $29M she could have done it herself.

I think the term "courageous battle" is a bit much.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806905

Our legal system for civil liability suits is broken. Typically, in a suit like the defendant is faced with the choice of taking the suit to court with the monetary and PR costs verses paying up to make it go away.

I hate rich people as much as the next guy, if not more, but they are still entitled to the same relief as everyone else. Sharing those photos was outrageous, and I saw a quote from her that she lives in fear of her surviving daughter coming across those images on the internet. There has to be some form of deterrence, or this will happen every time a high profile person dies in any remotely similar way.

It's good that she is donating it to charity.

no problem with the amount.

if it makes the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies across the country think twice before behaving like disgusting ghouls, it's okay by me.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:no problem with the amount.

if it makes the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies across the country think twice before behaving like disgusting ghouls, it's okay by me.

But will it? I mean, I'm assuming (I have not checked, but dear lord I would hope so) that the officer's in question lost their jobs. That's probably as big of a disincentive as one would have individually. How will the government coughing up $29M impact police behavior? Oh, I'm sure everyone will have to watch a training video on how to not profit from crime/crash scene photos. Maybe even have to check a box on some "I promise not to be a dick" form once a year. But will that award really drive change in behavior? I have my doubts.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:no problem with the amount.

if it makes the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies across the country think twice before behaving like disgusting ghouls, it's okay by me.

But will it? I mean, I'm assuming (I have not checked, but dear lord I would hope so) that the officer's in question lost their jobs. That's probably as big of a disincentive as one would have individually. How will the government coughing up $29M impact police behavior? Oh, I'm sure everyone will have to watch a training video on how to not profit from crime/crash scene photos. Maybe even have to check a box on some "I promise not to be a dick" form once a year. But will that award really drive change in behavior? I have my doubts.

It is what capitalistic markets create, the rush to cash in, because money is the only value.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:no problem with the amount.

if it makes the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies across the country think twice before behaving like disgusting ghouls, it's okay by me.

But will it? I mean, I'm assuming (I have not checked, but dear lord I would hope so) that the officer's in question lost their jobs. That's probably as big of a disincentive as one would have individually. How will the government coughing up $29M impact police behavior? Oh, I'm sure everyone will have to watch a training video on how to not profit from crime/crash scene photos. Maybe even have to check a box on some "I promise not to be a dick" form once a year. But will that award really drive change in behavior? I have my doubts.

In the article you linked...

California has since passed a state law prohibiting first responders from taking unauthorised pictures of people who die at the scene of an accident or crime.

TravelinMan wrote:Just curious how you guys feel about this one?

The LA police acted wrongly. I don't think there's any question of that.

$29M is a LOT of pain and suffering. Especially considering the average American household's net worth is like $125K.

Yes, she's donating it to charity, but OTOH, she's worth like $600M, so if she wanted to donate $29M she could have done it herself.

I think the term "courageous battle" is a bit much.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806905

Odd you didn't mention the husband who lost his wife and daughter (and was awarded $20 million).

Just wanted to take some shots at Vanessa Bryant, eh?

Interesting.

NigelUno wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:Just curious how you guys feel about this one?

The LA police acted wrongly. I don't think there's any question of that.

$29M is a LOT of pain and suffering. Especially considering the average American household's net worth is like $125K.

Yes, she's donating it to charity, but OTOH, she's worth like $600M, so if she wanted to donate $29M she could have done it herself.

I think the term "courageous battle" is a bit much.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806905

Odd you didn't mention the husband who lost his wife and daughter (and was awarded $20 million).

Just wanted to take some shots at Vanessa Bryant, eh?

Interesting.

The rapist basketball guy? Why would I mention him? He's dead.

TravelinMan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Odd you didn't mention the husband who lost his wife and daughter (and was awarded $20 million).

Just wanted to take some shots at Vanessa Bryant, eh?

Interesting.

The rapist basketball guy? Why would I mention him? He's dead.

Wow.

Maybe just read the article YOU linked.

TravelinMan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Odd you didn't mention the husband who lost his wife and daughter (and was awarded $20 million).

Just wanted to take some shots at Vanessa Bryant, eh?

Interesting.

The rapist basketball guy? Why would I mention him? He's dead.

I considered trying to defend your posting until you posted this. He is talking about this from the BBC article.

BBC wrote:Chris Chester, whose wife and daughter also died in the 26 January 2020 crash, separately settled with the county for nearly $20m, attorneys told US media on Tuesday.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:no problem with the amount.

if it makes the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies across the country think twice before behaving like disgusting ghouls, it's okay by me.

But will it? I mean, I'm assuming (I have not checked, but dear lord I would hope so) that the officer's in question lost their jobs. That's probably as big of a disincentive as one would have individually. How will the government coughing up $29M impact police behavior? Oh, I'm sure everyone will have to watch a training video on how to not profit from crime/crash scene photos. Maybe even have to check a box on some "I promise not to be a dick" form once a year. But will that award really drive change in behavior? I have my doubts.

I don't know.

but I'm okay with trying.

Another dud thread from TM.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

But will it? I mean, I'm assuming (I have not checked, but dear lord I would hope so) that the officer's in question lost their jobs. That's probably as big of a disincentive as one would have individually. How will the government coughing up $29M impact police behavior? Oh, I'm sure everyone will have to watch a training video on how to not profit from crime/crash scene photos. Maybe even have to check a box on some "I promise not to be a dick" form once a year. But will that award really drive change in behavior? I have my doubts.

I don't know.

but I'm okay with trying.

Wait wait wait wait wait...you mean people actually would be okay with TRYING something that might ease a problem in our society? Can we apply this same principal to gun violence? Instead of just allowing the "it won't work" crowd to prevent any action at all.

Mandatory jail time is the only thing that could maybe stop this type of thing. Losing your job in LA and popping up on the Dallas police force later isn’t really a deterrent. I guess you could give them the option of having to pay 50% of the settlement via wage garnishment on future employment or 10 years in prison.

Motown Spartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: I don't know.

but I'm okay with trying.

Wait wait wait wait wait...you mean people actually would be okay with TRYING something that might ease a problem in our society? Can we apply this same principal to gun violence? Instead of just allowing the "it won't work" crowd to prevent any action at all.

Actually, you're right. It is a lot like some of the gun proposals. You know goddamn well it's the stupidest idea that will never work, yet people defend it by whining, "But we have to do SOMETHING!"

Good analogy there, Motown.

NigelUno wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:Just curious how you guys feel about this one?  

The LA police acted wrongly.  I don't think there's any question of that.

$29M is a LOT of pain and suffering.  Especially considering the average American household's net worth is like $125K.

Yes, she's donating it to charity, but OTOH, she's worth like $600M, so if she wanted to donate $29M she could have done it herself.

I think the term "courageous battle" is a bit much.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806905

Odd you didn't mention the husband who lost his wife and daughter (and was awarded $20 million).  

Just wanted to take some shots at Vanessa Bryant, eh?

Interesting.  

Easy chainsaw. I think the argument here is why does LA county feel Kobe and his daughter are worth 13 million and Chester and his daughter are worth 5 million. They both were granted the same under federal law (15 million).

We all know the LA celebrity Justice cesspool is bullshit. If anything this settlement magnifies that. Both families should have received equal amounts.

TravelinMan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

Wait wait wait wait wait...you mean people actually would be okay with TRYING something that might ease a problem in our society? Can we apply this same principal to gun violence? Instead of just allowing the "it won't work" crowd to prevent any action at all.

Actually, you're right. It is a lot like some of the gun proposals. You know goddamn well it's the stupidest idea that will never work, yet people defend it by whining, "But we have to do SOMETHING!"

Good analogy there, Motown.

Let's do it! Let's start throwing every idea out there and see what works. My first idea, take everyone's guns. Lets do it!

Motown Spartan wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Actually, you're right.  It is a lot like some of the gun proposals.  You know goddamn well it's the stupidest idea that will never work, yet people defend it by whining, "But we have to do SOMETHING!"

Good analogy there, Motown.

Let's do it! Let's start throwing every idea out there and see what works. My first idea, take everyone's guns. Lets do it!

Plus one

But if there were no guns then only criminals would have guns...by definition gun huggers, since gun possession would be criminal.  Really stupid argument.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

Let's do it! Let's start throwing every idea out there and see what works. My first idea, take everyone's guns. Lets do it!

Plus one

But if there were no guns then only criminals would have guns...by definition gun huggers, since gun possession would be criminal.  Really stupid argument.

But TM just said we could try it!

Motown Spartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Plus one

But if there were no guns then only criminals would have guns...by definition gun huggers, since gun possession would be criminal.  Really stupid argument.

But TM just said we could try it!

I would LOVE to see us try it.  As in, watching a full on break down of civil society is always entertaining.

Edit: Oh shit! Forgot to add Trapper's /s. Sorry!

TravelinMan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

But TM just said we could try it!

I would LOVE to see us try it.  As in, watching a full on break down of civil society is always entertaining.

Edit: Oh shit! Forgot to add Trapper's /s. Sorry!

LOL. The thought that people owning guns is the only reason we have a civil society cracks me up. How horrible must gun owners be that if you take their guns away, our society will collapse.

Motown Spartan wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I would LOVE to see us try it.  As in, watching a full on break down of civil society is always entertaining.

Edit: Oh shit! Forgot to add Trapper's /s. Sorry!

LOL. The thought that people owning guns is the only reason we have a civil society cracks me up. How horrible must gun owners be that if you take their guns away, our society will collapse.

No no, you misunderstand me. I was suggesting that if you TRY to take away people's guns, society will collapse.

TravelinMan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

LOL. The thought that people owning guns is the only reason we have a civil society cracks me up. How horrible must gun owners be that if you take their guns away, our society will collapse.

No no, you misunderstand me. I was suggesting that if you TRY to take away people's guns, society will collapse.

That doesn't make them sound any more desirable. I mean, they do prioritize guns over anything else.

Motown Spartan wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

No no, you misunderstand me. I was suggesting that if you TRY to take away people's guns, society will collapse.

That doesn't make them sound any more desirable. I mean, they do prioritize guns over anything else.

Some of them definitely aren't. I agree. That doesn't solve your problem, though.

TravelinMan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

That doesn't make them sound any more desirable. I mean, they do prioritize guns over anything else.

Some of them definitely aren't. I agree. That doesn't solve your problem, though.

How do you know?

Motown Spartan wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Some of them definitely aren't. I agree. That doesn't solve your problem, though.

How do you know?

How do I know that some people prioritize guns over anything else? How do I know that some people will resist any effort to take their guns?

I dunno? My neighbors? I went to a Wal*Mart once? Common sense?

That is a lot of money but it’s about what Bryant’s final NBA salary was adjusted for 24.5% inflation between  2016-2023.  Bryant made $24.25M in his last year with the Lakers.

I would like to see municipalities have tandem retirement funds.  One for their law enforcement employees from admins with the force /jails, patrol rookies through the chief of police and one for everyone else.  Would like to see state and county governments do the same. 

That way each fund has its own premiums for annual liability insurance.  Those premiums are typically increased every time a lawsuit or negotiation settlement  is paid for by government entity.

If law enforcement knew they could lose pension funding every time be of their fellow officers screwed up they might think before they act.  Including the law enforcement leadership ie chief of police, assistant chief etc would help reduce the movement of people with prior poor reviews from jump ing to a new locale because the leadership knows their potential eff ups are going to come out of their separate overall budget.

Many, maybe a majority, of gun owners accept the need for "common sense" gun regulations.

These could most certainly include the banning, or severe limiting and control of some guns, such as military style rifles or multi-round guns beyond a certain number of rounds.

Sure, there are some gun nuts who want to be able to play with their toys, and I classify anyone who believes that guns keep them free as mentally ill and needing serious therapy, at the expense of deaths via mass murder, but those are likely a smaller minority.

I haven't been keeping up on the bills in the Michigan Legislature, however, it is likely that Michigan will switch from being one of the least regulated States to being one of the more regulated states.  It will be interesting to see what happens.

Trapper Gus wrote:Many, maybe a majority, of gun owners accept the need for "common sense" gun regulations.

These could most certainly include the banning, or severe limiting and control of some guns, such as military style rifles or multi-round guns beyond a certain number of rounds.

Sure, there are some gun nuts who want to be able to play with their toys, and I classify anyone who believes that guns keep them free as mentally ill and needing serious therapy, at the expense of deaths via mass murder, but those are likely a smaller minority.

I haven't been keeping up on the bills in the Michigan Legislature, however, it is likely that Michigan will switch from being one of the least regulated States to being one of the more regulated states.  It will be interesting to see what happens.

I’m hoping people move

kingstonlake wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Odd you didn't mention the husband who lost his wife and daughter (and was awarded $20 million).  

Just wanted to take some shots at Vanessa Bryant, eh?

Interesting.  

Easy chainsaw. I think the argument here is why does LA county feel Kobe and his daughter are worth 13 million and Chester and his daughter are worth 5 million. They both were granted the same under federal law (15 million).

We all know the LA celebrity Justice cesspool is bullshit. If anything this settlement magnifies that. Both families should have received equal amounts.

You're assuming that both parties had the same settlement amounts they would accept?

Trapper Gus wrote:Many, maybe a majority, of gun owners accept the need for "common sense" gun regulations.

These could most certainly include the banning, or severe limiting and control of some guns, such as military style rifles or multi-round guns beyond a certain number of rounds.

Sure, there are some gun nuts who want to be able to play with their toys, and I classify anyone who believes that guns keep them free as mentally ill and needing serious therapy, at the expense of deaths via mass murder, but those are likely a smaller minority.

I haven't been keeping up on the bills in the Michigan Legislature, however, it is likely that Michigan will switch from being one of the least regulated States to being one of the more regulated states.  It will be interesting to see what happens.

I'd be curious to see how you define a "regulated state." Michigan is definitely not one of the least regulated by any means. And I seriously doubt that they're going full on New York, Illinois, or California.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Many, maybe a majority, of gun owners accept the need for "common sense" gun regulations.

These could most certainly include the banning, or severe limiting and control of some guns, such as military style rifles or multi-round guns beyond a certain number of rounds.

Sure, there are some gun nuts who want to be able to play with their toys, and I classify anyone who believes that guns keep them free as mentally ill and needing serious therapy, at the expense of deaths via mass murder, but those are likely a smaller minority.

I haven't been keeping up on the bills in the Michigan Legislature, however, it is likely that Michigan will switch from being one of the least regulated States to being one of the more regulated states.  It will be interesting to see what happens.

I'd be curious to see how you define a "regulated state."  Michigan is definitely not one of the least regulated by any means.  And I seriously doubt that they're going full on New York, Illinois, or California.  

Some handguns are regulated for registration, I think.  No registration for shotguns or rifles.  No training needed to buy a gun.  No requirements for gun storage.  That is what I call unregulated.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I'd be curious to see how you define a "regulated state."  Michigan is definitely not one of the least regulated by any means.  And I seriously doubt that they're going full on New York, Illinois, or California.  

Some handguns are regulated for registration, I think.  No registration for shotguns or rifles.  No training needed to buy a gun.  No requirements for gun storage.  That is what I call unregulated.

THAT's what you call unregulated? Never come west or south, my friend. I think your head might explode.

NigelUno wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

Easy chainsaw. I think the argument here is why does LA county feel Kobe and his daughter are worth 13 million and Chester and his daughter are worth 5 million. They both were granted the same under federal law (15 million).

We all know the LA celebrity Justice cesspool is bullshit. If anything this settlement magnifies that. Both families should have received equal amounts.

You're assuming that both parties had the same settlement amounts they would accept?  

Both families should have been awarded the same amount. The Bryant family shouldn’t be more valued than the 
Chester family. I don’t think it’s fair that Vanessa Bryant is awarded more because she has a bottomless well of money and lawyers who will beg to represent her. Broken system.

kingstonlake wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

You're assuming that both parties had the same settlement amounts they would accept?  

Both families should have been awarded the same amount. The Bryant family shouldn’t be more valued than the 
Chester family. I don’t think it’s fair that Vanessa Bryant is awarded more because she has a bottomless well of money and lawyers who will beg to represent her. Broken system.

Unfortunately fairness rarely comes into play with settlements.   Things like probable career earnings are considered.  

Chester career earnings would not be as high as a retired Kobe Bryant whose endorsements ended or if they renewed it was for a lot less than had he survived.

GRR Spartan wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

Both families should have been awarded the same amount. The Bryant family shouldn’t be more valued than the 
Chester family. I don’t think it’s fair that Vanessa Bryant is awarded more because she has a bottomless well of money and lawyers who will beg to represent her. Broken system.

Unfortunately fairness rarely comes into play with settlements.   Things like probable career earnings are considered.  

Chester career earnings would not be as high as a retired Kobe Bryant whose endorsements ended or if they renewed it was for a lot less than had he survived.

I get what your saying. To me it just appears that the settlements in the case basically tell the Chester family that the only reason they’re getting anything is because Kobe Bryant was on the helicopter. That’s not right. Especially after Vanessa Bryant used photos from all the passengers to make her case/claim. When it was determined the LA PD wronged people there shouldn’t be a separation of importance with the victims. “Here’s the pool of money we have to offer” and the Bryant’s get more…..

TravelinMan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

LOL. The thought that people owning guns is the only reason we have a civil society cracks me up. How horrible must gun owners be that if you take their guns away, our society will collapse.

No no, you misunderstand me. I was suggesting that if you TRY to take away people's guns, society will collapse.

I'd use drone strikes against anyone who resists. No second chances. Compliance wouldn't take long.

kingstonlake wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

You're assuming that both parties had the same settlement amounts they would accept?  

Both families should have been awarded the same amount. The Bryant family shouldn’t be more valued than the 
Chester family. I don’t think it’s fair that Vanessa Bryant is awarded more because she has a bottomless well of money and lawyers who will beg to represent her. Broken system.

Awarded? It was a settlement.

Maybe one family was OK settling for an amount and accepted it to move on (after already getting $15 million).

Maybe one family wasn't OK with that amount, and ended up settling for more.

It happens in civil cases. People can settle for different amounts. That doesn't make it unfair.

Saying it was completely up to LA County (and they decided whose family is worth more) is disingenuous.