Did Best commit any crimes through all of that? Can the City at least pull her pension, even if no one prosecutes?
I'm sure if loved ones of those in the car crash saw your "sacrifice to car culture" comment, they would be enchanted. Yep, you at the Stranger keep humping graves to boost yourselves, like Giuliani and 9/11. Whoever wrote this crap, I'd like to officially invite you to have sex with yourself.
@1 if they didn’t pull Murray’s pension after what he did I seriously doubt they’ll do anything to Best or Durkan.
@2: Stranger staffers are to car crash victims as Texas republicans are to slaughtered elementary school kids.
@1, @3: The effort to recall then-Mayor Durkan failed because the Mayor of Seattle does not have operational control of the SPD. Obviously, the Chief of Police does have such control, so it is theoretically within the realm of possibility to retrieve compensation paid for a job not done. (I'm not a labor lawyer, so I cannot say for sure.)
@3: As for whatever you think Murray did, well, there are probably very good reasons why his 'accusers' carefully avoided making any of their statements in a court of law, and therefore no legal action against Murray would ever be likely to succeed.
That weather blog/forecast was for Eastern Washington. It said it right in the title.
It's admirable to try and prevent drug addicts from over-dosing or using laced-drugs. But on the other hand, why enable their habit.
At least 2 of murray’s accusers filed court cases against murray & the city of seattle & the defendants chose to settle both of them
@7: Yes, those suits were settled without going to court. Thank you for supporting my point; his 'accusers' never actually said anything in a court of law.
As the city chose to settle out of court, paying each plaintiff a tiny fraction of the monies sought, it would be very difficult for the city to turn around and claim that Murray had caused such damage as to justify forfeit of his pension.
Kind of hard to carefully avoid talking about charges in a court of law when you file a lawsuit over them. If the accusations were bunk murray not only could have followed through with the suit, he could have countersued for defamation, but for some reason he carefully avoided all of that.
Way to phone this article in.
FWI, sometimes it is good to reference data: "The highest pro-choice affiliation Gallup has measured was 56 percent in 1995, but the new poll represents an increase of 5 to 10 percent from recent numbers." In 1995, pro choice reached a popular opinion of 56%, sometime after that it reached some other number, and recently it was 5 to 10% more.
Get stoned before work, much?
Probably not wasting my time with this author in the future.
@8 so following your thought process on what basis could they go after Best’s pension? Nothing she did or didn’t do rose to the level of criminal negligence. At best she made a poor decision due to bad information in an environment where she had little to no support from the rest of the administration. Many of may not agree with her decisions but I don’t see anything that would come close to allowing the city to go after her pension.
1 - "Did Best commit any crimes through all of that?"
No, she didn't. Take your hate elsewhere.
The pension system Ch. Best is under is a WA state run one, LEOFF 2. The city can’t do anything to affect it. Even criminal conviction is not necessarily disqualifying.
@11: The argument would not have been criminal negligence, which is why I didn't mention that. The argument would have been from her not doing the job for which she was paid. As @13 notes, even that doesn't seem to matter.
@9: It is actually pretty easy to not talk in a court of law, even after having filed a lawsuit. Delvonn Heckard did it twice, first by withdrawing his suit literally on the eve of having to go talk in court, and by settling his second suit without going to trial. Jeff Simpson also settled without going to trial, which meant neither man got an admission of wrongdoing from Murray -- the supposed reason for their lawsuits. (Do you know what "settled without trial" means? Do you understand that not one of Murray's 'accusers' ever made an 'accusation' in a place where he could have been legally punished for lying? Because you seem utterly confused on those two points.)
As for Murray counter-suing, American law makes it very, very difficult for a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit. Furthermore, even if he had sued and won, he could not have collected money sufficient to cover the cost of his suit. Simpson is a road-maintenance worker, and Heckard was an unemployed drug user. No matter how unreliable (or even flat-out false) either man's statements might have been proven in court to be, there was no point in Murray even trying.
I'm saying murray's accusers actively set themselves on the path of having to defend their charges in court, and if the charges were patently false it would have been a slam dunk for murray to refute them and he chose not to, so if the criteria for determining the source of truth here is "carefully avoiding making any of their statements in a court of law", by all available evidence murray is the most careful about avoiding making statements on the official record
Mind you i don't think settling out of court is an admission of guilt, i am just applying your standard of "careful avoidance" to both parties, and by that standard murray et al were the carefulest
@15: "I'm saying murray's accusers actively set themselves on the path of having to defend their charges in court,"
No, they did not, because a plaintiff cannot be required to take a suit into court. As already recounted, Heckard withdrew his first suit on the very day before he would have needed to defend his statements in court, and both Heckard and Simpson settled without trial (and without getting what they each had repeatedly said he'd wanted from the suit). Each man knew he had total discretion to avoid court, and, contrary to what you wrote @9, each man actually avoided court.
"...if the charges were patently false it would have been a slam dunk for murray to refute them and he chose not to,"
The plaintiffs chose not to give Murray a chance to defend himself in court. Would going to trial have resulted in a "slam dunk" for Murray? Perhaps, which raises the possibility that this is exactly the reason why his accusers always chose not to appear in court.
Now, if Murray had loudly claimed each man was a liar, had proclaimed he would prove it in court, and then somehow always declined to actually enter court, then yes, his actions would be equivalent to theirs. But he never said that, he never filed any suits, and as he'd never admitted wrongdoing (even after three lawsuits were filed to make him do just that), he literally had nothing left to prove. Demanding the accused prove his innocence violates our basic standards of justice, and Murray's choice not to pursue legal action against opponents (who could never pay him anyway) just shows he knew when to quit, nothing more.
Oprah has a lot to answer for: Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil both got their fame from her show.
@17: That's ridiculous
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.