Hacker News Reader

Comment by thinkingtoilet | Hacker News Reader

Exactly. A fragile man needed assert his authority.

You don't know the man, and you don't know all of the details and nuances of the situation he was called into. How then do you think to judge him like that? You're just stereotyping.

Those "details and nuances of the situation he was called into" become completely irrelevant once one is presented with irrefutable evidence that their actions were completely legal. What matters is his conduct after that happened, which was blatant and persistent abuse of power.

Stop justifying and excusing abuse of power, he hurt innocent people, cost the taxpayers $600k in a single incident of abusive and wrongful conduct, and he's now enjoying taxpayer-funded retirement without facing any accountability.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/11/how-a...

I do know the details of the situation. And so did the jury who awarded them $600k.

> And so did the jury who awarded them $600k

What jury? The payment happened before the trial: "five days before a trial was scheduled to begin in the case, Dallas County officials agreed to pay $600,000 to settle the case".

In fairness, people don't generally give 6 figure settlements if they think the jury will agree with them

The detail that there was no jury?

You're confusing your own assumptions with knowledge.

Are they or are you? How have you determined that they don't understand the details?

Being flat wrong is a subtle hint.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com