The first refers to Righi’s opinion at the time of his arrest. The second refers to opinions he agreed to attest to to make the suit go away.
Step 1: Prosecutor realizes dumbass cop has pushed the city to bring an unwinnable suit
Step 2: Prosecutor, being part of a city government dumb enough to hire cops who arrest the people who call them for no particular reason, doesn’t want to simply drop the case, because then that might look like the city is admitting the cops made a mistake.
Step 3: Prosecutor, knowing he has all sorts of disposable tax dollars to work with while Righi is festering money into his lawyer’s pocket, agrees to drop the suit if Righi agrees to state the police did nothing wrong, driving home that vital point so that no one will be confused into thinking otherwise by the dropped suit.
That could be, but I doubt it. Maybe we’ll end up getting more info from Righi’s blog, but I’m willing to bet Righi never changed his opinions and attested to it.
I doubt this also. Deals are made where you drop this and I’ll drop that, but I’ve never heard one where someone has to admit the other party did nothing wrong.
Why do you suppose cases are appealed and argued before different judges and courts? Why do you suppose different judges rule differently on the same case?
Righi has a new post on his cite in which he claims he never made such a statement and explains why he agreed to the deal. Maybe that will help things to jibe. link
Huh? I mentioned that something in the article didn’t make sense and was probably reported incorrectly and you’re saying it has to do with the technicality of the law vs the interpretation and application of the law? Sorry, but you’re not making any sense.
If by that mean you mean to say, “You were right, the reporter did do some erroneous reporting and the statements obviously don’t jibe”, then yeah, that helps to make things jibe.
I read your comment and initially posted before before I read the latest post on Righi’s site. My point was that often what may be technically correct is not how it works out when making a deal to settle things and move on.
Concerning the reporter though, here’s an interesting quote from comment’s on Righi’s site
How about that? Was the reporter doing some erroneous reporting or is Righi’s just doing a little CYA? Let his lawyer make the agreed to statement to dull the taste of crow. Could be?
Makes no sense to me. First of all, that does not say that Righi had to admit that the police officer did no wrong. That says that the lawyer emphasized that the reporter write that the police officer did no wrong. Why would Righi’s lawyer practically beg a reporter to make the prosecution’s side look good and not his client?
What CYA do you think Righi might have done? Do you think he actually had to admit in front of the court that the police officer did no wrong to get the charges dropped and he’s lying about it in his blog?
No, what Righi reported makes a ton more sense. He promises not to sue and the charges get dropped. If you choose to believe he had to claim the police officer did nothing wrong to get the charges dropped, well, believe what you want.
Connect the dots. Righi would not comment but directed the reporter to his lawyer who made a point to say the officer did nothing wrong. Righi says in his blog that he made no such statement and it’s an outright lie but the great outraged civil rights advocate has not contacted the reporter to demand a retraction or correction.
Sounds like the agreement was that the lawyer would make the statement so Righi could save face by not making it himself. Maybe not but since neither one of us knows I guess we can each decide what we prefer to believe.
From a scientific standpoint I wonder if he was born an asshole or became one through steadfast effort.
I noticed he said a conversation with a family member was a big reason he decided not to pursue it. I had to wonder what that was like
“Gee Michael we really support your valiant struggle for the civil rights of all citizens but …”
or was it more like
“If you make me fly back from California and Dad miss this important business trip because of this petty BS then you have set new standards for jackassdom.”
I also notice he made no mention of any plans to sue CC for unlawful detainment. He never mentioned them at all. Perhaps he’s letting it all go. If any hears differently please let us know.
I seem to be doing what? Forget it; don’t answer that. I don’t want to get into any more back and forth bantering with you over some ridiculous scenario. This thread has been bouncing off the guardrails long enough with bullshit nitpicking and I’m surprised it hasn’t been shut down by now.
I’ve connected the dots. If you think the court instructed Righi’s lawyer that when the hearing is over, he must tell the reporter that the police officer did nothing wrong, your dots are fucked up. What court would force a lawyer to say something that clearly goes against what the law really says and what kind of lawyer would make a statement that would make him look like an idiot? That fact that the police officer made a mistake is without question.
The reporter even wrote: “Righi maintained police had no right to ask for a driver’s license from a person not driving a car, a contention backed up later by legal experts.”
Do you think Righi’s lawyer was forced to claim that it’s perfectly okay for a police officer to arrest his client for something that has been determined that it’s clearly not okay for police to arrest someone for? Are you convinced reporters never get the story wrong- sometimes on purpose? You don’t pursue a lawsuit and we’ll drop the charges makes perfect sense. You say the cop did nothing wrong when your opinion of the law is inconsequential- laws and court cases have already determined that the officer did do something wrong- and we’ll drop the charges makes zero sense.
Oh, well now that you mention that Righi hasn’t written in his blog about how he’s demanding that reporters correct articles to his satisfaction, I must change my mind.
Now go ahead and give your rebuttal that I’m sure will go on for pages if I entertain this further, but I’m done here.
This morning a guy came in the store and asked if anyone had tried to sell a Seagull guitar recently. Apparently one had been stolen from him only yesterday. I took a description of the guitar and told him I’d keep a watchful eye and alert the other buyers.
Later in the afternoon a guy brings in a Seagull to sell and because of some unigue damage that the owner had described perfectly I knew this was the stolen guitar.
I had another guy keep the seller busy while I called the cops.
Here’s where it relates a bit. I dialed 911 and they asked “What’s your emergency?” I reported we had a man trying to sell merchandise that was reported stolen.
They informed me that that was not a life or death emergency but they would pass the call on.
So, 911 is supposed to be for life and death emergency’s only according to the folks here. Not for a suspected thief trying to sell stolen merchandise and probably not because CC employees are standing in front of your car. Opinions vary I know.
I kept the guy busy inspecting the guitar and acting like I was going to buy it. I got his ID for the sale and wrote everything down. As he was putting his ID away the police came in and took him in custody.
Since I had called one officer asked for my ID for his report. I thought briefly of Righi. “Well officer I’m not operating a vehicle and legally I don’t have to show you ID. but I’ll be glad to verbally give you my name” but immediately thought, that would be moronic, and turned over my ID. Guitar recovered, bad guy in cuffs instead of me. Worked out okay I thought.
