TexasCHLforum.com

A jury ruled on Friday that a Dallas homicide detective violated a woman’s civil rights by maliciously having her arrested for a murder she didn’t commit.

The jury of three men and four women awarded Hephzibah Olivia Lord about $800,000 following a civil trial in federal court in Dallas that lasted over a week.

Lord’s attorney, Don Tittle, said he expects the total sum to exceed $1 million when other fees are factored in. The city will have to pay the award because the detective, Dwayne Thompson, was acting in his capacity as an employee, he said.

“I’m overwhelmed. I’ve been waiting for this for a very long time,” Lord said. “It’s been a very difficult fight. Very emotional. I needed to believe in our system again. I needed faith back, so I can grieve.”

The jury agreed that Thompson showed a reckless disregard for Lord’s rights in having her arrested for the 2010 shooting death of her boyfriend, Michael Burnside.

Jurors also ruled that Thompson, 51, who still believes her guilty, did not act in good faith.

City attorneys had defended Thompson, a 22-year veteran of the police department, saying he acted on the information he had at the time.

Lord, 36, spent nine days in jail after her arrest. A Dallas County grand jury later declined to indict her.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Jury-S ... 43511.html

As usual, the so called "reporters" in the so called "news media" provide absolutely no relevant information that would allow anyone to draw a conclusion about the reasonableness of the verdict; and in fact, provide just enough information to make it sound dubious. Our "news media" is just about completely worthless.

Thompson was featured in several First 48 episodes.

Yea, no facts other than her husband and she were alone, the husband was drunk, and he died of a gunshot wound. Seems to be a semi-reasonable conclusion, just based on those circumstances and would warrant an arrest.
Would it warrant a conviction? I wouldn't think so.
Civil trials have lower burdens of proof... If she was arrested, if she was no-billed, and then she sues - the results are obviously pretty promising.

I fail to see the "disregard" for rights though... It'd be nice if the media provided the occasional fact.

Maliciously arrested? He was the victim's friend and had it in for her? I don't under stand any of this let alone the high judgement. She was alone with a man who died of a gunshot wound. If this stands the police will be afraid to arrest anyone unless they saw the criminal commit the act.

Seems like the DPD has some issues to work through. Stuff like this keep popping up.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01 ... dly-force/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's a tough high-risk job. But if you're going to shoot a passenger in the car (driver already left) that has his hands up (per witnesses) maybe you should re-think the career.
Any big PD is going to have incidents and issues...

In regard to the "malice" one - could we get another reporter on that? One that might provide some facts...

cb1000rider wrote: "Abraham snip"
In regard to the "malice" one - could we get another reporter on that? One that might provide some facts...

Not much to go on.

It is very difficult, nay, impossible, to draw firm conclusions about this, unless you saw what the jury saw, and heard what the jury heard and was honor bound to decide upon.

News reports are never complete, and cannot be even publishing the entire transcript of the proceedings. You have no chance to watch the witnesses, evaluate their credibility. Moreover, news accounts are almost always wrong in some particular, overemphasizing some aspects, neglecting others. Some reporters are just not up to evaluating and writing accurately, and some are biased one way or the other, by the facts of a hard case, or just the way they, or their boss, is wired.

The forensic evidence team must have had some very probative facts and circumstances that the Grand Jury found compelling. Of course, the officers at the scene would not have access to the final reports. Perhaps the scene showed a scenario conclusively consistent with suicide which the officer(s) had to have been aware of but ignored.

In many cases, it is not essential to arrest someone immediately, even if murder is suspected and the likely suspect is on the scene. Of course, all of this is speculation.

C-dub wrote:Seems like the DPD has some issues to work through. Stuff like this keep popping up.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01 ... dly-force/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That looked like an attempted execution. I think she should be in prison for attempted murder.

Far be it from me to suggest the jury might know a thing or two that wasn't reported in the newspaper, so I will hold my tongue.

VMI77 wrote:

C-dub wrote:Seems like the DPD has some issues to work through. Stuff like this keep popping up.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01 ... dly-force/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That looked like an attempted execution. I think she should be in prison for attempted murder.

I disagree. The moment they decided to run from the police, they lost the right to breath air. People committing violent crimes deserve what ever happens to them. If we could get these animals to work instead of smoking crack and gang banging, the zoo keepers wouldn't have to shoot the animals. They are apparently not afraid of the punishment. A shoot all gang bangers on sight policy would be great. I am one person who has had enough of the violent crime by thugs who respect nothing and nobody.

Thing is DPD didn't shoot the guy that ran. They shot the passenger that stayed in the car when stopped (driver ran) and (per a witness) had his hands up. Still feel the same way?

cb1000rider wrote:Thing is DPD didn't shoot the guy that ran. They shot the passenger that stayed in the car when stopped (driver ran) and (per a witness) had his hands up. Still feel the same way?

Reading the story on that, it really seemed like not malice, but training/decision making issues with the officer. Not sure that deserves any civil award beyond actual medical costs.

That story is also a good example of the consequences of hanging out with bad people. Even if he was innocent, he was in the car with someone running from the cops which put him in the position where a cop had a gun pointed at him. Bad things can happen whether deserved or not.

I agree with that.. More likely an adrenaline fueled bad decision than some sort of malice or prejudice. Our civil system makes us pay for bad decisions.

Hanging out with bad people often has poor outcomes. Course, when I was young I didn't always make the best decisions and I'm not entirely sure that I deserved to be shot for what my "friends" did... A few of you may think that is exactly what I deserve.. :-)