Well, now you see the insidiousness of the litigious society that is the Golden State.
Guilt and innocence are often not as big a factor as economics in deciding to defend these cases or settle.
Public entities in California are so accustomed to being sued that they will often have set practice to settle below a certain dollar amount than defend the suit with no regard to liability.
Interestingly, BART has had that reputation in the past.
With the Oscar Grant shooting even a mongoloid night school attorney (no offense to you mogoloids out there) has a pretty decent 'prior consistent act' to cite in a civil suit.Seems to be a bay area attorneys wet dream to 'demonstrate' to a jury that a pattern and practice of X or Y behavior on an institutional/department cultural level.
Most of the time all it really proves it that their client is an idiot troublemaker who got caught and there other idiot troublemakers who have been caught before. Hey juries seem to really eat it up though.
Many city attorneys who regularly defend these suits feel it is cheaper in the long run to negotiate a settlement than go to court and roll the dice on the outcome- particularly in Northern Alameda County- where this incident occurred. Atype of fixing costs if you will.
In a locale where the jury pool tends to be very liberal, to the point of nullification it is viewed a doubly efficient.
The point you made about the videograpaher being involved is likely not far from the mark. There is a payday somewhere for someone here. The original link I posted did have some mention of
http://www.copwatch.com/forums/. Spend a few minutes there and you will see they are not the ladies auxiliary of the PBA.
Having stated the obvious, I will step away from the keyboard now.
Mike