Nor does it say that what the cops did was right. Sometimes these things say nothing that outsiders really believe must be said. Then again, as outsiders, nobody really gives a damn about our opinion because we're outsiders. We're just not that important.

An out-of-court settlement is done to avoid having to go to court. The court determines guilty or not guilty. No court weighed in.

Now, the city could have admitted wrong. But typically they don't unless they need to. So odds are the city didn't confess.

Since the city didn't admit wrong-doing, and the judge didn't find the city guilty of anything, who gets punished? Nobody. Unless the police involved reach a private settlement with the city, and that's only really possible *after* the out-of-court settlement, or as part of it. I suspect the family probably would go for more $ and less punishment. Not my place to judge them.

So, why would the city avoid going to court? Lots of reasons. Imagine the outrage if the city had won. In Simi Valley the city defended its cops and won. That was a pyrrhic victory, I'd say.

Often the trial just provides bad PR. Even without an "uprising" that has the innocent beat up the innocent in the name of punishing the guilty, the city loses. And trials are expensive for the city. There's always a pro-bono lawyer willing to do it for the publicity--with the lawyer less constrained in what he can say than the city attorneys are.

A trial also provides a lot of risk. Juries often award outrageously high sums. They're usually beaten down on appeal, but that means more legal wranging and more bad press.

That leads to the next question, though: Why did the family not go to court. Probably because they were told it was unlikely they'd win. Or if they did win, on appear their award, esp. after legal fees, would be no more than what they'd get after legal fees are taken out of this particular $4.7 million.

The rest is obfuscation.

This one I can actually understand why they shot. When he reached to take his hat off, he could have been pulling something from under the back of his shirt. Stupid movements on the mans part and in no way justifies it, but I can actually see why they thought there was a threat.

To justify their actions is to admit they were correct in doing them.

"Well, maybe he could have eventually reached for a weapon we didn't see."
That's not a reason for shooting someone. That's a carte blanche for killing anybody whenever you feel like.