interesting case

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

on the face of it to me a form of suicide by cop  whats most interesting is jury decision and judges actions after.
quite peculiar but i think i agree

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/082011/08052011/643662

UPDATE: (6:47 p.m.) Judge strikes jury's finding of excessive force in Stafford fatal shooting case

A jury found that a Stafford sheriff's deputy used excessive force when he shot David Gandy in 2008, but a judge immediately struck down that ruling Friday because the jury also found that Deputy Neal Robey had reasonable belief to fear bodily injury or death.

  U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema's ruling negated the $267,000 in punitive damages that the jury had also awarded Gandy's widow in the civil suit.

  Terry Gandy had filed a $65 million wrongful death suit against Robey; Deputy Joseph Pittman, one of the deputies at the scene; and Stafford Sheriff Charles Jett. But Robey was the lone remaining defendant. 

David Gandy, 48, was shot on June 29, 2008 at his Hickory Ridge home

[vaskidmark]

The judge is faced with a dilemma - jury lets the cops off on a wrongful death complaint but says the cops used too much force in justifiably killing him.  The latter would logically negate the former if allowed to stand.

stay safe.

[HankB]

Without taking a position in this particular case . . . if the trial judge can just throw out a jury's verdict, why bother going through the motions of having a jury trial anyway?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the jury felt sorry for his family and tried to throw a 265 k bone to em, rather than the 65 mill they asked for.  its a sorry case.  guy was a heck of a nice guy who committed suicide by cop while drunk. sober it woulda been different

[Hawkmoon]

Without taking a position in this particular case . . . if the trial judge can just throw out a jury's verdict, why bother going through the motions of having a jury trial anyway?

This was a civil "wrongful death" trial, not a criminal trial. In a civil trial, usually (always?) the judge can review the jury's verdict to determine whether or not it is reasonable, as well as justified under the law.

I don't see any dilemma for the judge at all. The jury was clearly suffering from cognitive dissonance. In essence, they ruled that the deputy was justified in using lethal force, but he shouldn't have used it so lethally.