This is why we should carry recorders and run them all the time.
The originally linked piece is hugely one-sided. It may be an accurate depiction of events, but I am sure that some of Genovese's (or her children's) actions, which were glossed over, might mitigate (or, in some cases, even justify) some of the officers' actions. However, the folks who wrote the piece are her advocates, so they will, of course, paint her in the best possible light and the officers in the worst.
That is not to say that Genovese's rights were not horribly violated. Even if we assume gross exaggeration on the part of those who relate the incident (understandable, since they are probably up against gross exaggeration on the part of the opposing officers and advocates), if even a fraction of what is alleged happened without justification, then Genovese is due punitive damages. Not 70 mil, though, even if we assume zero exaggeration in the report.
I just find the writings of advocates who are trying to win a huge judgment just about as reliable as a police reports from officers in full CYA mode. Statements of advocacy are not facts. They are one-sided conclusions. They are always hyperbolized and omit or gloss over facts that do not further the advocacy.
