@b1rd $33.5 million to be paid. Why should the Tax payers have to pay for this? Shouldn't a small part of it also come from your pension & savings?

Both could be lying. The motel video isn't conclusive. You see the suspect get to his feet, spring up and the fall over on top of the other officer. Could be the officer was too quick to pull out his weapon? Could be the suspect threw a few shots then reached for it? Either way, it's not entirely certain what happened in the video as they're so far away from the camera that they're reduced to pixels. Visually it's difficult to say for certain.

If the appeal goes through, you'll probably see a massive decrease in the damages awarded.

Not mine. Come on son. I don't live there nor would I.
What I find interesting is they didn't introduce body cam evidence. Why can't they afford body cams? In this day and age? Oh wait, California. Let's not equip our officers with equipment that remove doubt from 99% of all encounters. Regardless of who is guilty. What I find more interesting is that the people who demanded police wear body cams to catch the "big bad police" discriminating now want police to stop wearing body cams. Why? Because the footage 99% of the time shows the cop acted correctly and the person arrested was in fact guilty.