- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 29,957
- Reaction score
- 14,683
- Location
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The NYTimes conveniently puts their disclamer banner in a crucial spot just prior to the officer drawing and shooting.
While I think based on what I viewed, that the officer could have ran after, or somehow physically subdued the suspect, we don't know all the facts surrounding this, and they will come out.
So, I guess all the cop haters, and anarchist can now proceed to gather their lynch mobs, and Sharpton, and Jackson can make more money with lies and ginned up outrage.
Sad really.
Man I'll say. The video on CBS This Morning did show a taser line, so something happened, but the guy ran away in slow motion and that cop could have easily caught him. He's gone. And YOU KNOW that that video is making all the rounds at police shift meetings.
:doh
Unlike you, I haven't made anything up.
But this is again a great example of you making things up.
You have no idea what was moved or why. That all exists in your own imaginative thoughts.
I have made nothing up, the facts are obvious:
1. the man was not a danger to the officer
2. the officer gunned an unarmed man down in the back with 8 shots fired
The man did something wrong and needs to be prosecuted to the proper extend of the law for his crimes.
:doh
Which you just confirmed in the quote above this one.
That changes things a little. A taser line? If the guy had ahold of the taser still. Would have to watch the video again.
Evidence is irrelevant. Both the prosecution and public defender will strike out neutral jurors or any that have the slightest bias against cops. Once that's done, a unanimous guilty vote is impossible.
My estimate
Not guilty = 25% chance
Mistrial (hung jury) = 70% chance
Guilty = 5% chance
Wasn't a taser line present? That will change the fact pattern. Depending upon who was hit with it. Forensics can determine that. Especially if he was.
There are only a few cases where shooting someone unarmed in the back is acceptable. They are extreme too. And I'm thinking basically the marshals or fbi are the only ones who would likely have a good argument for such an action.
Police Reports from April 3rd, 4th, 5th are unavailable online though reports before and after are available
http://northcharlestonsc.policereports.us/search.html
the reports cost $7.50
Those guys are missing out on some revenue while those records are unavailable.
I know that "impossible to hack" isn't achievable. "Very hard to hack without making it obvious" is do-able and should suffice most of the time, I'd think.
Who is claiming that all cops are murderers?
True.
False.
Cops in states like SC can shoot as many Blacks as they want and face no consequences. The cop in this incident will not be convicted (unless the Feds threaten the police dept. in some fashion). The trial will either end in a full acquittal or mistrial.
Nope.
The moral is don't break the law, no matter who you are.
Evidence is what drives The U.S. legal system.
Both lawyers have a maximum number of challenges that can be made during the voir dire process.
Here ya go, tell me what's the cop doing between the 1:03 and the 1:40 mark btw.
Can't tell. Did Michael j fox film this? I'm also watching on a phone so I can't see. You tell me and can you be certain?
So you are the seer of all trials?
for me....yes
if i am sitting on the jury, and all i know is the 30 second video, then its murder 2......
but maybe, there are mitigating circumstances from before that 30 seconds.....
and maybe that gets the charge down to manslaughter
he is guilty of "something".....i would like to ascertain in my mind what that is......
and what happened before may or may not matter......
does that make sense?
Looks very much like he went back picked up the taser, then dropped it next to him.
He could have burned down an orphanage with everyone in it, that doesn't justify the shooting.
The riots after the hung jury/acquittal are going to be total hell.
it will, and would to those on the jury
the cop is guilty.....the question is....of what?
circumstances have swayed juries before.....
if you dont think what happened before has any meaning, fine
i happen to disagree....it MIGHT have meaning once we know what happened
again....it could be the difference between murder ii and manslaughter
The riots after the hung jury/acquittal are going to be total hell.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?