So what? I disagree, obviously, but even if you’re right, so what? It doesn’t provide evidence. So, along with the police officer’s report not providing evidence (in your opinion) about what actually happened, you don’t know what happened. And yet, you are claiming that you do, in fact, know what happened, and that is that they were not justified in shooting him. You need to provide actual evidence to make that claim, not simply claim that the police can’t prove their innocence.
I’m not claiming anything with any certainty about whether or not they (he) were justified in shooting him. I don’t think he was, based on the video, but I’m not absolutely certain.
Based on the evidence, and my understanding of the law, there’s enough evidence to indict them (him) for murder or manslaughter or something comparable, and we’ll see what the investigation and grand jury says.
That’s because, quite frankly, you’re an absolute fucking moron who’s views have no connections with either the law or reality. Kid had a gun. Police approached, he reached for the gun. That is, at the very minimum, a possible interpretation of the video - it’s the only reasonable one in my opinion, but others obviously disagree. It certainly doesn’t show a situation where no-one could reasonably fear that he would shoot them.
And that just proves that you have no connection with reality. You are quite obviously starting with the assumption that the cops went in to kill him, then twisting the facts to fit that view. Your argument would only begin to make sense if the car was silent, and he had no way of knowing they were approaching.
But you know what? If he was pulling a gun on them, they’d have been well within their rights to run him over.
So presumably, based on the evidence you’ve seen, you’d find him not guilty then.
Maybe. But if the DA or Grand Jury conclude that a jury would likely find him not guilty, then it would be wrong to prosecute.
In my opinion, it does show this.
By the way, I don’t think the cops were necessarily intent upon killing him as soon as they got the call, or as soon as they got to the park and saw him from a distance, but I think it’s very possible that the cops behaved in a very negligent (and perhaps criminally negligent) manner, possibly with criminally reckless disregard for life, and this resulted in the boy’s death. I think it’s very possible that training was at least partially to blame, not that this necessarily excuses any possible criminal negligence and recklessness that resulted in the death of a child.
I’m not sure – I’d have to hear the case of the prosecutor, hear the testimony of the accused (if he so chooses) and witnesses, hear/see any other physical evidence, and perhaps see a better or blown up version of the video.
1.Police said that Rice was seated at a table with other people. The video showed that Rice was alone.[39]
What conditions would make this an unintentional falsehood?
Hallucinations of extra people on the part of the cops?
2.Police said that as they pulled up, they saw Rice grab the toy gun and put it in his waistband. This is not supported by the video.[40] Judge Adrine said the video does not show the toy gun in Rice’s hands in the moments immediately before as as the zone car approaches.[6]
What conditions would make this an unintentional falsehood?
Hallucinations on the part of the cops?
3.Police said they got out of the car and told Rice three times to put his hands up but he refused. The video shows Rice being shot before the police car even comes to a halt.[22][41]
What conditions would make this an unintentional falsehood?
Hallucinations on the part of the cops? They thought that they were out of the car when they were actually still inside of it?
I’m talking about if all you have is the currently available evidence. You are speculating that there’s further evidence, and that that will show them to be guilty. This is something that happens far too often in these threads. But if you’re not sure then they are not guilty.
False memories in an extremely stressful situation. Possibly a conflation of what actually happened with what was said on the 911 call.
Do we really have to go over all of that again? It’s neither new nor controversial.
You need more that just proof that what they said was false to prove they were lying. Changes in statements are the most common one, as are particular kinds of inconsistency. And you’ll need that sort of proof if you’re going to prove it was an unlawful killing, I suspect.
But it does contradict the cops.
We don’t have to prove they are lying for them to be guilty. If they are merely mistaken, and the jury believes it was not a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence, they are guilty.
False fucking memories? Jesus, when it looks like there’s nowhere lower for you to go…
There’s no point in arguing anything at all then. The police can say whatever they want and claim false memories post hoc.
Amazing.
So I’m in a trial in which the prosecutor has said nothing, there are no other jury members with which to deliberate, no witnesses have called, no evidence is presented (except a video), there is no judge to confer with, etc…? I wouldn’t participate in such a “trial”. I have no idea what I’d do if forced at gunpoint to participate in such a sham, but whether or not someone else is guilty or not of a crime would be low on my list of things to worry about ('cause, you know, the gun at my head).
As a juror, a finder of fact, you would just jump straight to false memories rather than the simpler explanation?
Can’t really see as where I would be justified as a juror giving any weight to any testimony from someone who is plagued with this sort of a psychological condition.
My point is that any evidence that proves them guilty of murder or manslaughter will prove that they were lying, rather than that proving that they were lying is actually necessary. Otherwise you’ll be trying to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they were mistaken but that no reasonable person could have made those mistakes.
If that’s what you think, why did they shoot him? If not because their experience and training, and the information they had, lead them to believe that he was a threat, then why?
You two fuckwits need to do a lot of research on how memory works, especially in traumatic situations, before you can say things like that. Sadly, so does the justice system as a whole.
None of which changes the fact that it doesn’t actually matter in terms of murder or manslaughter whether or not they were lying. The video clearly shows they had reason to be in fear of being shot, so it really doesn’t matter what they said.
It’s actually interesting that we have hear a case where the police may well have lied, but that doesn’t actually change anything. That should put into perspective all the claims that people have been convicted based solely on a lying police officer.
No, not at all. I’d certainly think they were probably lying, but without proof, my opinion would be that we do not know the facts.
I was asked for a possible, reasonable alternative, and provided one. I also said the sort of things that would be needed to prove lying.
Occam’s Razor is not something that should be used a criminal trials. We should not convict based on what is likely or unlikely.
And what rule did they break?
Here’s the thing. Cops frequently seem to think they can handle a situation with conversation when they are faced with an armed white citizen but consider their lives in danger (in much less dangerous situations) when the citizen is black. I don’t think this is a deliberate attempt by cops to be racist or kill blacks but there is a problem and there has got to be some effort made to eliminate or at least reduce this disparity in how cops treat black people in a way that does not compromise the safety of the officer.
Why are cops so much more on edge when facing a black suspect than when facing a white suspect? I mean how many white kids get blown away by cops because they have a toy gun?