The video does not show this.
Bullshit. Even if we grant some kind of ex post facto immunity to these particular officers, examining the circumstances that led to the bad result is worthwhile if it leads to changes in law or policy to reduce the occurrences of similar bad results in future.
Yep, and I think that has a lot to do with whether their actions can be considered reasonable. Add to that the fact that Tamir Rice was large for a 12 year old, and it seems clear why they thought the threat existed.
It shows someone that the police were told was carrying a gun reaching for that object as they approach him. To say that no reasonable person could have feared that he was about to shoot them in that circumstance is absolutely absurd. It’s literally not believable that you don’t see that.
So, either you don’t think they had a right to defend themselves in that situation, or you think they should be punished despite having that right.
They do not have a right to defend themselves when no reasonable threat exists.
The video shows no such fucking thing. It only appears like he is reaching for a gun if that’s what you want to see.
You ought to try to figure out why you want to see that. You might make yourself into a better person. Trust me, I won’t hold my breath.
No it doesn’t. It might have shown that Rice’s hand was sort of in the vicinity of his waist, but that’s it, and it might not even have shown this. The frame-rate is terrible and the quality is very grainy.
It’s “literally not believable” that you think the video totally exonerates the cops, or that it shows anything definitive about what Rice did at the time he was shot.
No, my eyes just apparently see different things in that video than yours do.
Iirc.
The juror is a finder of fact–the person who must make decisions about what happened.
The juror is obligated to find that the cops are lying if that is how it appears to the juror.
Why would a grown gunman be hanging around a playground?
Is this one of those modern trends I have missed out on?
The specifics of “that situation” aren’t as clear as you suggest.
The hell I would.
No, I weighed the video evidence. I just didn’t do it with a policeman’s cock and balls blocking my field of vision.
I have never had a “negative encounter” with the police that wasn’t my fault.
Not everyone is you. Other people have had different experiences.
Swingsets be gangsta, dawg.
I’m sure people have had negative encounters with the police that they claim weren’t their fault. Every single prison in this country is full of people who’ll tell you they were completely innocent.
It may be helpful to remember that you are talking to someone who is EXTREMELY abberant in terms of empathy and perspective-taking.
And hell will be full of cops who’ll say they acted in self defense.
So find that they are lying, and ignore their statements when evaluating the evidence. But that’s all you get to do, you don’t get to assume any other facts apart from that they were lying.
So, go solely by the video. Which does not show, beyond reasonable doubt, that they unlawfully killed Rice.
So, reasonable doubt for the cop’s guilt.
Nothing definitive, so reasonable doubt.
It’s not your eyes that are the problem, it’s your ability to reason from what you’ve seen.
If you actually believed in justice, you would acquit someone that can’t be proven guilty. That you would refuse to do that shows you believe in no such thing.
You have assumed from the start that these cops went out to hunt and kill a black kid, and refuse any evidence or argument that shows that view to be ridiculous.
Oh and hey, love the return of the homophobia. I’m able to tear my thoughts away from lovely cocks and balls to see straight occasionally, perhaps you should try moving that enormous chip on your shoulder that prevents you from seeing that cops and white people aren’t out to get you, or black people.