That may be how Steophan views the video, but fortunately for everyone, psychopathy is present in only about 1-2% of the population. His views are not particularly representative of a meaningful portion of the population.
Perhaps, but not necessarily. We haven’t had a trial yet, so we don’t know the entire case the prosecutor will lay out – including potential testimony from other witnesses (like, perhaps, the other officers present, and any other bystanders).
No u.
No such “can’t” exists at this point.
I’m not sure if the shooter had the desire to “hunt and kill a black kid”, but such desire doesn’t necessarily need to be present for a legitimate conviction of murder (or manslaughter).
Obviously, if there’s further evidence, then any opinions should be based on that. But you, and others, are claiming that they can tell guilt from the evidence we have. That is, quite simply, not correct.
As yet, there’s no reason to even think there will be a trial. No decision has been made whether there’s enough evidence to present to a grand jury, let alone to a court.
Yes, it does. The evidence available is not sufficient to support a conviction. No-one can watch the video and be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are guilty - and claiming so means you are either lying or not reasonable.
Or in the case of Dibble, no doubt both.
No I’m not. My opinion is that there appears to be enough evidence for a trial, based on my understanding. This is my understanding of what the law requires to indict for a trial: sufficient evidence that a reasonable person would see it likely to suspect the accused of having committed the felony based on the evidence at hand. Note that this says nothing about “reasonable doubt”, only about evidence sufficient to “suspect”.
The video to me seems to be more than enough to suspect that the shooter may have committed a felony.
If this is all you’re claiming, then it’s a trivial claim – I’m not ready to convict the shooter of murder based on the video. But your “can’t” suggests that no such evidence could ever exist, which is obviously false, since no trial has occurred and the prosecutor has made no public case in its entirety.
Steophan is claiming that they couldn’t even be guilty of involuntary, negligent or reckless homicide.
It’s a pretty stunning position to take in advance of a trial and apparently based on a video. But then again, as he has taken pains to note, Tamir was large for a 12 year old black kid. So there’s that.
And The Innocence Project has shown that some of those people have been telling the truth. Or don’t you believe in that DNA stuff?
And where is this evidence besides the video?
The morgue.
That’s the legal requirement for a trial. There’s also an ethical requirement to only prosecute a case that’s likely to be won, and as yet there’s no evidence in public that suggests it would be.
Your view seems to be that other incriminating evidence must exist - why is that?
Certainly not based on the evidence we have, no.
So, you are claiming that, based on the video, we know beyond reasonable doubt that Rice was illegally killed? Because, if you don’t think that, then you must agree with me that they are not guilty, based on the actual evidence.
No, it doesn’t. It means that they cannot be found guilty based on the evidence we have now, because it is not sufficient to prove guilt. As yet, because the prosecutor has not proceeded with the case, we have no reason to think there is further evidence.
The current argument for guilt boils down to “he shot a kid, and lied about what happened, therefore he’s guilty”. That’s unacceptable, legally or morally.
You seem to be saying that I must choose between knowing beyond reasonable doubt based on the video alone that they are guilty or agreeing with you that they are not guilty.
Unsurprisingly coming from you, that’s fucking stupid and logically nonsensical. As it turns out, based on the video, I strongly believe that they are criminally culpable. I would need to be instructed on various elements of criminal definitions in Ohio. However, the video disproves essentially every one of their claims, and demonstrates that they gave no opportunity for Tamir to comply with any command whatsoever, even if they shouted one while jumping from the car.
Yeah, now that I think about it, actually I would say that based on the video alone, one could not have a reasonable doubt that their behavior was criminal.
Actually, that seems just fine, legally and morally. You can’t lie. That’s both morally, and often legally, not okay. You also can’t just shoot people, except under very particular circumstances. Morally, that’s fine too. Legally, it’s a matter of those particular circumstances.
But line up 100 people and give them just your nutshell description and see what people say.
You’re stating your opinion on this, but it’s not a fact. Prosecutors may or may not believe that they have enough evidence to win.
I haven’t said this, only that there is other evidence of some sort that points to some outcome (guilty or not guilty) – witness testimony, physical evidence, etc. I think there’s more than enough evidence for a trial in the public sphere, and possibly enough to win a guilty verdict for manslaughter or negligent homicide (or maybe even murder), and any potential trial will have additional evidence which will point one way or the other.
Legally, you still have to convince a jury that the argument for guilt boils down to “he shot a kid, and lied about what happened, therefore he’s guilty”.
Of course there is further evidence – there is another cop, various bystanders, physical evidence, etc. We’ll probably find out in what direction this points to in the future.
That’s not really the “current argument”, and I’m not arguing that he should be convicted immediately. My current argument is that there appears to be enough evidence in that video to suspect the shooter behaved criminally, and he should face trial. I’m not sure if the indictment should be for manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder, or something else; IANAL.
Convincing a jury would involve all the evidence, including the video evidence.