Ok, so you don’t believe in the right to self defence. Fortunately, the law disagrees with you.
You’re inventing your own facts and your own rules to try to claim he’s guilty of something. It’s something that seems very common here in self defence cases, and I’m at a loss to understand why. The only thing I can think is that your worldview is so simplistic that you think that any time someone’s killed, someone must be responsible, and must be punished.
It won’t get anywhere near a jury if that’s all the prosecution has. In the unlikely event the prosecutor went ahead with the case, the judge would throw it out.
For some reason it seems very difficult for you to accept that, for many of us, that video refutes any reasonable legal case for self-defense on behalf of the shooter.
We all believe in the right to self-defense, and many of us feel that the video appears to refute the claims of the shooter that it was self-defense.
If the evidence doesn’t exist, or doesn’t point to guilt, there’s no reason we’d find out anything more. It’s possible that, like in the Michael Brown case, it will all be made public, and if it is I’m sure people will complain about that too…
Are you deliberately ignoring the amount of evidence needed for a trial? You need a lot more than suspicion. You need probable cause to even make it legal, and you need a strong likelihood of conviction to make it ethical.
We’ll see.
I already stated my understanding of the evidence needed for a trial (IANAL) – 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. I think the video is more than sufficient to meet this criteria. If you are asserting that there is a legal requirement for more than this for a trial, then I’ll ask for a cite.
Yes, of course I don’t accept that a video which appears to show someone shooting someone who’s reaching for a gun refutes self defence. No reasonable person could watch that video and think it refutes that.
Your feelings, to put it very bluntly, are entirely fucking irrelevant. The only feelings that matter are those of the shooter, and whether they were reasonable. Based on the video, they may have been.
Do you genuinely not accept that if you see someone you have reason to believe is armed reaching for that weapon as you approach, it’s reasonable to fear they’re going to shoot you?
The video doesn’t show someone reaching for a gun. It may show someone with one hand sort of near their waist (though I’m not even sure about this).
In my mind, no reasonable person could watch that video and think it shows someone reaching for a gun.
This entire discussion is only based on our feelings with regards to this video and how it relates to our understanding of the law. Based on the video, from my eyes, any fear of death on the part of the shooter was not reasonable.
I totally agree that “if you see someone you have reason to believe is armed reaching for that weapon as you approach, it’s reasonable to fear they’re going to shoot you”. The video doesn’t show this.
So we’re just arguing about what we see in the video.
Probable cause, as I’ve repeatedly said, is the standard, not reasonable suspicion.
From here.
This is an issue that’s been cited many, many times on this board, and isn’t really a matter for debate.
We are discussing evidence required for a trial, not to issue an arrest warrant.
But I’ll note that even by this level of evidence, the video is sufficient to provide “that it is more probable than not that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed that crime”.
You still have it backwards, and I don’t know why you have so much trouble accepting it. The video doesn’t prove he was not a threat. So, it can’t be used to convict them. That’s it, that’s all that matters.
If you watch the video and can’t tell what’s happening, you cannot claim it shows he wasn’t a threat.
No, it’s not based on feelings. It’s based on facts. You’ve just admitted that you can’t actually tell what the video shows, and yet you still claim it’s evidence that he wasn’t a threat. More proof that you’ve decided that the cop is guilty already, and are twisting the evidence to fit that.
No-one could watch that video and say beyond reasonable doubt he wasn’t reaching for the (replica) gun. No-one. You effectively admitted that earlier in your post.
No, we most emphatically are not. We are arguing about your (and others) continued refusal to accept that, both morally and legally, you need to prove someone has committed a crime, they do not have to prove their innocence.
You still don’t get what I’m saying. Maybe it’s my fault – I’ll clarify: I’m saying that, at most, the video shows a hand near the waist. It definitely doesn’t show him reaching for his gun. Definitely absolutely there is no gun-reaching in that video.
Nope. See above. The video definitely shows no threatening behavior by the kid. Beyond a reasonable doubt, there is nothing in the video that indicates a reasonable fear for one’s life.
But that doesn’t mean necessarily that the shooter is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, because the video is of low quality and may not have portrayed everything that actually happened (e.g. the kid might have reached for his toy between frames or something) – that’s why I’m not certain that the video is enough to convict him of murder. But it’s definitely enough to indict, based on any standard up to “probable cause”, by my eyes and my understanding.
Again, I watched the video multiple times and can say beyond reasonable doubt that the video doesn’t portray the child reaching for his gun.
Maybe he was reaching for his gun, but the video absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, does not show this.
Nope, we’re not arguing about that. We’re arguing about the video. Beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not show the child reaching for a gun. Beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not show anything that would reasonably cause the cops to fear for their life.
What? You do understand that you have to arrest someone prior to trying them, yes? Or is that another arcane legal procedure that’s somehow beyond you?
How is it that you have participated in all these threads and yet have no idea how evidence and burden of proof works? No, it doesn’t. The video alone doesn’t do that.
It shows a cop shooting someone he believes to be armed, and you have claimed the video doesn’t show whether or not he was a threat. How does that make it probable that is was a crime? It means it warrants further investigation, that’s all.
Investigation that has, as yet, not found enough evidence to proceed to a grand jury it’s worth noting.
Those are still two different things, but I’ll concede the point because it’s irrelevant to our larger disagreement (and in any case, I think my understanding had the same level of evidence required, just using different words).
Says you, and your eyes. Your eyes are wrong (in my view).
In fact I think there is clearly nothing threatening in the video on the part of Rice. But I’m fine with further investigation. From my understanding there’s enough to indict as is, but I’m fine with the prosecutor gathering more information.
We don’t know that – they may have enough but are putting it all together, crossing t’s and dotting i’s, or finalizing their case, or any number of other things. We’ll see.
I don’t think you understand what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means. I’ve just watched the video again, just to check, and I simply don’t get how it proves he’s not a threat, how it proves he wasn’t reaching for the gun. It’s low frame rate, yes, but you can see where his hands are.
The video does not refute the claim “Tamir Rice was reaching for his gun when he was shot”.
Then you didn’t fully read what I said. I’m not positive the video is enough to prove murder “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
But I am positive “beyond a reasonable doubt” (used to indicate my lack of doubt, not necessarily as a legal phrase in this sentence) that there is no gun-reaching in that video, and that there is no reasonable cause for fear for one’s life in that video, and that the video proves that the shooter made multiple false statements about the shooting.
Enough for probable cause for a trial, by my understanding, if not necessarily enough on its own to convict for murder (though I think it might be enough “beyond a reasonable doubt” to convict of manslaughter, negligent homicide, or something comparable), whether or not the prosecutor is still investigating.
I’ll try once more. Do you think the video proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not reaching for the gun when he was shot?
Interestingly, Judge Ronald Adrine asserted “that Officer Timothy Loehmann should be charged with several crimes, the most serious of them being murder but also including involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, negligent homicide and dereliction of duty. Adrine also found probable cause to charge another officer, Frank Garmback [the driver], with negligent homicide and dereliction of duty.”
I agree with Judge Ronald Adrine that there is probable cause to charge the shooter “with several crimes, the most serious of them being murder but also including involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, negligent homicide and dereliction of duty”.
“Why did you shoot that guy?”
“It wasn’t me, it was a leprechaun.”
“But there’s video of you shooting him.”
“Oh, so the video proves there are no leprechauns?”
That has nothing to do with the question I asked, as I’m sure you’re aware, and just proves that you’ll continue to dodge it.