Larry, what I’m objecting to is the cite of the report as the “official version” of what happened.
Not the report itself.
When I’m told I do not understand something because I haven’t read the authority’s report, my BS meter goes off.
It’s like when Christians at my doorstep tell me GOD made the world in a week, and if I just read the Bible, I would accept that truth.
But the report is the official version. It’s by definition the official version. It’s the version that was written by officials. And your comparison to the Bible is disingenous. This is a report made by people who interviewed witnesses and analyzed the forensic evidence before coming to a conclusion.
Again, I can’t rule out by fiat that there may be a cover up. But I can’t rule that out with anything else either. I can’t rule out that the gov’t isn’t covering up a UFO crash in Roswell. But I can ask for credible evidence before believing in a cover up.
It seems to me that there are people who decided Officer Stowe was guilty of misconduct long before the report came out. Nothing is going to convince them otherwise. If the investigation clears the Officer, then the investigation must be tainted. If a futher investigation finds no taint in the original investigation, then that investigation must be tainted as well. And so on and so on. These are the people who remind me of religious fanatics. They’re like the people who, upon hearing of a transitional fossil, go “Well what about the fossil between the first creature and the transitional creature?” If no proof will be accepted, what’s the point of offereing any proof at all?
Well, geez, you shouldn’t. Nor should you believe France exists merely by reading history books or looking at a map. You should really go there yourself to verify its existence. You should sample the soil, talk to the townsfolk, meet with the hierarchy, survey the land and read their ancient scrolls to verify the report that France exists in accordance with history books and maps. But even so, how will you know the pilot actually landed in France? How will you determine the townsfolk and hierarchy aren’t deceiving you? How will you know the soil sample isn’t Germany’s. Fuck, how will you know Germany exists?
Moreover, why should you believe water is a molecule of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, merely because that’s what they told you in chemistry class? A fine report, that first chapter in “Foundations in Chemistry,” by Williams, Williams and Grotewold, to be sure. But I find their “research” self-serving, contrived, completely unpersuasive and laughable. Of course this means I will have to do my own independent verification. No biggie.
I would bet a great deal of money that there are a great many things in this world you take “at face value.” There is good sense in that. You do so because the findings were made by experts who are ethical professionals and have no reason to deceive us. You do so because you have no evidence to the contrary beyond “a feeling” or “an intuition.”—do you? You do so because you have neither the knowledge nor faculties to independently verify every single utterance of fact in the history of the universe.
Of course. You could be lying; and actually believe the report. I don’t know. But I have no evidence to refute your posit; so I’m going to take a risk and believe you. There are a great many things in this world that may be, but aren’t.
Larry—valid points.
In my own experience, there were three people who witnessed my arrest:
myself, my friend, and the arresting officer.
The official version of the incident is what the cop wrote down.
“Forensic” evidence indicated the cop was full of shit.
I couldn’t prove that his emergency lights were on when he pulled me over, although I’m willing to bet most people would agree that a cop would have his lights on during a stop in the middle of the night.
What I could prove, and after the cop described the shoulder of the road in detail, was that there was no shoulder or white line that I could have crossed.
Lawyer (pointing to photo): “Is this the intersection where the arrest took place.”
Cop: “Yes”.
Lawyer: ‘Where is the white line and shoulder that you just described?”
Cop: “ugh…ugh…ugh…ugh”
My problem is with what’s called argument from authority.
Citing a report doesn’t make the facts true.
That’s all I’m saying.
Hey Mince,
Nice to meet you.
I think there is a difference between the establishment of France or water molecules versus a report based on testimony of a guy who may be trying to cover his ass.
And I realize this cop may have done right, but saying “just read the report” isn’t going to convince me.
Skepticism about and careful scrutiny of official reports is a fine thing. It’s not like the gov’t has never misled the people. coughWMDcough. But it has to be based on something more than “I don’t trust them.” It has to be based on a finding of error or ommission in the report itself. The report is public and poster Rick helpfully linked to it back on page 7 of this thread. It’s not a bit of healthy scepticism I object to, not if that scepticism is followed by a critical reading of the report. What I object to is the feeling I get that some people are already convinced that Stowe acted wrongly, and no report will convince them otherwise.
I would note that Aaron Browns family is not poor, and neither are the families of the other kids in the car. I’d be astonished if they haven’t hired their own investigators.
I sympathize with your story, iamamoocher. I’ve been on the wrong end of abusive police behavior myself, though not to the level you experienced. But each case has to be judged on its own. The fact that you were improperly charged has nothing to do with how the officer acted here.
Larry–agreed
I was just pissed about being told to “read the report”, as if that explained it all, and if I didn’t get it–I was obtuse.
It’s a tragic situation all around.
No, the point is “read the report” and then if you have specific questions, post those with evidence supporting your interpretation. If you want to say “but the cop could’ve stopped shooting after the jeep passed!” that’s fine, but you’d better have some reasons why. The prosecutor who wrote the report didn’t just make the assertion that cops can’t stop shooting that quickly, he cited evidence, studies that that was the case. That’s the point.
No…Garfield…my point is that the report, in and of itself, may not be accurate.
So reading it won’t tell me what happened.
It could be true and accurate, but just because someone tells me this doesn’t make it so.
Reading it will give you the evidence as presented to the prosecutor who wrote the report. It summarizes the interviews with all of the witnesses and gives very detailed reports on the condition of the body and of the jeep. It includes photos and diagrams of the parking lot and the positions of cars, and of found bullet casings. It will also give you relevant studies relating to the scenario and the officer’s behavior (such as the one about reaction time in relation to ceasing fire and the one about the speed of a similar jeep through the same parking lot). These are the FACTUAL pieces of evidence reading the report will provide you. Unless you’re suggesting the prosecutor faked the pictures, misquoted the witnesses, falsified the diagrams. Or the coroner deliberately lied in the autopsy report, or the mechanics who examined the jeep lied.
I’ve noticed some disturbing similarities to 9/11 conspiracy theorists and some of the people in this thread.
Official report: It happened this way.
Theorists: Nuh uh!
People believing the official report: Why?
Theorists: Uh, it COULD HAVE happened like this!
People believing the official report: It could have, but what evidence do you have that it did?
Theorists: Uh, EVERYONE KNOWS that (insert whatever here)! The report COULD BE wrong!
People believing the official report: I guess it could be, do you have any evidence that this is the case?
Theorists: Um…it COULD be wrong.
Sigh.
I guess also I should just accept the Durham’s prosecutor’s word while I’m at it.
In that case, the defendants’ lawyers say they have objective factual evidence which calls into question the Durham prosecutor’s stated case. Do you have any objective factual evidence calling into question the report?
Garfield–no I don’t.
My point was not to believe everything you hear that is put out.
The prosecutor in this case is gold; the Durham guy is garbage.
Why believe anything you hear?
Then why are you questioning its being accepted as the truth?
Why disbelieve it, if you have no evidence … or ANYTHING … to the contrary?
My point was not to believe everything you hear that is put out.
The prosecutor in this case is gold; the Durham guy is garbage.
I’m being sarcastic BTW.
Why disbelieve?
Have you read my previous posts?
A cop can say anything and that becomes the official version.
You’re also avoiding a question.
Ignore my previous post.
Do you, or do you not, have evidence that IN THIS CASE the official report is incorrect?
Garfield–no I don’t.
That’s never been my point.
All I’ve been asking is why should accept a report “from authority” without question.
Because no one has provided any evidence to call it into question.