Garfield–fine.
In this particular event, the cop may have been justified.
All I’m saying is argument from authority is weak
Oh for pete’s sake…DISREGARDING the fact that it was written by a prosecutor and the conclusions he made: It is a report of the events, as told by the witnesses. It contains all of that FACTUAL evidence and cites which I listed in a previous post. In many of the questions before where people said, “read the report,” what they were suggesting had been covered in the report. People weren’t (at least I wasn’t) saying “read the report, it is true because a prosecutor wrote it,” they were saying, “read the report, it contains some evidence which supports my point or doesn’t support yours.”
In the cases where people were saying “It was written by a prosecutor,” I read that as a reason to give more weight to it than to the story of a criminal. In any case, you have to examine the source of your information. The source of the story competing with the report is the statement by witnesses in the Jeep. Witnesses whose stories changed, one of whom has had charges levied against him, who had reasons to falsify their story ranging from retaliation against the cop for killing their friend to avoiding more serious charges being pressed against them. The prosecutor who wrote the report has no dog in the fight, so to speak, unless you can show that he and the officer were drinking buddies or something. I’m not (and I don’t think anyone is) saying “It’s true because a prosecutor wrote it,” I’m saying “If I had to pick between the stories of a witness who has changed his story multiple times and committed a crime and has obvious motives to implicate the cop, and the story of a prosecutor who’s been assigned the case but doesn’t have any connection to it that I’m aware, and who has no other marks against his credibility of which I’m aware…I’m going with the prosecutor, wouldn’t you?”
Forget that it was written by a prosecutor for a minute, and look at the evidence it contains. No one has provided any evidence that the report is flawed in any way, and the report itself offered evidence for the conclusions it has made. The criminals stories changed and they don’t mesh with the evidence. I know who I believe.
So,who is telling the truth in Durham?
Don’t we have an unbiaded DA there?
Considering he was up for election when the whole mess started …
And again, many people believed him UNTIL evidence came out contradicting his story. Why you are conflating the two cases, and your history, I don’t understand. One cop was bad to you, one DA is possibly overprosecuting in Durham, and that calls into question this report? How?
You’re arguing from authority too, you’re just going the opposite way.
I fell out of the habit of reading and posting on these forums for about three months. Well, now am I back and see that this thread is, too.
I don’t have any desire to get into the trenches with some angry criminal who is pissed at the world because a cop busted him.
What I do have a desire to do is simply say that it is good to see justice served in this case. It is nice to see a case where the authorities actually put the time and effort into finding the truth, and did not leave an officer on the line simply to avoid a lawsuit.
Wondered why the place seemed so much more intelligent and civilized lately.
Whatever it was that you were doing for those three months, please return to it.
Hey, Martin Hyde, welcome back. Make sure you take a gander at post 337. I’d hate for you to miss it.
The report has all the testimony of all the witnesses, both right after the accident and afterwards. I assume the later ones were also video-taped. They have witnesses in the van - they clearly are biased as to the outcome of the report. We also have the testimony of the cop - also clearly a biased participant. Finally, we have the testimony of the bystanders - they have no real vested interest in the outcome; if anything one would likely assume that, all things equal, they’d be biased against the cop since they were just involved in an incident with the cop moments before - bad enough that he had to call backup when ‘one of the parties became unruly’ - that would be Mr. Hamm, who stated that he was retained by other officers called to the scene after he cursed at the cop (Officer Stowe).
Note that the testimony of several of the people in the jeep changed from corroborating Stowe’s story (interviewed the night of the accident) to corroborating the driver’s story (some weeks later, with counsel present). The testimony of the bystanders and of Officer Stowe did not materially change - again, this is according to the report, but no doubt the officers in question have their original notes, and i’m pretty sure the later interviews would be videotaped.
The damage done to the jeep and the parked cars is impressive - that jeep was going FAST. Especially in a small parking lot like that.
In cases like this, it’s possible that the cops would circle the wagons, to protect their public image. It is also possible that a high-ranking official would decide to throw a cop under the bus, so to speak, to show he’s ‘tough on corrupt/incompetent cops’ - also an attempt to protect the police force’s public image.
Even after reading the report, people who thought the cop was in the wrong from the get-go will continue to believe the cops are circling the wagon. If, instead, the official had decided to let the cop hang out to dry, they would be saying, ‘see, I told you so’.
They don’t realize that if the cops were indeed just out to ‘protect their image’ that there are a number of different outcomes. Certainly a healthy skepticism is warranted, but it has to be both ways - it can’t be a two-way street.
Gaaah. That should say ‘it can’t be a one-way street’.
Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend…
I read the thread before posting. I don’t respond to every piece of stupidity that has my name in it, but since you’ve put in the extra effort, I have gifted you with this small response.
So, you gotten the ‘concept of heterosexual sex’ straightened out (ha!) yet?
-Joe
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,887
Location:
Send a message via AIM to Garfield226
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamamoocher
So,who is telling the truth in Durham?
Don’t we have an unbiaded DA there?
Considering he was up for election when the whole mess started …
And again, many people believed him UNTIL evidence came out contradicting his story. Why you are conflating the two cases, and your history, I don’t understand. One cop was bad to you, one DA is possibly overprosecuting in Durham, and that calls into question this report? How?
You’re arguing from authority too, you’re just going the opposite way.
I don’t think I am. But whatever.
My point was that the report may not have included any facts that were detrimental to the police version.
I know in my case (see my posts) the police just spun it to the point where I was in disbelief when reading my arrest report.
Someone asked me what problem do I have with any particular fact in the report.
I can’t say, because I don’t know that the report is objective. It’s what the power’s that be said what happened.
Anything to the contrary is left out.
And I’ve experienced personanly.
As I’ve said-- maybe it’s a justifible shoot-but don’t tell me to just read the report