That the guy was fired says a lot. He very clearly did not do right even by the lights off the usually very protective police community he was part of.
It doesn’t detract from your point entirely, but I don’t think he has been fired. Everything I saw said they were “beginning termination proceedings.” I don’t know about Texas, but in many states the process of terminating a police officer is incredibly burdensome and sometimes initiated and then retracted. Sometimes they try to keep them going even if the officer is acquitted, but often the police union challenges them and they back down.
How do we know that?
He said he ordered her out of the car in order to conduct a safer traffic investigation. How is finding out if she is wasted or crazy not part of a traffic investigation?
Regards,
Shodan
But as has been said a hundred times that is not all he did. For example, he reached into her car and he threatened her (to light her up).
How do you think bout threats of violence, esp. from people a whole lot more powerful than you?
That they have very little to do with a charge of perjury.
Regards,
Shodan
I pointed out to you where he explained in his own words, minutes after the incident, why he asked her out of the car - he felt uncomfortable explaining the ticket/warning by the side of the road. He only said he was conducting a further investigation later when he wrote up his report. What more do you want?
It depends on what happens at trial.
Right now, at this instant, I would vote to acquit.
That’s because right now, at this instant, as a juror I have seen no evidence from either side, and the prosecution has not carried its burden.
So to answer your question meaningfully, you have to tell me what evidence I see, and if I believe it. The video speaks for itself – unless you say there’s some reason to do otherwise, I will probably believe the video is an accurate representation of the events it depicts.
But the trooper’s testimony is unknown. What will he say, and how will he say it, and will I believe him? Will the prosecution fail to prove other elements?
You tell me what I see as a juror, and I’ll tell you how I vote.
Bricker, did you look at the 30:00 mark of the extended video I linked above? (post #1936)
He didn’t tell the whole story of “ordering her out of her car”. It was selective. A juror may infer what they wish, or not, from that.
That’s fair.
You see the video in its entirety. The trooper testifies that in his police report, he mentioned “conducting a safer traffic investigation” to mean not only the "safer"part but also that he was going to continue to observe Bland while explaining the warning. He says his statement to the union rep was not intended to be an exhaustive explanation of every factor involved, but was to explain why he requested Bland to get out of her car.
His attorney cites multiple instances of officers being struck by cars during traffic duty, and challenges the prosecutor to show precedent that a traffic investigation must necessarily end the instant an officer requests a driver to exit her vehicle.
His demeanor is calm but earnest. He sticks to his story during cross-examination.
Regards,
Shodan
You didn’t give the prosecution’s side so Bricker still can’t answer. Or do you think they’ll just play the video and say “we rest our case”?
Does the cross-examination include questions like, “Can you explain why the video shows you seeming to decide to order her out of the car the moment she refuses your second order to extinguish the cigarette?”
What’s his answer? What’s his demeanor during that answer?
And most importantly: do I believe him?
Thats when he begins to sweat profusely, pulling at his neck tie. He answers “Some women you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last year, which is the way she wants it. Well, she gets it. I don’t like it any more than you”.
So how do you vote?
The bailiff may fire when ready.
Lol
It’s people like you that make unbearable for so many. But I’m pretty sure you have never ever done something wrong. I love perfectionists