# What a lovely bunch of statists we have here (hi Steophan!) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2017, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730 "2017-07-20T16:51:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/1 "2017-07-20T16:51:07Z")
I think the “[Why are Police so quick to Kill](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=827320)” thread is kind of a special beast. This is a thread where **Shodan** is the smart and reasonable person arguing on the minority side of the issue. Okay, that’s not quite fair - implying that his posts are smarter and more reasonable than **Steophan** ’s or **Hocus Pocus** ’s would be damning with _very_ faint praise, and he really is all right in that thread. And those guys are not. Let’s just start with the big one. Talking about [this article](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/the-police-killed-my-unarmed-son-in-2012-im-still-waiting-for-justice.html): > [@Why are police so quick to kill?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/269): > > Another case where the article makes clear that there was no case to answer. It went to a Grand Jury twice, and there was no grounds for a trial. Justice, despite the claims of the mother in the article, has happened. What hasn’t happened is what she actually wants, unjustified revenge for the unfortunate but non-criminal killing of her son. > > It’s fully understandable that she wants that. What is _not_ understandable or acceptable is that other people, free of emotion and in possession of the facts, should want that. \*\*Your hard-on for punishing cops for perceived (but not actual) crimes puts you at the same moral level as a 1930s redneck who liked lynching niggers for perceived insults. > > Actually no, you are worse. The victims of lynching were simply neutral, trying to live their lives. You want to punish those who are risking their lives to make your life, and everyone else’s, better and safer, because you refuse to look at the actual facts and events that have happened. That’s inexcusable\*\*. This inspired me to make this thread, because… _wow_. I honestly don’t remember the last time I saw an analogy that piss-poor and offensive. Yeah, claiming that juries got certain high-profile police brutality cases wrong is worse than wanting to lynch black people. What the fuck is wrong with you? What even the fuck is wrong with you?! Of course, this is just the latest helping of shit sandwich delivered in that thread. These two statists, **Steophan** and **Hocus Pocus** , are some combination of dishonest and incredibly dumb. Here are some other gems from that thread: > [@Why are police so quick to kill?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/192): > > None of them were murdered. In two cases there were trials that determined that, and in the case of Rice there was not enough evidence to go to trial. When pressed on this, **Steophan** has this to say: > [@Why are police so quick to kill?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/212): > > My opinion is irrelevant. I _know_, not think, that the juries decided the cops were not guilty. So, the videos cannot, as a matter of fact, show that they killed for no good reason, otherwise they would be in prison. > > You are looking at the videos and thinking that because it shows something that _might_ be a killing without good reason, it _must_ be such a killing. That’s not how the law, or for that matter logic, works. > [@Why are police so quick to kill?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/219): > > Nope, that’s not how this works. The jury found reason to doubt their guilt, that’s not something they _can_ be wrong about. It is quite literally meaningless to say they were wrong. > > […] > > No, appealing to the jury is the _only_ way to determine it, as they are the ones who determine what the facts of the case are. Factually, the videos do not prove murder (or at present, any other crime). You are provably wrong here, and no amount of claiming otherwise will change that, any more than claiming black is white will change anything. > > You could, if you feel that the law is wrong and that such killings should not in future be justified campaign to change the law. Hopefully you will fail, as the right to self defence and the right to presumption of innocence are more important than your desire to get vengeance on the police for not doing their job exactly the way you would like them to. Yeah. Apparently juries are infallible conveyors of justice, and mere video evidence cannot stand up to their opinions. In hindsight, I should have taken this chance to say, “you’re crazy, I’m not debating you any more”. But I have this disturbing affinity for brick walls, so… In any case, I explained to him at length that his definition of “murder” made him look, shall we say, like **Bricker** , if **Bricker** ’s already bizarre “can’t-turn-off-lawyer-mode” tendencies were turned up to 11 by someone without even half the damn brain. And what happens just two pages later? Referring to the murder (yes, _murder_) of Terence Crutcher and Philando Castile: > [@Why are police so quick to kill?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/268): > > You know well by now that that’s not what happened. No murders were excused, killings were thoroughly investigated and found not to be murder. That is what happened in practice, what you are describing only happened in your fevered imagination. > > Action against them shouldn’t be based on number of complaints. It should be taken if the complaints are investigated and found to be legitimate. > > You, and others in this thread, have shown that cops sometimes lie. Why is it so hard for you to understand that other people sometimes lie - especially if those people are criminals being arrested. You don’t trust cops, I get that. But it’s silly to trust them less than career criminals. [My reaction in three seconds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgGZOYJ3MPI). Hey asshole, pretending to be a lawyer who _insists_ that it couldn’t possibly have been murder because the jury didn’t convict them _does not do you any favors_. It just makes you look like an asshole. Everyone else knows what I’m talking about. Everyone else understands that sometimes, between the juries and the law, shit gets fucked up and people who committed murder don’t get convicted of murder. Everyone else understands that in those cases, _it’s still murder_. You’re just being a disagreeable fanboy _moron_ for some utterly mystifying reason. Also, shoutouts to the other moron in the thread, **Hocus Pocus**. Looking back, I notice that Steophan lowered the bar another few precious meters, and I can’t recall what got me quite so pissed at him at the time, so let’s just quote this: > [@Why are police so quick to kill?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/220): > > BPC; > Let us know when other witnesses are subject to background investigations, including going back to a person’s childhood to receive the same level of credibility as that of a police officer. > > Let us know when other witnesses have undergone polygraph examinations to receive the same level of credibility as that of a police officer. > > Let us know when other witnesses have had to go through psychological testing & an intereview to receive the same level of credibility as that of a police officer. > > The extra credibility that officers are given isn’t just given. It was earned. and this: > [@Why are police so quick to kill?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/208): > > I wouldn’t call it a “fucking asinine reaction.” - Officer Miosotis Familia and this: > [@Why are police so quick to kill?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/6): > > Don’t want to get shot by the police? Obey their commands. Whether a person can continue to present a threat to the officers & the public isn’t up for debate. Comply with the officers’ orders & you won’t get shot. And leave it at that. 🙂 And on a side note, having read that third quote: _I REMEMBER NOW_. Yeesh. Jesus, what a clusterfuck of a thread. **Smapti** , all is forgiven. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/2 "2017-07-20T17:36:13Z")
It’s quite ironic that **Steophan** ’s arguments could well have applied to many lynchings, some of which were implicitly or explicitly (often with full force of law and some semblence of due process) endorsed and supported by the local authorities at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/3 "2017-07-20T18:32:32Z")
The only thing worse than bad cops are bad cops who reflexively defend and support bad cops. I don’t know how they think they’re making good cases or how they’re not basically smearing all cops as being as horrible as they are. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/4 "2017-07-20T18:33:28Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > The only thing worse than bad cops are bad cops who reflexively defend and support bad cops. I don’t know how they think they’re making good cases or how they’re not basically smearing all cops as being as horrible as they are. Those two are cops? I mean, I wouldn’t be surprised, but man, that’s scary. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/5 "2017-07-20T18:48:58Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I think the “[Why are Police so quick to Kill](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=827320)” thread is kind of a special beast. This is a thread where **Shodan** is the smart and reasonable person arguing on the minority side of the issue. Okay, that’s not quite fair - implying that his posts are smarter and more reasonable than **Steophan** ’s or **Hocus Pocus** ’s would be damning with _very_ faint praise, and he really is all right in that thread. You had me at Hello, you smooth-talking sonofagun. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/6 "2017-07-20T19:06:21Z")
I too am outraged at this outrage. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/7 "2017-07-20T19:45:39Z")
I saw someone being called a statist and just assumed it was going to be **WillFarnaby** getting indignant that someone likes public schools. Boy was I wrong. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/8 "2017-07-20T22:34:57Z")
Yes this is all very confusing. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/9 "2017-07-20T22:39:09Z")
If you don’t have faith in the jury system to decide guilt and innocence, then yes, you _are_ advocating for mob justice where we get to toss out the rule of law and lynch people because “everyone knows they deserve it”. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/10 "2017-07-20T22:50:57Z")
I endorse this Pitting. I browse the threads about unnecessary police force and am astounded at the red-necks endorsing extrajuridical murders. I don’t try to rate them, or put them on Ignore — when I chance on one of their posts I get to earn a cheap thrill (“Oooh! there’s a piece of shit; happy I didn’t step on it in real life!”) — but **Steophan** being the 1st or 2nd most egregious does ring a bell. One poster I do have to double-click to see, and did given OP’s praise. > [@Shodan](#): > > You had me at Hello, you smooth-talking sonofagun. > > Regards, > Shodan Yeah, you’re not so bad, **Shodan**!! When are we going to have that Go game? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/11 "2017-07-21T04:10:24Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If you don’t have faith in the jury system to decide guilt and innocence, then yes, you _are_ advocating for mob justice where we get to toss out the rule of law and lynch people because “everyone knows they deserve it”. I think the jury system (and more commonly the grand jury system) fails in the case of cops. If the Michael Slager mistrial doesn’t convince people of that, I doubt anything ever will. How many people do you know who can dodge a murder charge when video surfaces of them coolly pulling a pistol and shooting a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back, then trying to cover up their crime by planting evidence on the suspect? How much more evidence will it take to convict a crooked cop of murder? Do we literally need a signed confession in the form of a vlog by the cop saying, “Ooh, I’m looking forward to killing again today!”? The jury clearly and obviously failed in the Michael Slager case. It seems like it might have failed in a handful of others. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/12 "2017-07-21T04:29:28Z")
And perhaps more importantly, it’s _entirely_ possible to accept the validity and importance of the jury system while admitting that a random group of 14 civvies, who may or may not have any understanding of the law beforehand, can _get things wrong_. It’s particularly easy to make that statement in light of video evidence. Let’s please not pretend that rejecting a clearly flawed result of an imperfect system (_seriously_, holy fucking shit guys, _they couldn’t convict Michael Slager_) means a demand for a “return to mob rule”, or even a rejection of said flawed system as a whole. I don’t think all of science should be thrown out, but I do think The Lancet was wrong to publish that Wakefield paper. Similarly, I don’t think the jury system should be thrown out, but I think it’s pretty fucking obvious that the jury that failed to convict Michael Slager _fucked up_ - and that it’s debatable that the ones covering the Castile and Crutcher killings did the same. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/13 "2017-07-21T04:32:38Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I think the jury system (and more commonly the grand jury system) fails in the case of cops. If the Michael Slager mistrial doesn’t convince people of that, I doubt anything ever will. How many people do you know who can dodge a murder charge when video surfaces of them coolly pulling a pistol and shooting a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back, then trying to cover up their crime by planting evidence on the suspect? How much more evidence will it take to convict a crooked cop of murder? Do we literally need a signed confession in the form of a vlog by the cop saying, “Ooh, I’m looking forward to killing again today!”? The jury clearly and obviously failed in the Michael Slager case. It seems like it might have failed in a handful of others. Would you say you have a good understanding of the elements of the charges against Slager, and how the evidence addressed each of those elements? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/14 "2017-07-21T04:42:52Z")
No “specifically”? Who are you, and what have you done with **Bricker**? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/15 "2017-07-21T06:11:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Would you say you have a good understanding of the elements of the charges against Slager, and how the evidence addressed each of those elements? IANAL. My understanding is not great. That said, the charge was murder, and I (and _every member of that jury_) watched a cop shoot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back, then try to plant evidence to exonorate himself. If the law means that this man cannot be convicted on charges of murder for those actions, the law is utterly broken and should be changed. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/16 "2017-07-21T11:20:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No “specifically”? Not trotting it out now makes room for a free bonus round of quibbling. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/17 "2017-07-21T12:04:25Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Not trotting it out now makes room for a free bonus round of quibbling. You wanna bet? Because he does. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/18 "2017-07-21T12:16:31Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If you don’t have faith in the jury system to decide guilt and innocence, then yes, you _are_ advocating for mob justice where we get to toss out the rule of law and lynch people because “everyone knows they deserve it”. Bullshit. I don’t have faith, period; I consider faith to be an intellectual failing. Juries generally do their best to decide guilt (not innocence), but of course there are all sorts of ways the system can fuck up. You want examples? Consider how few lynch mob participants were ever convicted (answer: almost zero). Consider how often black men during Jim Crow were convicted of trumped-up charges. Consider cases in which police extracted false confessions in cases overturned on appeal–not all such cases went to trial, but some have. You’re setting up an inane false dichotomy: either I have “faith” in the jury system, treating it like the loas are riding the bodies of the jurors and imparting divine guidance, or I want mob justice. No. There’s a third way, which is that I generally think the jury process is a decent mediator between police and judge, but it’s a flawed process that will sometimes make mistakes. I don’t know of a better process, but that doesn’t mean this one is perfect. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/19 "2017-07-21T12:47:17Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Bullshit. I don’t have faith, period; I consider faith to be an intellectual failing. Juries generally do their best to decide guilt (not innocence), but of course there are all sorts of ways the system can fuck up. You want examples? Consider how few lynch mob participants were ever convicted (answer: almost zero). Consider how often black men during Jim Crow were convicted of trumped-up charges. Consider cases in which police extracted false confessions in cases overturned on appeal–not all such cases went to trial, but some have. > > You’re setting up an inane false dichotomy: either I have “faith” in the jury system, treating it like the loas are riding the bodies of the jurors and imparting divine guidance, or I want mob justice. No. There’s a third way, which is that I generally think the jury process is a decent mediator between police and judge, but it’s a flawed process that will sometimes make mistakes. I don’t know of a better process, but that doesn’t mean this one is perfect. IMHO, it is not the jury that is the problem, it is a lack of zealous representation of the state on the behalf of the victims. The jury can only make a determination based on the evidence presented them, along with the instructions they are given. It is my very firm opinion that it is hard for one to properly prosecute one’s friends. If I had to try to convince people that my friend was a horrible human being that went out and murdered and planted evidence to cover it up, I could not do so with the conviction that I should have. It is human nature. Even if they believe in the principle of the matter, a prosecutor is still likely to pull his punches when it comes to his buddies in blue. If the prosecution seems in doubt as to the guilt of the accused, how is the jury going to overcome a reasonable doubt themselves? If the prosecution lets the defense get away with lines of questioning that they would normally shut down, if they allow evidence that they would normally object to, if they are simply lackluster in presenting their arguments to the jury, then they are not representing the state on the behalf of the victims appropriately. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730/20 "2017-07-21T14:10:06Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > IANAL. My understanding is not great. That said, the charge was murder, and I (and _every member of that jury_) watched a cop shoot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back, then try to plant evidence to exonorate himself. If the law means that this man cannot be convicted on charges of murder for those actions, the law is utterly broken and should be changed. OK. Let’s discuss the attempt to plant evidence to exonerate himself. How does that relate to the crime of murder? The victim is dead already. Planting the evidence does not make him deader. If he did not plant the evidence, would he NOT be guilty of murder? In your understanding, how is the planting of evidence related to the charge of murder? The point I’m trying to illustrate is that while both you and the jury watched the video, the members of the jury were also instructed, in detail, about each and every element of the crimes charged, and told in detail what facts they needed to find as true in order to return a conviction. I am NOT saying that the evidence was insufficient to do that. But it’s not as blatantly uncontroversial as you seem to suggest. The members of the jury also heard the officer testify; you did not. Is it possible that if you heard the officer’s testimony, you’d believe he was telling the truth about his perceptions of the events? In other words, it seems to me you’re saying that the tape, alone, provides incontrovertible evidence of guilt. But that’s not correct. It provides strong evidence of guilt, to be sure, but the jury considered other evidence, other testimony. In re-reading what I wrote above, it might seem I’m suggesting the jury unambiguously returned the “right,” answer, and I am not. I’m merely pointing out that a reasonable jury might well reach different answers, and that’s a feature, not a bug. We let guilty people go because we can’t convince twelve citizens of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even then, sometimes innocent people are convicted. But the bar is set that high on purpose. Before we imprison someone, we force the government to show extremely strong evidence of guilt. If the government’s proof can convince only a subset of those twelve people, then we force 'em to do it again before imposing jail. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-a-lovely-bunch-of-statists-we-have-here-hi-steophan/791730.md?page=2)