There is no conviction

[Salty]

Ref the cop that shot the black man.
A family member seems to be upset that an arrest is not sufficient. He is demaning a conviction of the cop.

If he is guility - YES- CONVICT HIM!.
But in this country we do have due process of law!
This cop is Presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I'm sure this family member would want the same, if he were arrested for a crime.

Couple of other things about that video.
1) why is the photographer not naming himself.
2) What happen before the video was taken


Disclaimer - I am not trying to say the cop is innocent - I simply want ALL the facts.

 

[Use of Time]

Ref the cop that shot the black man.
A family member seems to be upset that an arrest is not sufficient. He is demaning a conviction of the cop.

If he is guility - YES- CONVICT HIM!.
But in this country we do have due process of law!
This cop is Presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I'm sure this family member would want the same, if he were arrested for a crime.

Couple of other things about that video.
1) why is the photographer not naming himself.
2) What happen before the video was taken


Disclaimer - I am not trying to say the cop is innocent - I simply want ALL the facts.

eh, family members are obviously emotional and rightfully so about this. It's more than just a message board topic to them so they aren't going to calmly discuss things like Due Process.

I think it's a no brainer why the camera guy doesn't want his name out there, at least not yet. Haven't seen the video but the headline pictures I keep seeing show him fairly close. Kind of bold to film that. The police department pretty much circled the wagons and this guy throws a wrench into that with contradicting video. Not a very safe position to be in.

 

[Zaac]

Ref the cop that shot the black man.

If not for the other story, you'd have to be a bit more specific seeing as there have been so many.

A family member seems to be upset that an arrest is not sufficient. He is demaning a conviction of the cop.

I think this is from a combination of a lack of understanding of how due process works and reality. In talking with a lot of people, an arrest if you're Black has almost become synonymous with you're gonna be convicted and placed in prison. And given that an overwhelming number of people in the prison population are Blacks, I can't fault them for assuming that.

When you're used to seeing a crime committed and the person who looks like you gets hauled off to jail and in a very short span goes to prison, it's easy to confuse how the process works.

Couple of other things about that video.
1) why is the photographer not naming himself.

You SERIOUSLY are asking that question?

2) What happen before the video was taken

Who knows? Would that change the facts that the video has shown?

 

[Salty]

Who knows? Would that change the facts that the video has shown?

just suppose prior to the video being shot, that the man running had fired at the cop.

Then that would put a whole different light on it.-

Again as I have stated before - let ALL the facts come out.

 

[Rolfe]

Couple of other things about that video.
1) why is the photographer not naming himself.
2) What happen before the video was taken

To point #1. I think that the correct word to use would be 'Duh".

To point #2. What does it matter? He was fleeing, not posing a threat to the officer. Disobeying the (presumed) order to stop does not justify the officer's use of deadly force.

 

[Rolfe]

just suppose prior to the video being shot, that the man running had fired at the cop.

I think that you are grabbing at a straw.

 

[Baptist Believer]

just suppose prior to the video being shot, that the man running had fired at the cop.

Then that would put a whole different light on it.

Not really.

Retribution is not an excuse for deadly force.

If the man put the officer or another innocent in immanent jeopardy, then deadly force would be justified.

That's one of the things they hammer into you when training about the use of deadly force.

 

[Zaac]

just suppose prior to the video being shot, that the man running had fired at the cop.

Just suppose a unicorn ran through the recording. That also would have put a whole new light on things.

Then that would put a whole different light on it.-

Again as I have stated before - let ALL the facts come out.

More facts can come out all they want. The man was shot in the back while running away from the officer. There is no fact that can justify him shooting a fleeing man who is representing no harm to him.

 

[ShagNappy]

just suppose prior to the video being shot, that the man running had fired at the cop.

Then that would put a whole different light on it.-

Yeah. That's it. That's why the taser leads were hanging from the guy and the cops gun wasn't drawn. Cuz it was a big ole shootout! Them there black fellers are gettin' crafty!

Again as I have stated before - let ALL the facts come out.

Yeah, because the video, the false report, the fact the guy is charged with murder, and has been fired for his actions are weak and flimsy, right?

 

[Salty]

I think that you are grabbing at a straw.

Basically I agree with you.

Not really.

If the man put the officer or another innocent in immanent jeopardy, then deadly force would be justified. ...

Key word IF

Yeah, because the video, the false report, the fact the guy is charged with murder, and has been fired for his actions are weak and flimsy, right?

Appears so

Bottom line - if you were the accused - would you want me to be on the jury - or would you want someone who has already made up their mind?

 

[ShagNappy]

Bottom line - if you were the accused - would you want me to be on the jury - or would you want someone who has already made up their mind?

There is a difference between not making up your mind and being gloriously, and intentionally obtuse about the already public, and very visible evidence. Have you watched the entire 3+ minute video? The police have stated he didn't have a weapon meaning he didn't shoot at anyone. The accusation was that he took the officers stun gun from him. The video clearly shows the officer go back and get the tazer and then drop it beside the body of the victim.

Honestly, I don't think I would want you on a jury judging me as you have a long history of being willfully obtuse to support your obvious agenda.

 

[Salty]

There is a difference between not making up your mind and being gloriously, and intentionally obtuse about the already public, and very visible evidence. Have you watched the entire 3+ minute video? The police have stated he didn't have a weapon meaning he didn't shoot at anyone. The accusation was that he took the officers stun gun from him. The video clearly shows the officer go back and get the tazer and then drop it beside the body of the victim.

Honestly, I don't think I would want you on a jury judging me as you have a long history of being willfully obtuse to support your obvious agenda.

Well, could be the reason I am cautious is that I was once accused of stealing 300 dollars from my employer - and the facts proved it.
UNTIL
ALL THE FACTS CAME IN.
The full evidence showed not only was I not guilty but that I was totally innocent.

Yes, there are 3 minutes to the video - but what happened from the time the officer stopped the individual until the video began.

Again, let me emphasis - I am not saying the officer is innocent - in fact it does not look good for him. But I reserve judgment after all facts are presented.

But lets get back to the OP - which is that the relative is upset that there is no conviction yet.
I, for one believe in the criminal justice system. OR do we want to go back to the days of immediately hanging horse thieves by renegades?

 

[carpro]

Seems to me there is usually a trial before there can be a conviction. Right? I guess someone needs to inform the relatives of that minor detail.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk