Pattern Ghost Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 This is the unedited video from Minnesota. I'm going to spoiler it for those who don't want to see a guy near death with blood all over his shirt: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Here's the cop's lawyer's statement: Link. That statement should be relatively easy to prove or disprove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 It would be even easier with body cams on the two officers. No gun visible = murder. Twilight 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 It would be even easier with body cams on the two officers. No gun visible = murder. Edit; Do you mean in this specific case? In general, no gun needs to be visible, or even to exist to justify a police shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 That's an interesting conclusion. Patently false, but interesting. It's really not. Unless he was actively threatening the officers with the gun they had no cause to shoot him. Thus if the man's gun wasn't visible when he was shot, then the officers shot him without cause aka murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 It's murkier than that. Cops don't have to see a gun, they just have to say they thought they did, or even that they thought that maybe the victim was reaching for one. "I was afraid for my life," is all they have to say, and they're unconvictable unless there is some very damning cell phone video that contradicts it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 "I was afraid for my life" is something armed people say a lot in this country when they shoot unarmed (or seemingly compliant armed) people. Cops or no. In Texas, "She took my $150" is good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 That's an interesting conclusion. Patently false, but interesting. (Emphasis added. Body cams would have been very helpful indeed.) Unless they get "dislodged." Like the two cops who were wearing them when they shot a man unfortunately had happen to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Unless they get "dislodged." Like the two cops who were wearing them when they shot a man unfortunately had happen to them. Let's not mix two cases up. And let's not throw the Minnesota cop under the bus or lump him into the same category as the two in Louisiana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 It's murkier than that. Cops don't have to see a gun, they just have to say they thought they did, or even that they thought that maybe the victim was reaching for one. "I was afraid for my life," is all they have to say, and they're unconvictable unless there is some very damning cell phone video that contradicts it. They have to be able to demonstrate a reasonable belief that the subject was armed. A bit more than "say." In this case both the "girlfriend" and the cop agree that the guy moved after being told not to move. While the outcome may be tragic, the officer has to make a split second decision. He knows that the subject closely matches a suspect he's got a BOLO alert for (and he does, very closely), and he knows by at the very least the subject's own admission that the subject is armed. Additionally, if you pause the video at 0:49, and look in the victim's lap, right below the seat belt, there is a long, black reflective object. Whether it's a gun or not, there's apparently something laying in the guy's lap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Edit; Do you mean in this specific case? In general, no gun needs to be visible, or even to exist to justify a police shooting. In this specific case, if the video evidence contradicts the officer's testimony and affirms the girlfriend's, it's an open and shut case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 In this specific case, if the video evidence contradicts the officer's testimony and affirms the girlfriend's, it's an open and shut case. I re-read the lawyer's statement. He mentioned the presence of a gun, but not the visibility of the gun. He hasn't asserted that the officer actually saw a gun in hand. If the victim did have a gun in his possession, then the assertion that a gun was present will stand. I had initially thought he mentioned actually seeing the gun on first read-through, too. That's why I said it should be pretty clear one way or another. But it may not be. I already addressed the point regarding whether the officer is obligated to actually see a gun before firing, so won't rehash that. As to the alleged girlfriend's testimony . . . she's not exactly star witness material. Her reaction, or lack of one, is a bit odd. The officer seemed way more upset by the shooting than she did. She then lies about the police throwing her phone on the ground. In the video, it's clear that it was set down, not thrown. Additionally, the officer who was handling her was nothing short of exemplary in his conduct. Once she's off camera, she starts escalating her histrionics, wailing and crying . . . and then when she's back on camera, she's stony-faced and there's no evidence that she's shed a single tear. She was also caught lying about the police not giving any first aid, which was countered by third party or dash cam (not sure which, will have to dig up link if you're interested) images of officers administering CPR. Those things are all case-related and should be admissible as indicators of her character. No need to go social media snooping on her to cast doubt on any further claims she makes. Finally, whether he wrongfully shot the victim, and whether he's guilty of a crime or not in the process is irrelevant to the issue of whether this was racially motivated. There's absolutely no evidence that this was the case. It was negligent as hell for the governor to throw one of his officers under the bus, and for the media to blast out the story prematurely, with sensationalistic headlines. Edit: Wait a second. When you say "video evidence" are you talking about hypothetical video evidence, or the girlfriend's recording plus the dashcam footage we haven't seen yet? I'm assuming the latter. If so, I doubt it is going to show much. The girlfriend's video may actually support the officer's side of the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 In this specific case, if the video evidence contradicts the officer's testimony and affirms the girlfriend's, it's an open and shut case. HAHAHAHAHA The Rodney King video was 'open and shut', too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Quote from Wikipedia, regarding the federal trial of the officers in the King beating, where the officers were found guilty: During the three-hour sentencing hearing, the Federal trial judge, John Davies, accepted much of the defense version of the beating. He strongly criticized King, who he said provoked the officers' initial actions. Judge Davies stated that only the final six or so baton blows by Powell were unlawful. The first 55 seconds of the videotaped portion of the incident, during which the vast majority of the blows were delivered, was within the law because the officers were attempting to subdue a suspect who was resisting efforts to take him into custody. Would you have guessed that only the final six or so baton blows were illegal? I wouldn't have -- and didn't -- when the tape was first released. Worth reading up on. There are a lot of facts of the case that never got much press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 More food for thought on King. Here's a very large, strong guy who's drunk reacting to getting Tased: King got up and charged on of the officers immediately after being Tased. The reason he continued resisting is because he wasn't feeling any pain. Be that from alcohol or whatever else he had in his system, the guy continued to fight, and the police followed (poorly IMO, but still did) their standing protocol. They failed at wrestling with him. The Taser failed. Chokes and dog piles were banned in LA due to prior deaths from both. Of course, by the time you get to him being compliant, you have a bunch of worked up Neanderthal cops who didn't stop when the should have. But the case was far from cut and dry, even with the video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Continued resisting?? They beat AND KICKED him while he lay stunned on the ground for almost 90 seconds!!! He was not resisting at any point there other than putting his hand up because he's getting beat AND KICKED in the head. Even according to the judge's lame-ass statement there should've been some charge. FAR from cut and dry????? I come from a family of cops (3 cousins, 2 grandparents) and they were disgusted by those officers. I was also working with a security police squadron in the military at the time, nobody there understood why they got no charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Four men were convicted on federal charges, because they did go too far. I was an MP at the time. I was also outraged. That doesn't make the case cut and dry. A media frenzy doesn't make it cut and dry. A riot doesn't make it cut and dry. Your outrage or mine don't make it cut and dry. And that's my point. Even something as egregious as the King beating wasn't as simple as it looks on the surface. Yet everyone seems set to hang out the Minnesota cop to dry on very thin evidence. The press, his state governor and the President all jumped the gun with the little information that was available immediately after. The resulting frenzy sparked protests, and motivated psychopaths to start trying to kill cops. One succeeded. That's completely irresponsible bullshit IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Sorry, cops beat and kicked a helpless man for nearly 90 seconds. It WAS cut and dry...what happened before in that instance didn't matter at that point. My initial point is that just because video shows it to be open and shut doesn't mean anything will happen to the officer. It has nothing to do with who I blame for these instances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Sorry, cops beat and kicked a helpless man for nearly 90 seconds. The first 90 seconds of the video? Even at the minute and nearly fifty mark, he easily shrugs off the first guy who attempts to pull his arm back to cuff him. He attempts to regain his feet multiple times. He shrugs off heavy blows to his arms and back in the process. The police also back off a couple of times and reassess. Is this a stupid, dangerous and irresponsible method to subdue a subject? Yes. Was it doctrine at the time? It appears to be so. So, not that cut and dry, no. ..what happened before in that instance didn't matter at that point. It does matter. It establishes that he was in an altered state and the failure of the Taser to stop him as well as his earlier aggression are justifications for escalating the level of force used. They followed their force continuum. It was a stupid force continuum and it was taken too far, I think, but it sure as heck matters. They thought he was on PCP. He didn't test for it, but he tested high enough on blood alcohol several hours later that he was probably twice the legal limit. Whatever was going on with him gave him an artificial resilience that caused a chain of decisions to be made on how to proceed. So, no, not that cut and dry, even though they took things too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Black Man Bids Tearful Goodbye To Family Before Daily Commute Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Black Man Bids Tearful Goodbye To Family Before Daily Commute I'll see yer onion and raise you mine. Police Chief Says There Just A Few Bad, Deeply Ingrained Prejudices Giving All Cops A Bad Name Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Once again the Onion forgets it is Satire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranxerox Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 To be fair, reality frequently forgets that it is not Satire. Ternaugh, Twilight, Lucius and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csyphrett Posted July 12, 2016 Report Share Posted July 12, 2016 NC passed the new body cam law despite the city and others having concerns. The only way to see the footage is through a court order. CES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted July 12, 2016 Report Share Posted July 12, 2016 Pattern Ghost 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.