Footage of George Floyd arrest video leaked

[Thief]

they seem unable or unwilling to ad lib if the scene doesn't go according to the script.

they are trained that way .....on purpose

they came to make an arrest

it did not go well

perhaps George...and Joe Public....
should take some time and study law ENFORCEMENT

best bet .....and simple routine

say YES SIR

not.....PLESE DON'T SHOOT ME

 

[Stevicus]

You realised that is exactly the same excuse used to justify the same corruption and violence within the criminal justice system. You could defend the officers involved in this case using the same words. And you'd still be wrong.

I believe "wrong" is measured in the results and consequences. You could say that the police were legally right to aggressively pursue and zealously detain the offender for trying to pass off a fake $20 bill. As a matter of principle, you'd be correct, but considering the overall costs of the riots so far (most likely in the billions by now), we as a society should ask ourselves: Is it really worth it? Is it practical? Does it make any sense to risk billions in damage, violence/loss of life, and the political instability all this has created - all because of someone attempting to pass a fake $20 bill?

It isn't just the technology (though that isn't always as simple as laymen imagine), it is the legal and moral aspects too. All sorts of things and all sorts of innocent people could be inadvertently be caught on those cameras so the idea of simply posting them on the internet unchecked and unmoderated simply isn't viable.

Imagine a family home suffers a home invasion late at night and the police arrive and end up shooting the criminals. Their body cameras could catch all sorts of things - the homeowners naked and vulnerable, their children the same, serious injuries or dead bodies - and you want that instantly and automatically put straight on to the internet?!?

If that's the actual, true reason for withholding the video, then you might have a point, although I'm not convinced that's the reason. There have been plenty of cases where people's privacy and dignity have been torn down and presented for the public to see, such as after natural disasters where people might be shown on camera next to a pile of wreckage and strewn belongings where their home once stood. Or when people are victims of ordinary criminals and not cops, the police and media have no compunction about parading them out for public view. This happened a lot on the TV show Cops.

There's some famous footage from the Vietnam War which shows some Vietnamese people running down the road, one of which is a naked little girl who's village was bombed out. I believe the filmmaker won an award for that, if I'm not mistaken. It certain riveted the public's attention and could have changed some people's minds about their stance regarding the war. Should that video have been withheld and never seen by the public?

The media often release information about people that they'd rather not come out. I recall hearing about a man who saved President Ford's life from a would-be assassin. It turns out the hero in that case was gay - and the media outed him against his will.

So, I simply can't accept the notion that this is all about protecting the dignity or privacy of the innocent (which clearly wasn't the case in this particular video anyway), since they never seem to care about that in most other situations. It's only when they're clearly wanting to protect the cops from public scrutiny, that's when they suddenly care.

I expect exactly the same things from them as I expect from you. Doing a particular job doesn't automatically turn someone in to a sub-human monster. It's similar to how having dark skin doesn't either.

Not the same. People choose their jobs. They don't choose their skin color.

And I never said the police were sub-human monsters. I expect them to be human, and when humans make a mistake, I would expect them to own up to it and make amends, as any civilized, honorable human would do. I expect them to be upfront and honest, at least when we're talking about people who have dedicated their lives to public service.

But you're saying it's unrealistic to expect that. Maybe you're right, and perhaps the corruption has gotten so deep that it's beyond repair. But even that has consequences, some of which we've been seeing in recent months.

How would that actually work though? Are you going to go to a government site every day to check for any new videos posted or are you going to keep checking the news sites, social media or posts here? Regardless of how the material is released, it will be presented to the general public via the gaze of the media. And, of course, if someone doesn't like what they see they'll just claim it's been manipulated like they already do.

I might check government sites to look for traffic info, especially if there's a major construction project on my way to work. That's another area where I think the public has a right to know, considering the perceptions of corruption involved in government projects and their contractors.

Video isn't the be-all and end-all.

No, but it has become a major game changer. Imagine if there were a thousand people with cellphones in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. As it happened there was someone with their own camera, but even that video was also withheld from the public for decades until it was finally released. It's a familiar pattern of concealment and cover up by our government.

The raw footage on it's own rarely tells the entire story and, taken alone (and especially if it is misrepresented), can actually be misleading or at least given an incomplete picture. I mean, if the video alone was ever enough to reach a valid conclusion on an incident, why would any other evidence ever be presented in court?

Perhaps they would enter other evidence into court in the interest of being thorough. Most of the time, though, they don't have the luxury of video. If they had video footage in the O.J. case, it might have been open and shut. But even without any video, the police had pretty much presented their case to the public by the time he was arrested. The public had already gotten most of the details from the case within hours or days of the initial story breaking, so if they're going to release all that information anyway, why not release the video if one was available?

The methods and motives of the police are revealed by what evidence they choose to disseminate versus what they choose not to disseminate. I think it hardly has anything to do with protecting the innocent or any genuine desire to put out "the straight story." I think it's more a matter of protecting the police and political establishment, in order to give off the appearance of a trustworthy, reputable, and honorable organization. What's public is propaganda and what's private is policy.

The sad reality is that the only people who really care about George Floyd personally are his close friends and family. Everyone else getting involved in any of this will be focused on wider concerns and issues, you and I included.

I think that everyone who has been outraged and disturbed by this gross atrocity would likely agree on a basic objective of examining the causes of this incident and finding ways of ensuring that it doesn't happen again. Whether or not they care personally about George Floyd is beside the point, as this could have happened to anyone (you and I included).

The issue is out-of-control police who apparently believe they can go around and do whatever they want. Part of the reason they believe this is because there are those in the political establishment and large segments of society at large who enable such attitudes and behaviors, essentially giving the police a blank check so they can operate with impunity.

That is true (though the problem is often exaggerated). The simple fact remains that the specific video you're complaining about being "withheld" isn't actually part of that problem and your specific proposals are no part of any viable solution. If it was easy to fix, it would have been done already.

There are a lot of problems which are fixable, and perhaps they would have been/could have been/should have been fixed already. But all too often, they don't get fixed, and the reason is often due to vested interests and political intransigence. They might try to mask it in legalese, political rhetoric, or some other kind of specious argument which satisfies just enough people, yet solves nothing.

This is how politics works in the United States. I wish it didn't work this way, but this is what we're stuck with.

The court case hasn't concluded yet so how can you know it won't get the job done?

We shall see.

What "job" do you imagine the leak of this video alone will actually get done?

It's called "transparency." Openness, full disclosure - these are concepts rooted in trust and honesty. The public needs to have trust and confidence in the government which rules over them, and if that trust is shaken, then the onus is on the government to do everything possible to regain that trust. Otherwise, we risk more chaos, disorder, and instability. The basic "job" of government is to prevent such situations from happening.

All it seems to have done is stir up more confusion, argument, unfocused anger and hatred among the people already (deliberately) stirred up in that direction and present another distraction for the people working on the actual court case - the exact opposite of what you say you want.

I would suggest that the video evidence, in and of itself, is not the source of confusion, argument, unfocused anger, and hatred. The video is really just the froth on the cauldron, as it goes deeper than that. I think there's a certain spin taking place which certainly seems to distract from the original issue, but the video isn't really the cause of it.

It's not really the incident itself (nor the video footage) which sparks the outrage as much as it's the perception that justice is either not being done or some possible cover-up or attempt to protect the police from any scrutiny or public exposure. As I said, the Rodney King video did not spark riots when it first came out. It wasn't until there was a not guilty verdict for the cops - that's what sparked the riots. It was the actions and decisions of the court, not that of the cops, which generated and fueled the outrage to the point where it turned into a riot.

Another thing that I would point out is that, our society has never really learned anything since the Rodney King incident. There's a whole slew of incidents of police killings and other misconduct, along with perceptions of gross injustices perpetrated by the courts. The problem of systemic racism continues to persist, but too many people seem resistant to actually examining the building blocks and mechanics of how the system actually works. Instead of that, people seem more interested in looking at superficialities and symptoms, without really getting to the root of the problem.

 

[Thief]

I believe "wrong" is measured in the results and consequences. You could say that the police were legally right to aggressively pursue and zealously detain the offender for trying to pass off a fake $20 bill. As a matter of principle, you'd be correct, but considering the overall costs of the riots so far (most likely in the billions by now), we as a society should ask ourselves: Is it really worth it? Is it practical? Does it make any sense to risk billions in damage, violence/loss of life, and the political instability all this has created - all because of someone attempting to pass a fake $20 bill?

no way to spot the consequence before the initial event

and if ever we humans gain that ability
threads like this won't happen

this discussion is a consequence

and is it worth it?

 

[Stevicus]

no way to spot the consequence before the initial event

and if ever we humans gain that ability
threads like this won't happen

this discussion is a consequence

and is it worth it?

Some people can anticipate the consequences ahead of time. Those people might be called "wise" or "thinking ahead." Another term for it is "risk management."

It's hard to sympathize with people who fail to listen to wise people or consider the risks and potential consequences of what they're doing.

 

[HonestJoe]

If that's the actual, true reason for withholding the video, then you might have a point, although I'm not convinced that's the reason.

The specific video in this case wasn't being withheld. It was to be presented as evidence in the court case. Evidence is commonly not released to the public until after the case has concluded, largely to avoid the risk of perjuring the case.

We weren't talking about this specific video at this point of the discussion though, we were talking about your proposal that video in any case should be automatically and unconditionally released to the public on the same day as the incident. If that is your proposal, you have to defend it in literally every possible circumstance because you're explicitly excluding the possibility of any checks or conditions.

And I never said the police were sub-human monsters. I expect them to be human, and when humans make a mistake, I would expect them to own up to it and make amends, as any civilized, honorable human would do. I expect them to be upfront and honest, at least when we're talking about people who have dedicated their lives to public service.

No, you literally said you don't expect them to behave as reasonble human beings - you condemned hundreds of thousands of people in one fell swoop. If you want to make reasonable points, you need to cut out that kind of crap.

But you're saying it's unrealistic to expect that.

I said I expect the same from them that I expect from you. If they're all evil and corrupt, so are you.

No, but it has become a major game changer. Imagine if there were a thousand people with cellphones in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. As it happened there was someone with their own camera, but even that video was also withheld from the public for decades until it was finally released. It's a familiar pattern of concealment and cover up by our government.

And that video is used to support a vast range of conflicting claims about what actually happened. Only releasing video of an incident, however extensive it is, is never going to resolve anything, just generate even more argument, especially a controversial or politicised situations. And if any video appear to prove a pre-determined conclusion wrong, it would just be dismissed as edited or faked.

Again, if what you're proposing would actually achieve anything, we wouldn't need courts in the first place.

The methods and motives of the police are revealed by what evidence they choose to disseminate versus what they choose not to disseminate. I think it hardly has anything to do with protecting the innocent or any genuine desire to put out "the straight story."

If the leaked video had shown the police in a positive light, you'd dismiss it out of hand. You don't want a straight story, you want the story you already have in your head validated. That doesn't mean it's wrong but it also doesn't mean it's right. Hence the court case.

The issue is out-of-control police who apparently believe they can go around and do whatever they want.

... regardless of what actually happened in this case. The police officers here could have been in the right but even if that had been the case, it would have never been allowed to become the narrative because the incident is being used as a symbol for a wider campaign (however legitimate that campaign is).

We shall see.

No, you said it won't get the job done. You've already decided what the conclusion should be. If you get what you want you'll celebrate getting one over the system and if you don't you'll cry corruption and whitewash.

It's not really the incident itself (nor the video footage) which sparks the outrage as much as it's the perception that justice is either not being done or some possible cover-up or attempt to protect the police from any scrutiny or public exposure.

Maybe you should stop trying to stir that up on the basis of unsupported speculation then?

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's a classic failed arrest. 'Comply or die'. And now someone is dead for no logical reason.

This should certainly awaken people as to how things like this are intentionally suppressed.

Leakers of injustices are starting to come across as heros. It shows how horribly corrupt things have gotten at the hands of our government.

 

[Thief]

Some people can anticipate the consequences ahead of time. Those people might be called "wise" or "thinking ahead." Another term for it is "risk management."

It's hard to sympathize with people who fail to listen to wise people or consider the risks and potential consequences of what they're doing.

you think George was ......wise?

 

[Stevicus]

The specific video in this case wasn't being withheld. It was to be presented as evidence in the court case. Evidence is commonly not released to the public until after the case has concluded, largely to avoid the risk of perjuring the case.

Most cases don't generally get public attention, so it's not surprising that evidence wouldn't be released or brought into public view in most cases. But in cases which are in the public eye, they often do release evidence. Everyone heard about O.J.'s bloody glove before the trial. They saw pictures of Oswald posing with a rifle. They knew what Jeffrey Dahmer did before there was a trial because it was announced to the media. Everyone saw the Rodney King video before the trial was held. There are plenty of examples of high profile cases where the public is riveted by every single piece of evidence which comes out (oftentimes in a trickle because the powers that be are trying to manipulate and control the narrative).

Don't tell me that "evidence is commonly not released to the public" when it's happened on so many occasions when cases are in the public eye. I agree that it may be true for typical cases - the kind that aren't important or significant enough to merit national attention. But once it gets to that level, it's a different situation.

We weren't talking about this specific video at this point of the discussion though, we were talking about your proposal that video in any case should be automatically and unconditionally released to the public on the same day as the incident. If that is your proposal, you have to defend it in literally every possible circumstance because you're explicitly excluding the possibility of any checks or conditions.

As I said, in most cases, the public isn't even interested. So, it wouldn't matter even if the evidence is released, since most people wouldn't care in most cases. However, both sides in a trial need to have access to the evidence. If the prosecution has exculpatory evidence and keeps it hidden and refuses to share it with the defense, that would be unethical and it would bring about an unjust verdict.

No, you literally said you don't expect them to behave as reasonble human beings - you condemned hundreds of thousands of people in one fell swoop. If you want to make reasonable points, you need to cut out that kind of crap.

Oh now I get it. You're upset because I dared to besmirch the reputations of so many fine police officers, lawyers, judges, and politicians.

In case you haven't noticed, one of the key aspects of this case and the general cause of Black Lives Matter is to address the issue of systemic racism, and these people you're defending ARE the system. If the issue is systemic racism, then those who are at the core of the system and calling the shots are the ones who should be on the hot seat in this discussion.

I said I expect the same from them that I expect from you. If they're all evil and corrupt, so are you.

Really?

But you do make an interesting point here. If the judge, the police, politicians, and others at that level are allowed to see the video and evidence, why can't the rest of us? Are you suggesting that the judges, lawyers, cops, etc. are better than the rest of us? Are you saying that sharing evidence with the Great Unwashed is bad because the peasants just aren't intelligent enough or responsible enough to react appropriately? Are we supposed to simply have blind faith in our government and always listen to our "betters" because the rest of us are just so dumb and ignorant?

I didn't say that they were evil, although I do think corruption is pretty widespread in our society. Whether that applies to all of us, including you and me, that may be a wider topic. Some people believe that "we are all sinners," and so forth. But it can also be measured in its effect, the level of power, and the amount of wealth one attains as a result of their corruption. The corruption of a judge, politician, lawyer, or cop can have a much wider and harmful effect on society at large, as opposed to the corruption by someone at a much lower level in the hierarchy.

And that video is used to support a vast range of conflicting claims about what actually happened. Only releasing video of an incident, however extensive it is, is never going to resolve anything, just generate even more argument, especially a controversial or politicised situations. And if any video appear to prove a pre-determined conclusion wrong, it would just be dismissed as edited or faked.

The more eyes there are on it, the more interpretations one might get. But it's not just the video. This is a common complaint about government, particularly in relation to the JFK case, that a lot of evidence has been withheld from public view. It took a major motion picture by a somewhat conspiratorial film director which sparked enough debate to cause Congress to pass the JFK Act which released thousands of documents which were previously unseen (but still not all of them).

Again, if what you're proposing would actually achieve anything, we wouldn't need courts in the first place.

I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion. I'm just saying that justice is more likely if the process was open and transparent. When things are done in secret and outside of the public eye, then there is greater chance of corruption and wrongdoing.

Why do you think trials are public? Why do you think we have such things as an "open meeting law"?

If the leaked video had shown the police in a positive light, you'd dismiss it out of hand. You don't want a straight story, you want the story you already have in your head validated. That doesn't mean it's wrong but it also doesn't mean it's right. Hence the court case.

Regarding the US legal system, it's often been said that a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. Whether or not that's strictly true in practice is another matter, but nevertheless, what it means to me is that an individual citizen has the right to not be railroaded by the State. The citizen is not required to prove their innocence. The obligation is upon the State to prove the merits of their case. This is as it should be.

In this case, the police officers were acting on behalf of the State. Their actions reflect upon their department and the government which oversees it. For all intents and purposes, when they're out on patrol, they are the State.

This is not a case of "Average Citizen" assaulting and murdering another "Average Citizen," so to apply the same rules to this case as any typical case just doesn't seem appropriate. The State is on trial every bit as much as the individual police officers. If the police try to claim they were following standard procedure or "just following orders," then those who give the orders must also be called to account.

Is it your opinion that the leaked video showed the police officers in a negative light? The original video only showed the police officer with his knee on Floyd's neck, but the leaked video showed the events leading up to it.

... regardless of what actually happened in this case. The police officers here could have been in the right but even if that had been the case, it would have never been allowed to become the narrative because the incident is being used as a symbol for a wider campaign (however legitimate that campaign is).

"What actually happened in this case" is what is at issue here. The general public knows what has already been released and divulged by various sources. The original bystander's video was released and posted almost immediately and went viral. The public quickly learned the situation, that the police were responding to a report that someone tried to pass a fake $20 bill at a convenience store.

The police arrived and ostensibly were in the process of apprehending the suspect when one of them believed that it was necessary to hold his knee on the neck of the handcuffed suspect for an inordinate amount of time before the suspect died. Also, the suspect happened to be black, while the police officers happened to be white. That fact alone was the central part of the narrative from the outset, and this is what sparked and reignited the wider campaign of which you speak.

When you say that the police officers could have been in the right, what exactly do you mean? I believe them when they say that Floyd tried to pass off a fake $20 bill, so one can argue from that point of view, they were just doing their jobs and had a responsibility to arrest and apprehend a lawbreaker. One might even look at these videos and try to suggest that the police followed "proper procedure" and that the death was just a tragic "accident" (which could have been exacerbated by drug use or some pre-existing condition the cops weren't aware of).

It would be difficult to conclusively prove that the cops were racist or that they acted with malice, which is what many people still believe and presume to be the case. Even the media and many politicians seem to echo that belief. However, I'm not sure if that presumption leads us to any greater clarity or truth regarding why this incident happened.

Maybe the cops were "in the right," at least in the sense that they may have followed the correct procedures. If that's the case, then the cops' individual guilt may be mitigated, but those who formulate and implement such procedures should then be questioned. As I said, the State is also on trial here.

No, you said it won't get the job done. You've already decided what the conclusion should be. If you get what you want you'll celebrate getting one over the system and if you don't you'll cry corruption and whitewash.

Yes, when considering their track record and past results, "standard legal practice" doesn't seem to work very well when it comes to ensuring justice. We're talking about the procedures and practices which have already been in place and which you are defending, and you apparently consider them to be beyond reproach.

In other words, screw "standard legal practice." If you're unable or unwilling to justify "standard legal practice" with more than just platitudes, then I'm not interested in your rebukes. At least I haven't killed anybody yet; that's how I can live with myself. Those who are part of the system or go out of their way to defend it, those are the ones I'm not sure about.

Maybe you should stop trying to stir that up on the basis of unsupported speculation then?

Or maybe you should stop trying to defend policies and practices which enable corruption and abuses of power.

Can you give your personal assurances to the people of America that justice will be done in this and many other cases which are being addressed? If not, then what are you defending? What are you arguing for?

 

[Thief]

Hey @Revoltingest .....one more time
can you repost that poor guy that got shot to death in a hallway
by a cop

now THAT deserves attention

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

they are trained that way .....on purpose

they came to make an arrest

it did not go well

perhaps George...and Joe Public....
should take some time and study law ENFORCEMENT

best bet .....and simple routine

say YES SIR

not.....PLESE DON'T SHOOT ME

That's the mentality of a bootlicker. They're supposed to serve us, not us kiss their asses and fearfully placate their egos in hopes they don't decide to blow us away because we blinked at them wrong.

 

[Thief]

That's the mentality of a bootlicker. They're supposed to serve us, not us kiss their asses and fearfully placate their egos in hopes they don't decide to blow us away because we blinked at them wrong.

THINK......Roman soldier

when sent to task
they will do so

you are at risk

YES SIR......you are

 

[Stevicus]

you think George was ......wise?

No, probably not. He looked like he may have been having a panic attack, and those who are in a panic may not make the most rational choices.

I would also agree that attempting to pass off a phony $20 bill was also unwise, but this is the part of the case that's rather curious. Apparently, the clerk at the convenience store called 911 to report that Floyd had purchased cigarettes with a fake $20 bill.

It's possible that Floyd may not have even known that it was a fake. It was apparently detected by a machine which can pick up discrepancies that can't be discerned by the naked eye. This is another piece of the puzzle which is missing.

I wonder how it was decided that the police should be sent out so quickly with guns drawn. Was it really such a slow crime day that they had officers around with literally nothing to do that they could send them out in force over this kind of report? And why did they have guns drawn? Did they examine the bill in question? Did they speak to the clerk first, before going after Floyd? Did they have any reason to believe Floyd was dangerous?

If Floyd didn't realize the bill was phony, then he literally would have no clue as to why the cops were coming at him with guns drawn. And at least from the video, none of them even bothered to mention the reason why they're arresting him.

Maybe if they approached with less hostility and tried talking to him first, this could have been avoided.

 

[Thief]

And why did they have guns drawn?

I saw the gun drawn.....AFTER Floyd failed to show his right hand when told to do so

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

THINK......Roman soldier

when sent to task
they will do so

you are at risk

YES SIR......you are

They're not imperial soldiers, they're civilian law enforcement. They're supposed to answer to us.

 

[Thief]

They're not imperial soldiers, they're civilian law enforcement. They're supposed to answer to us.

they would be dysfunctional answering .....to you

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

they would be dysfunctional answering .....to you

I pay their salaries through my taxes. They damn well ultimately better answer to me and the rest of the public.

 

[HonestJoe]

But in cases which are in the public eye, they often do release evidence.

No, information is leaked or selectively released or leaked by various people for their own motives, sometimes legally, sometimes not. Those motives are generally either to try to manipulate public opinion (and thus prospective jurors) in their favour, stirring up some political angle or to make money. Rarely anything good so why would you want to encourage more of that?

As I said, in most cases, the public isn't even interested.

That shouldn't matter. The public being interested and "in the public interest" are two entirely different things and you're basically arguing for on law for the famous and another law for the rest of us.

In case you haven't noticed, one of the key aspects of this case and the general cause of Black Lives Matter is to address the issue of systemic racism, and these people you're defending ARE the system. If the issue is systemic racism, then those who are at the core of the system and calling the shots are the ones who should be on the hot seat in this discussion.

And you declared that you don't expect anyone in those roles to behave like human beings. If that was truely what you thought, your only option would be to call for true anarchy. The reality is that you don't believe that, you just got caught up in the political rhetoric yet more designed to stir up anger, hatred and violence. You seem smart enough not to fall for that.

But you do make an interesting point here. If the judge, the police, politicians, and others at that level are allowed to see the video and evidence, why can't the rest of us? Are you suggesting that the judges, lawyers, cops, etc. are better than the rest of us?

The judges, police, lawyers, juries and defendants should see it because they're directly involved in the case. Nobody else needs to (including politicians - no idea where that came from), certainly not before the case has concluded. Note that once this evidence was presented in court (in context and addressed by both prosecution and defence), it would be in the public domain. Nothing was being covered up or hidden, that was just more of the biased rhetoric spun up.

The more eyes there are on it, the more interpretations one might get.

Why does it need more interpretations though? What would you or I coming to a conclusion based on only part of the relevant evidence even achieve? And how many people who have their pre-determined conclusions (which already range from "murderers!" to "heroes!") would change them based on any additional evidence?

I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion. I'm just saying that justice is more likely if the process was open and transparent. When things are done in secret and outside of the public eye, then there is greater chance of corruption and wrongdoing.

Again, this video wasn't being "withheld", it was in the evidence due to be presented in (public) court. The prosecution, defence and judge get first sight of all evidence (and in some legitimate circumstances, there can be restrictions on release). All the leak did was release it a little earlier than it would have been.

Is it your opinion that the leaked video showed the police officers in a negative light?

I don't know since I've not seen it. My objection is to the leaking of any evidence, the specifics of the case don't matter. The original video only showed the police officer with his knee on Floyd's neck, but the leaked video showed the events leading up to it.

"What actually happened in this case" is what is at issue here.

Not in this thread it isn't, this thread is about the leaking of evidence. If all you really wanted was yet another thread for the circular arguments about the actual death, let me know and I can leave you to it.

Or maybe you should stop trying to defend policies and practices which enable corruption and abuses of power.

You're defending selective leaking of some evidence in an already highly controversial and emotive case that almost certainly will (and quite possibly was intended to) stir up even more anger hatred and violence.

If you want to debate changing the established processes of the legal system, feel free to start a thread about that. Otherwise, I've no interest in further feeding this monster.

 

[Shaul]

The immediate release of investigative work products, including police body cam videos, could harm both the victims and the pursuit of justice. The immediate release could help criminals by allowing them to abscond, tamper or destroy evidence, or intimidate potential witnesses. Innocent bystanders could also be targeted by either the criminals themselves or callous members of the public. Unrestricted access to police video could further hurting victims, the public, and the course of justice.

Some people take the knee jerk position that this is some nefarious act by the police to hide something. They should re-think the issue. Instant release of evidence perverts the course of justice and hurts innocent people.

The courts recognize these things. They know what they are doing, generally speaking. They also know that unnecessary withholding of these videos is wrong. They understand that there is a balance. Let the system work. If you think it doesn’t work, work to fix it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey @Revoltingest .....one more time
can you repost that poor guy that got shot to death in a hallway
by a cop

now THAT deserves attention

Police officer who shot man crawling and crying on the floor cleared of murder

 

[Thief]

Police officer who shot man crawling and crying on the floor cleared of murder

thank you