ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720041 wrote:Exactly why every cop should wear POV cameras that thay can't turn off and can't remove.

MontyBrunswick;1720055 wrote:Yeah, that would've totally prevented this from happening. :RpS_glare:

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720059 wrote:If he had known he was video taped by a bystander it wouldn't have happened... let alone by himself, genius.

iclfan2;1720053 wrote: I'll also add that the suspect was a retard and deserved jail time, but straight murder was obviously not warranted.

gut;1720061 wrote:That presumes he was fully in control of and aware of his emotions. I don't think there's a rational thought process that says "hey, no one's looking I'll just shoot this guy 8 times"

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720041 wrote:Exactly why every cop should wear POV cameras that thay can't turn off and can't remove.

gut;1720061 wrote:That presumes he was fully in control of and aware of his emotions. I don't think there's a rational thought process that says "hey, no one's looking I'll just shoot this guy 8 times"

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720064 wrote:The thought process is " I'm a cop so everyone will automatically side with me no matter the truth. "

like_that;1720065 wrote:Except he still would most likely be charged with murder if there wasn't any camera on scene.

like_that;1720065 wrote:Except he still would most likely be charged with murder if there wasn't any camera on scene.

gut;1720068 wrote:And that's clearly not rational, because it's 100% untrue. And after Ferguson you know it will be heavily scrutinized.

I don't think he consciously chose to shoot that guy. I think it happened, and then his mind went in to overdrive trying to cover it up. If his thought process was "everyone will side with me because I'm a cop", he wouldn't have started the stolen tazer bit.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720041 wrote:Exactly why every cop should wear POV cameras that thay can't turn off and can't remove.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720069 wrote:It's easy to say "most likely" since we don't know. If the issue got pressed, probably. If it got pushed thru like everything else, no way.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720071 wrote:Bullshit it's not true. Law will always side with a cop till proven otherwise. The video proved it otherwise.

gut;1720075 wrote:As would the forensics. It's not only not bullshit, it's absolutely true. All the video really does in this case is provide for a very expedient finding of facts (i.e. no need to wait for forensics).

And, yes, law will always side with a cop, or anyone, until proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, and all.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720076 wrote:The "tazor bit" was to cooberate his story.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720079 wrote:Forensics would never be used against a cop who's story was cooberated unless a push like we saw in Ferguson came about..

gut;1720081 wrote:Of course. And the stun gun had been fired - something you don't need video to corroborate. It's the kind that shoots wires, apparently, so it would have to be reset. Thus it's not a weapon, and so he used lethal force on an unarmed man....one he shot in the back...8 times. Fucked with or without that video.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720083 wrote:I'm talking about the act of him picking up the tazer and placing it by his dead body like that's where the struggle was.

gut;1720084 wrote:I don't think you understand what "corroborate" means. And you do realize what you're referring to is actually forensic evidence - it goes both ways in determining if a shoot was justified. Again, a discharged stun gun is not a weapon.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720087 wrote:apparently you don't.
he stated he shot him because he was fighting for his stun gun and trying to use it on him. The stun gun was dropped some 30 feet from where he was shot and killed, thus no cooborating the cops story. Which is why he picked up the gun, and placed it by his dead body like that's where it took place.

gut;1720091 wrote:They don't just see a stun gun next to the body and say "it all checks out". You need to figure out the difference between what it means to corroborate and what constitutes "corroborating evidence".