3 ms·

> Am I missing something here? Yes. The video at the bottom is a video of the second robbery—the robbery that occurred after he was arrested and where the actu

> Am I missing something here? Yes. The video at the bottom is a video of the second robbery—the robbery that occurred after he was arrested and where the actual robbers got shot. It is not the video that was used to identify him. This is explained in the second paragraph on the page.

golergka 11y ago
I should have make myself more clear. You see, I understand that. What I also understand is that it is the _only_ video we actually have chance to see.
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  And as I stated in another comment which you didn't address in your reply: >...the only thing worth questioning here is if that shot is in fact real–something that could only be evaluated if they released the tape. But since they're not exactly going out of their way to do that I can only assume that it would be against their interests. The police and prosecution have the latitude to release that video and could certainly do so to exonerate themselves. Releasing it is what the police should have done immediately after his case was dropped if their interest was is in catching a robber on the loose or demonstrating publicly that they did have the right man and the prosecution was dropping the ball.
  - golergka 11y ago
    This is only reasonable if we go with the assumption that release of evidence is a routine police procedure which is followed in cases like this, which, from the law enforcement standpoint, seems like typical and didn't receive any kind of special attention. In other words, you think that they didn't release the video because they have something to prove. I think that they didn't bother because they have couple overworked clerks and hundred cases just like this — regardless of whether the video proves innocence or guilt. I honestly don't see this case as important enough for any officials involved to have any special motives or do anything other than bare minimum required.
    - brazzledazzle 11y ago
      >In other words, you think that they didn't release the video because they have something to prove. Really what I'm saying is that if I'm going to try to extrapolate something more from the information presented that would be the direction, not "Can we be sure he hasn't faked this picture?". My point is that you're speculating that someone is guilty despite a strong piece of neutral information: the DA dropped the case and he was released from jail. Sure, it's possible the attorney faked the picture and it's all bullshit, but there's nothing to demonstrate that as being likely besides your own biases.

golergka 11y ago

I should have make myself more clear. You see, I understand that. What I also understand is that it is the _only_ video we actually have chance to see.

brazzledazzle 11y ago
And as I stated in another comment which you didn't address in your reply: >...the only thing worth questioning here is if that shot is in fact real–something that could only be evaluated if they released the tape. But since they're not exactly going out of their way to do that I can only assume that it would be against their interests. The police and prosecution have the latitude to release that video and could certainly do so to exonerate themselves. Releasing it is what the police should have done immediately after his case was dropped if their interest was is in catching a robber on the loose or demonstrating publicly that they did have the right man and the prosecution was dropping the ball.
- golergka 11y ago
  This is only reasonable if we go with the assumption that release of evidence is a routine police procedure which is followed in cases like this, which, from the law enforcement standpoint, seems like typical and didn't receive any kind of special attention. In other words, you think that they didn't release the video because they have something to prove. I think that they didn't bother because they have couple overworked clerks and hundred cases just like this — regardless of whether the video proves innocence or guilt. I honestly don't see this case as important enough for any officials involved to have any special motives or do anything other than bare minimum required.
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    >In other words, you think that they didn't release the video because they have something to prove. Really what I'm saying is that if I'm going to try to extrapolate something more from the information presented that would be the direction, not "Can we be sure he hasn't faked this picture?". My point is that you're speculating that someone is guilty despite a strong piece of neutral information: the DA dropped the case and he was released from jail. Sure, it's possible the attorney faked the picture and it's all bullshit, but there's nothing to demonstrate that as being likely besides your own biases.