4 ms·

I see that you failed to read the article. Literally the second paragraph: > Because the boy never pointed a gun at a cop. He wasn’t given the chance to eve

by dewyatt 10y ago

I see that you failed to read the article. Literally the second paragraph: > Because the boy never pointed a gun at a cop. He wasn’t given the chance to even put his hands up.

hga 10y ago
Sorry, initially I just skimmed the article to see if it said anything new and interesting, it seems I'm misremembering and he just started to draw his gun, and was only prior to that pointing it at the people (a felony, BTW) who called 911, but that makes no difference, it was a justified shooting based on the video and the known facts of the case. That Roger Clark who they're leaning on so much in the story? He wouldn't be afraid if someone pointed a gun at him? He's an idiot, or simply someone lacking the normal emotion of fear; if the latter, such people are useful, but are not representative of the normal population, the standard by which we determine justification for using lethal force.
- soneil 10y ago
  This is basically the whole point of the article. That people only remember the press release, not the details. Their experts didn't agree that the video showed him pulling the gun at all. One said it showed him reaching for it, the other side it showed him jerking after he'd been shot. And personally, I'd have a hard time believing either of them can be conclusive - in one frame between we both his hands clearly, one single frame in dispute, and in the next frame he's already been shot. It's far from clear-cut.
  - hga 10y ago
    In terms of judging if the police committed a crime, it's sufficiently clear cut, the standard comes down in favor of the (potential) defendant's side when if it's not "conclusive" like you and some of the experts claim. Assuming, of course, their testimony was credible, sufficiently consistent, etc. And my memory error wasn't "from the press release", but from the fact that he was pointing it at people prior to the police showing up.
    - soneil 10y ago
      Oh totally agree that the video isn't enough to find anyone guilty (it doesn't pass "reasonable doubt"). But the question here was whether it even deserved a trial. And they argued the video was conclusive enough that a trial wasn't warranted. And that I'm less comfortable with, personally.

by dewyatt 10y ago

I see that you failed to read the article. Literally the second paragraph: > Because the boy never pointed a gun at a cop. He wasn’t given the chance to even put his hands up.

hga 10y ago

Sorry, initially I just skimmed the article to see if it said anything new and interesting, it seems I'm misremembering and he just started to draw his gun, and was only prior to that pointing it at the people (a felony, BTW) who called 911, but that makes no difference, it was a justified shooting based on the video and the known facts of the case. That Roger Clark who they're leaning on so much in the story? He wouldn't be afraid if someone pointed a gun at him? He's an idiot, or simply someone lacking the normal emotion of fear; if the latter, such people are useful, but are not representative of the normal population, the standard by which we determine justification for using lethal force.

soneil 10y ago
This is basically the whole point of the article. That people only remember the press release, not the details. Their experts didn't agree that the video showed him pulling the gun at all. One said it showed him reaching for it, the other side it showed him jerking after he'd been shot. And personally, I'd have a hard time believing either of them can be conclusive - in one frame between we both his hands clearly, one single frame in dispute, and in the next frame he's already been shot. It's far from clear-cut.
- hga 10y ago
  In terms of judging if the police committed a crime, it's sufficiently clear cut, the standard comes down in favor of the (potential) defendant's side when if it's not "conclusive" like you and some of the experts claim. Assuming, of course, their testimony was credible, sufficiently consistent, etc. And my memory error wasn't "from the press release", but from the fact that he was pointing it at people prior to the police showing up.
  - soneil 10y ago
    Oh totally agree that the video isn't enough to find anyone guilty (it doesn't pass "reasonable doubt"). But the question here was whether it even deserved a trial. And they argued the video was conclusive enough that a trial wasn't warranted. And that I'm less comfortable with, personally.