3 ms·
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 show
by 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 agoIn 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 agoOh 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.