5 ms·

> according to investigators Investigators also once said "After Floyd got out of his car, he physically resisted officers. Officers were able to get the suspe

> according to investigators Investigators also once said "After Floyd got out of his car, he physically resisted officers. Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress. Officers called for an ambulance. He was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center by ambulance where he died a short time later." I don't always trust what investigators say, especially ones from a department that once jailed Floyd for 15 days for "failure to identify to a police officer" (???), and later murdered him. Edit: Apologies, it was actually a different department that murdered him.

kapp_in_life 5y ago
"Floyd was arrested three months later during a traffic stop and a 7-year-old victim of the robbery identified him from a photo array" Maybe the 7 year old who identified him was coerced by detectives. Anything is possible. That doesn't mean we discount all evidence presented with the thought terminating cliche "ACAB".
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I also would not trust eye witness identification in many cases. Especially from a seven year old.
- burkaman 5y ago
  I'm not discounting any evidence. I accept that the department presented that pretty weak-sounding evidence, and it's possible they got the right guy. However, the actual woman he threatened did not identify him, the method of identification is no longer used by the department (nowadays a photo array has to be presented by officers who don't know any of the suspects, so they can't introduce any bias), there was no physical evidence at all, there is an incredibly long documented history of police lying in cases just like this one, there is an equally long history of defendants being pushed into plea deals despite their innocence, 7 year olds are not reliable even in the best of circumstances, and Floyd himself maintained his innocence before and after his jail time. Based on the totality of the evidence I'm aware of, I believe there's a significant chance Floyd was innocent of this charge. I'm very comfortable saying that even in an ideal future where racial harmony has been achieved and police misconduct is a distant memory, if placed on a jury I still would never convict someone on the sole evidence of a 7-year-old's photo array testimony 3 months after the crime occurred.
- 8note 5y ago
  I for one think the officers have to prove that their word is trustworthy, and they have not. In absense of other evidence, I'll presume innocence, and that the officer is lying. That's what the thought terminated ACAB means there, a presumption of innocence.

kapp_in_life 5y ago

"Floyd was arrested three months later during a traffic stop and a 7-year-old victim of the robbery identified him from a photo array" Maybe the 7 year old who identified him was coerced by detectives. Anything is possible. That doesn't mean we discount all evidence presented with the thought terminating cliche "ACAB".

jjeaff 5y ago
I also would not trust eye witness identification in many cases. Especially from a seven year old.
burkaman 5y ago
I'm not discounting any evidence. I accept that the department presented that pretty weak-sounding evidence, and it's possible they got the right guy. However, the actual woman he threatened did not identify him, the method of identification is no longer used by the department (nowadays a photo array has to be presented by officers who don't know any of the suspects, so they can't introduce any bias), there was no physical evidence at all, there is an incredibly long documented history of police lying in cases just like this one, there is an equally long history of defendants being pushed into plea deals despite their innocence, 7 year olds are not reliable even in the best of circumstances, and Floyd himself maintained his innocence before and after his jail time. Based on the totality of the evidence I'm aware of, I believe there's a significant chance Floyd was innocent of this charge. I'm very comfortable saying that even in an ideal future where racial harmony has been achieved and police misconduct is a distant memory, if placed on a jury I still would never convict someone on the sole evidence of a 7-year-old's photo array testimony 3 months after the crime occurred.
8note 5y ago
I for one think the officers have to prove that their word is trustworthy, and they have not. In absense of other evidence, I'll presume innocence, and that the officer is lying. That's what the thought terminated ACAB means there, a presumption of innocence.