3 ms·
This was classic lawyering - pay for your own autopsy to get the story you want. We know three thing, the guy who got shot: 1: Purchased a S&W 9mm pistol 2: T
by WillPostForFood 3y ago
This was classic lawyering - pay for your own autopsy to get the story you want. We know three thing, the guy who got shot:
1: Purchased a S&W 9mm pistol
2: That pistol was on his possession at the protest
3: A police office was shot with that pistol
The guy who got shot was then shot by the police ~50 times, so not surprising he was shot in the hand. That's not evidence of one's hands being up in the air.
- woodruffw 3y agoAsking earnestly: what makes this and not the police's own reports "classic lawering"? A value-neutral outlook would require us to consider both equally. (And note: we don't actually know anything besides (1). (2) is a claim by the police, and (3) is the product of a pseudoscientific ballistics analysis by the same. Accepting them as fact goes well beyond the neutral viewpoint.)
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoI mean, they have a photo of the gun, on the ground at the crime scene.
- woodruffw 3y agoWe have a police photo of the gun &c &c.
- WillPostForFood 3y agoThey have the purchase records for the gun connecting it to the shooter, so how would the gun be there if the guy didn't bring it?
- woodruffw 3y agoPurchase records are not evidence that someone carried a thing to a place. I can think of any number of plausible scenarios, including that the police moved it, someone else moved it, the photo is taken out of context, etc. And of course: the victim might have brought it themselves.
- UnpossibleJim 3y agoI don't know what happened and I fully admit that, but let's take the cop section out of it, so none of this "Cops lie all the time" business. 1) A person was shot by someone at the scene 2) A different person who was in conflict with the first person had a gun with the same ballistic profile (caliber etc.) 3) There are two separate parties with an interest in the outcome who witnessed the crime 4) The first party with an interest, was actively aggrivating people at the scene, causing hightened tensions 5) The second party was in direct conflict with the first I have a hard time believing the first party shot their own in order to press charges on the second party. It doesn't pass the Occam's razor test, TBH EDIT: I suck at formatting
- woodruffw 3y agoIt doesn't have to pass Occam's razor. It has to pass (or would have had to, had they not killed him) the standard of reasonable doubt. Edit: Sorry, this puts words in your mouth. I mean to say that I don’t think Occam’s Razor is a sufficient level of belief in these kinds of situations.