3 ms·

> "G" hitting a woman 117 times in 30 minutes on video (after which he tried to smother her with a pillow) Your assertive language seems to indicate that you h

by vijucat 13y ago

> "G" hitting a woman 117 times in 30 minutes on video (after which he tried to smother her with a pillow) Your assertive language seems to indicate that you have seen this video or are in some other way 100% sure that he is guilty of the act claimed. Maybe you should reserve opinion till you have enough evidence? Edit : Those who are downvoting me because you disagree with me: this is not reddit. Remember that I wrote a polite and personable reply even though my feelings are as strong as yours.

srpablo 13y ago
The police, the parties involved, hell, even the courts have seen this video. Could they ALL be lying, and he's a perfectly innocent man!?!? Furthermore, it's not like it's particularly ambiguous: it's _117_ strikes over a half hour period. This is like disbelieving Australia exists because you've never physically set foot on it.
- vijucat 13y ago
  Maybe I didn't understand the case enough, apologies. Let me read again.
- bruceb 13y ago
  Do I think he might be guilty, yes. But when they charge him with 45 felonies and then he pleads guilty to 1 misdemeanor then I do wonder. Do some prosecutors exaggerate, lie, and withhold evidence? Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morton_%28criminal_justice%29#Arrest_and_imprisonment_of_prosecutor_Ken_Anderson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morton_%28criminal_just... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini#Allegations_of_abuse_of_office http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini#Allegations_of...
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    The main bit of evidence, the surveillance tape, was thrown out because they seized it without warrant (out of concern it'd be destroyed while waiting for one). That's why the felonies went away.
    - NAFV_P 13y ago
      > The main bit of evidence, the surveillance tape, was thrown out because they seized it without warrant (out of concern it'd be destroyed while waiting for one). I also think that is the main point in this story, along with the sentence in the article that follows shortly after: "It is also reported that Kakish declined to press charges." A quote from the article in the first link states: > "But perhaps the biggest blow came when Judge Brendan Conroy ruled that surveillance video from Chahal's bedroom - which reportedly captured the 1 1/2-hour attack - had been seized unlawfully by police. The cops claim they took the video without waiting for a warrant because they feared it might get erased, but the judge didn't buy it." The linked article also suggests that Julia Kakish might have been paid off, neither Chahal's or Kakish's lawyers are saying anything regarding this issue. The video evidence was thrown out because the judge said it was obtained unlawfully, but does this question the video's authenticity? I don't think it does.

by vijucat 13y ago

srpablo 13y ago

The police, the parties involved, hell, even the courts have seen this video. Could they ALL be lying, and he's a perfectly innocent man!?!? Furthermore, it's not like it's particularly ambiguous: it's _117_ strikes over a half hour period. This is like disbelieving Australia exists because you've never physically set foot on it.

vijucat 13y ago
Maybe I didn't understand the case enough, apologies. Let me read again.
bruceb 13y ago
Do I think he might be guilty, yes. But when they charge him with 45 felonies and then he pleads guilty to 1 misdemeanor then I do wonder. Do some prosecutors exaggerate, lie, and withhold evidence? Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morton_%28criminal_justice%29#Arrest_and_imprisonment_of_prosecutor_Ken_Anderson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morton_%28criminal_just... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini#Allegations_of_abuse_of_office http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini#Allegations_of...
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  The main bit of evidence, the surveillance tape, was thrown out because they seized it without warrant (out of concern it'd be destroyed while waiting for one). That's why the felonies went away.
  - NAFV_P 13y ago
    > The main bit of evidence, the surveillance tape, was thrown out because they seized it without warrant (out of concern it'd be destroyed while waiting for one). I also think that is the main point in this story, along with the sentence in the article that follows shortly after: "It is also reported that Kakish declined to press charges." A quote from the article in the first link states: > "But perhaps the biggest blow came when Judge Brendan Conroy ruled that surveillance video from Chahal's bedroom - which reportedly captured the 1 1/2-hour attack - had been seized unlawfully by police. The cops claim they took the video without waiting for a warrant because they feared it might get erased, but the judge didn't buy it." The linked article also suggests that Julia Kakish might have been paid off, neither Chahal's or Kakish's lawyers are saying anything regarding this issue. The video evidence was thrown out because the judge said it was obtained unlawfully, but does this question the video's authenticity? I don't think it does.