reply to post by lllllllll
The reason it is not right for people to intervene is because they do not know all of the facts at the time of the incident. You could intervene in a
situation, which appears to be a clear case of police wrongdoing, and it turns out the police were completely justified in what they were doing.
Reader's digest, criminal jumps turnstile to avoid paying $2 dollar fair, police see said crime and attempt apprehension, criminal runs, police
chase, criminal is eventually shot and dies, public makes knee jerk reaction and claims police misconduct, police say criminal was shooting at police
while running, public furthers uninformed claims of police misconduct because no gun was immediately recovered at the scene, THIRD PARTY CELL PHONE
VIDEO CLEARLY SHOWS GUN IN CROWD WHICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY PICKED UP BY MEMBER OF THE CROWD AND HIDDEN FROM POLICE
I am reserving judgement on the incident at hand because there simply is not enough facts for one to pass judgement. Please do not accuse me of being
a police apologist. I am merely presenting facts that may not be thought of before passing judgement.
While the photographs do incite an immediate reaction of disgust, viewing the photographs and video alone do not give you a full account of what
happened. There simply is not enough information contained in these pieces of evidence alone to say one way or another.
Lets start with the video. Yes, I will admit that the audio sounds like he has given up and his crying for help. The actual videographic evidence is
terrible. Actual video of the man giving up is not seen in the video. The camera is simply too far from the action to provide a full view of what is
actually going on. During the video, it is clearly seen that at least two police officers arrive. Meaning there was not a total of six officers
present the entire time. The video obviously starts WAY after the actual incident starts so it is anyone's guess how many officers were present when
the fight started. The video shows absolutely no actions of the police so we do not know when the man sustained the injuries.
When the fight started, there COULD have been as little as one officer there. He COULD have gotten the injuries when the fight initially started,
from as little as one or two officers who were injured, or he COULD have gotten them when the officers continued to beat him, with as many as six
officers beating him. It is impossible, considering the facts available to US, to determine when he sustained the injuries that killed him.
I know what you are going to say. The injuries presented in the picture could not have been caused by one or two officers in the middle of a fight it
must have been from all six officers beating him. This is why we will not move on to the picture as evidence.
Yes, the picture incites an immediate feeling of disgust and animosity towards the police. But, the picture does not provide any evidence as to when
the man sustained those injuries. The injuries that you see could very well have been done by one person in the midst of a fight. It is totally
possible. The injuries that you see on the man's face are not the injuries that killed him. It was most likely some type of injury to the brain,
which could also be accomplished by one person. There have been people who have died during a simple fight where as little as one punch is thrown.
If you hit someone hard enough, or in the right place, one punch has the potential to kill if enough damage is done to the brain.
Taking all this into consideration, what we do not know is how many officers were present when the fight started. If it was as little as one officer,
which is entirely possible, and he was injured, the article says officers were injured during the fight, then a CERTAIN amount of force is
justifiable. What is possible is that the fight could have been even initially, between the man and one officer, and the officer was injured causing
him to fight like his life depended on it making the line of reasonable force shift. During this initial fight, injuries could have been sustained by
the man which eventually lead to his death from some sort of brain injury. The other five officers could have arrived late and used reasonable force,
after the death inducing injury had already been dealt, to take the man into custody.
With the information at hand, anything is possible at this point.
If this was a case of police brutality where the man died, the police deserve to be dealt with harshly. I am merely providing the reader with a
different view point because, with the evidence provided, no judgement can be passed yet.