Quote (Goomshill @ 15 Dec 2022 20:05)
If all that she could see out the window was her own reflection, how did her nephew next to her identify that there were two officers outside, one male, one female, and the male officer shot her? He saw the same things she did and said she pointed her gun at the officer
He very obviously was coached to lie and changed his testimony. There's not a person in the world gullible enough to believe he mistook what he saw on that night in his statement consistent with the bodycam and other witness and autopsy, but then magically realized his mistake after his family spent 2 years pushing for a $10 million lawsuit. He had no reason to lie in his initial statement, recorded and plainly neither coerced nor fed details. He had 10 million reasons to lie at trial.
You're trying to invent something that wasnt at issue at trial. The prosecution never contested that it was an open structure suspected burglary report. And the handbook clearly calls for a stealth approach. They spent the whole trial citing the handbook for precisely that kind of call and taking issue with the line saying that officers should 'secure all exits'. They tried to argue he broke protocol by walking around the house instead of guarding the front door.
But that clearly is self contradictory. They can't secure all exits if they don't know where the exits are. They had to look around the house to see if it had a back door before they covered it. And police training in approaching around corners and fences calls for two officers, covering each other. They did their approach exactly as trained, as shown at trial. They didn't get to the stage of identifying exits and covering them. And even if they had covered one door and called for backup- not protocol at all- someone would have to go around that corner unannounced anyway, and same situation would unfold.
What kind of response the procedures called for, was never a point of contention. The prosecutors went on absolutely nuts tangents to try to establish some kind of unnecessary risk where there was none. They started talking about how crossing the road could have exposed them to sniper fire from a snipers next on the rooftop. Pretty ridiculously contrived
i'm talking about the FACT that you're outright lying about the nature and content of the 911 call in your OP, just like you're lying about what exactly the kid testified in his initial interview. you're uncritically accepting the cop and his legal defence's versions as the objective truth, lying in order to justify a demonstrably bad and violent cop, who killed a black woman in her own home just seconds after seeing her.
am i surprised? of course not. a serial cop boot licker, someone who tried to justify ahmaud arbery's lynching by racists, would obviously twist the truth in order to make this case appear reasonable and justified, but that obviously doesn't make it so.
and again, in any actually civilised country, no one would have died in this situation. cops wouldn't be scared for their lives every time they do a welfare check on people, residents wouldn't think they needed guns to protect themselves (statistically making it much more likely that they or their loved ones get hurt or even killed btw), and bad cops role playing soldiers or assassins would have been weeded out at police training. what a shithole country, lol...
This post was edited by fender on Dec 15 2022 04:34pm