The fact that the police department ruled the shooting justified is enough to convince some people that the police behaved correctly.
The fact that they could have just said ‘Ok, NOW you’re under arrest’ when he turned away, instead of applying a beatdown, is also obvious to anyone with a brain.
The fact that even these cops don’t accuse him of trying to assault them until they started clubbing him with their batons is also not in dispute.
There are minutes of non-erased security cam videos of him speaking calmly and respectfully to these police. They were questioning him about buying alcohol for a minor, which of course he denied.
Are you familiar with the facts of the case? I read quite a bit about it, and it was appalling. However, every cop out there can be completely secure in the knowledge that the department will always and invariably rule the shooting justified unless there is incontrovertible video evidence that the police are unable to destroy.
I appreciate the comments. No I don’t know all the aspects of this case. I still believe the jury had all the evidence presented to it.
Please explain why a jury could review the facts as you state them and couldn’t convict.
You present a compelling case of clear police abuse and murder.
Why didn’t that jury buy it?
However, every cop out there can be completely secure in the knowledge that the department will always and invariably rule the shooting justified unless there is incontrovertible video evidence that the police are unable to destroy.
Yep, without incontrovertible proof that the cops acted outside the law, they ALWAYS clear themselves of any wrongdoing.