Judge dismisses charges against CAPA student (living, vs, friendly)

[groar]

Originally Posted by Copanut

I side with the cops, why don't all you liberals do what they do for at least one day. Bet your story would change.

my coworker is far from liberal and pretty much always sides with the cops and trusts the cops. but even she is appalled by what they did in this case, and believes the kid's story. this is not about a kneejerk anti-cop reaction. this particular incident is far from ambiguous.

Originally Posted by onepoint

As a matter of policy, I believe it fair to say that some deference must be given to police officers' testimony. I think one can safely assume that more often than not, accused criminals have less to lose by lying.

what would miles have lost if he said he did have a soda bottle in his pocket? why didn't he have it on him when he was taken in? what did the police have to gain by claiming that he did have the bottle in his pocket? an excuse for accosting and then assaulting him, for one. it is pretty clear that the policemen did lie about that. so so far we have one clear lie from one side, and it's not the accused criminal.

[onepoint]

Originally Posted by groar

what would miles have lost if he said he did have a soda bottle in his pocket? why didn't he have it on him when he was taken in? what did the police have to gain by claiming that he did have the bottle in his pocket? an excuse for accosting and then assaulting him, for one. it is pretty clear that the policemen did lie about that. so so far we have one clear lie from one side, and it's not the accused criminal.

Miles likely would have been tackled, soda bottle or not, for running from the officers. The question, as I see it, is whether or not the officers identified themselves prior to the altercation. I tend to believe they did.

[groar]

Originally Posted by onepoint

Miles likely would have been tackled, soda bottle or not, for running from the officers. The question, as I see it, is whether or not the officers identified themselves prior to the altercation. I tend to believe they did.

but they have already lied, that is the point. they've already lost credibility, which makes me tend to distrust other claims they made. i'm not debating whether they were justified in tackling him for running.

they claim that they thought he had a gun in his pocket. they claim they confronted him because of that. they claim that when they searched him, they found a soda bottle in his pocket, which they had mistaken for a gun. he says there was no soda bottle, and there is no evidence that there was. it is not illegal to have a soda bottle in your pocket, so why would he lie about this? the cops have a reason to lie about this. he doesn't.

[onepoint]

Originally Posted by groar

but they have already lied, that is the point. they've already lost credibility, which makes me tend to distrust other claims they made. i'm not debating whether they were justified in tackling him for running.

they claim that they thought he had a gun in his pocket. they claim they confronted him because of that. they claim that when they searched him, they found a soda bottle in his pocket, which they had mistaken for a gun. he says there was no soda bottle, and there is no evidence that there was. it is not illegal to have a soda bottle in your pocket, so why would he lie about this? the cops have a reason to lie about this. he doesn't.

I understand your point as well. The officers were initially drawn to Miles because he appeared to be concealing himself when they first drove by. When they turned around, Miles walked out from alongside a house to the sidewalk, put his head down, and began walking with his hand in his pocket. An officer confronted Miles, and Miles took off running.

The "low-hanging jacket," while questionable, isn't really at issue here. The fact that he was confronted and took flight is the real issue. A low-hanging jacket only serves to reinforce their actions; they were likely justified in the first place. And I'm sure a low-hanging jacket sends a far different impression to undercover officers than it does to you or I. I'd rather they err on the side of caution.

If you're going to negate all credibility of the officers because of a misinterpretation as to why the kid's jacket may or may not have been hanging low, I can respect that point of view. I just don't see it the same way.

[groar]

wow, you know a lot about exactly what happened! i guess you were there, unlike the rest of us.

and this is not a "misinterpretation". they didn't say "well i guess maybe he had a soda bottle in his pocket". they stated that they found a soda bottle in his pocket. they named the brand of soda. all evidence indicates that they lied. no, it's not the most important detail of the story, but the fact that they likely chose to lie about it says a lot about their credibility when it comes to other details, like whether they identified themselves.

and you are negating all of miles' credibility and stating the officers' version of the story as fact because....?

[onepoint]

[quote=groar;13203150]wow, you know a lot about exactly what happened! i guess you were there, unlike the rest of us.[quote]

My summary of what happened is based solely on the officer's testimony, as quoted and summarized directly in the article. I won't bother re-posting the link, you can find it.

...and this is not a "misinterpretation". they didn't say "well i guess maybe he had a soda bottle in his pocket". they stated that they found a soda bottle in his pocket. they named the brand of soda. all evidence indicates that they lied. no, it's not the most important detail of the story, but the fact that they likely chose to lie about it says a lot about their credibility when it comes to other details, like whether they identified themselves.

and you are negating all of miles' credibility and stating the officers' version of the story as fact because....?

Miles asserted that the officers did not identify themselves as such at any point prior to the altercation. I find that hard to believe, and therefore following your line of thinking, Miles must be a pathological liar

I believe it error to easily dismiss all credibility of the officers because you feel safe to assume they never did, in fact, think his jacket was hanging low. Maybe the flip-flop neighbor stole the soda

[groar]

there is a HUGE difference between "i find that hard to believe" and "there is plentiful evidence that it's not true".

i realize that your story is based on the officers' testimony. but you are stating it as fact, and you don't know that it's fact. you might THINK it's fact, you might believe them, but that's not the same thing.

with all the hubbub about people automatically blaming the cops, here you are automatically believing the cops with absolutely no evidence except your innate trust in the police.

the fact is, my side of the argument has evidence to support it. yours has simple faith in one person's word over another's. yet you're stating your theories as fact and i'm stating my theories as theories.

this post from earlier in the thread, although it comes from someone who seems to be more on the cops' side, could easily apply to you:

"Everybody here is talking with an awful lot of certainty considering that none of actually witnessed what happened."

[onepoint]

Originally Posted by groar

there is a HUGE difference between "i find that hard to believe" and "there is plentiful evidence that it's not true".

i realize that your story is based on the officers' testimony. but you are stating it as fact, and you don't know that it's fact. you might THINK it's fact, you might believe them, but that's not the same thing.

with all the hubbub about people automatically blaming the cops, here you are automatically believing the cops with absolutely no evidence except your innate trust in the police.

the fact is, my side of the argument has evidence to support it. yours has simple faith in one person's word over another's.

this post from earlier in the thread, although it comes from someone who seems to be more on the cops' side, could easily apply to you:

"Everybody here is talking with an awful lot of certainty considering that none of actually witnessed what happened."

I'm not automatically believing anyone, nor am I stating the officers' version of events as fact. In fact, I think both parties are smudging the truth, partly based upon common sense, and partly based upon apparent contradictions.

The difference is that I'm not willing to completely dismiss either party's testimony over it, as you seem to be.

[groar]

how on earth is the quote below not stating testimony as fact? there are absolutely no qualifiers used to indicate that it may or may not be true. look, you even said "fact" about something that is far from certain. i assume you mean confronted by people who identified themselves as police - i can't imagine you think someone walking alone through homewood at night should just stay and talk to a group of un-uniformed people who run up to them, on the off chance that they're police.

i have never said that i completely dismiss the police's version of the story. i just favor the other side, because miles has not been caught in an apparent lie, not to mention having a squeaky-clean past, and therefore has more credibility with me. just as you favor the cops' side, um, just because.

anyway, i feel like we're going around in circles here.

Originally Posted by onepoint

I understand your point as well. The officers were initially drawn to Miles because he appeared to be concealing himself when they first drove by. When they turned around, Miles walked out from alongside a house to the sidewalk, put his head down, and began walking with his hand in his pocket. An officer confronted Miles, and Miles took off running.

The "low-hanging jacket," while questionable, isn't really at issue here. The fact that he was confronted and took flight is the real issue. A low-hanging jacket only serves to reinforce their actions; they were likely justified in the first place. And I'm sure a low-hanging jacket sends a far different impression to undercover officers than it does to you or I. I'd rather they err on the side of caution.

If you're going to negate all credibility of the officers because of a misinterpretation as to why the kid's jacket may or may not have been hanging low, I can respect that point of view. I just don't see it the same way.

[onepoint]

Originally Posted by groar

how on earth is the quote below not stating testimony as fact? there are absolutely no qualifiers used to indicate that it may or may not be true. look, you even said "fact" about something that is far from certain. i assume you mean confronted by people who identified themselves as police - i can't imagine you think someone walking alone through homewood at night should just stay and talk to a group of un-uniformed people who run up to them, on the off chance that they're police.

i have never said that i completely dismiss the police's version of the story. i just favor the other side, because miles has not been caught in an apparent lie, not to mention having a squeaky-clean past, and therefore has more credibility with me. just as you favor the cops' side, um, just because.

anyway, i feel like we're going around in circles here.

I've already explained that my summary was based upon the officer's testimony and the article's recap. Why use qualifiers when I've already deferred to those sources?

It is a "fact" that he was confronted and took flight, as confirmed by both Miles and the officers. Your assumption is incorrect. I understand that the parties (conveniently) disagree as to if/when the officers identified themselves.

We can agree to disagree on credibility