Judge dismisses charges against CAPA student (Pittsburgh, Homewood: crime, attorney, dangerous)

[groar]

you explained that it was based on the officers' testimony AFTER you made the post stating their story as fact. so yes, you did need to use a qualifier in that post if you wanted to be clear.

and yes, he was confronted and took flight, but whether the officers identified themselves is crucial to determining whether it was justified to chase and beat him (if you think people should be beaten that severely for running from the police in the first place). you say "they were likely justified in the first place" as if the mere fact of running from them, identification or no, is cause to beat and arrest him. maybe i am misreading your post, but i dunno.

whether he actually appeared suspicious is important too,. if the police were not justified in approaching him in the first place, their case gets weaker. hence the magical disappearing mountain dew bottle.

oh and i like how the neighbor is lying now too. two statements by the police that cover their own asses. two people who have no reason to lie about these things, two statements that conflict with what the officers said. sure, it's not the police who are lying, and we should definitely believe them on point #3....

[onepoint]

Originally Posted by groar

you explained that it was based on the officers' testimony AFTER you made the post stating their story as fact. so yes, you did need to use a qualifier in that post if you wanted to be clear.

and yes, he was confronted and took flight, but whether the officers identified themselves is crucial to determining whether it was justified to chase and beat him (if you think people should be beaten that severely for running from the police in the first place). you say "they were likely justified in the first place" as if the mere fact of running from them, identification or no, is cause to beat and arrest him. maybe i am misreading your post, but i dunno.

whether he actually appeared suspicious is important too,. if the police were not justified in approaching him in the first place, their case gets weaker. hence the magical disappearing mountain dew bottle.

I meant the mere fact of running from them, if self-identified, justifies the (potentially forceful) detention. Obviously that part of the story is in question, as it must be... either party's argument is mostly dead in the water if one concedes to the other.

And it is my understanding that the mysterious soda bottle was not the basis for initial questioning; the officers testified that Miles was acting suspiciously by "concealing himself," walking out from alongside a house, keeping his head down, hand in pocket, etc. These alleged actions caused the officers to circle back and confront Miles. The hanging jacket, while apparently helpful in justifying ripping the kid's hair out, isn't necessary to justify the stop. I still think the neighbor stole it.

[groar]

why on earth would the neighbor steal a soda bottle? and how exactly would she do that; at what point after the police allegedly pull it out of miles' pocket does she snatch it out of their hands? was she in cahoots with miles to hide the fact that he was guilty of walking with a soda bottle in his pocket? please tell me that you're joking about that.

my point is, as it always has been, that the police have a reason to lie about the soda bottle, and miles does not. yet their stories conflict. whether the "hanging jacket" was the main impetus for the stop is immaterial.

[onepoint]

Originally Posted by groar

why on earth would the neighbor steal a soda bottle? and how exactly would she do that; at what point after the police allegedly pull it out of miles' pocket does she snatch it out of their hands? was she in cahoots with miles to hide the fact that he was guilty of walking with a soda bottle in his pocket? please tell me that you're joking about that.

my point is, as it always has been, that the police have a reason to lie about the soda bottle, and miles does not. yet their stories conflict. whether the "hanging jacket" was the main impetus for the stop is immaterial.

I am joking about that.

And my point remains that Miles has reason to lie about whether the police identified themselves as such, while self-identification is protocol procedure.

It was likely the butler, in the library, with the candlestick.

[groar]

yes, miles has a reason to lie about whether the police identified themselves, and the police also have a reason to lie and say they did. but there is no evidence either way of what actually happened. it is the officers' word against miles'.

meanwhile, there is evidence that contradicts the officers' soda bottle story, and in that case only one side has a reason to lie. so, again, based on evidence and not on my personal feelings about accused criminals vs cops, there is only one side that has likely been caught in a lie.

your idea of evidence that they identified themselves is that they're supposed to? ok, my evidence that i never speed is that there is a speed limit.

[fleetiebelle]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Not crazy at all. Being a man, I'm not surprised that you are unaware that women have been abducted from the highways by men impersonating police officers.

The police actually recommend that you drive to the nearest police station if you are unsure if it is really a police officer trying to pull you over.

Now that we're living in a cell phone world, 911 is an option too.

I'd do the same thing for the same reason. And police do recommend that you call 911 to inform dispatch that you'll be driving to a public location or the nearest police station.

[onepoint]

Originally Posted by groar

yes, miles has a reason to lie about whether the police identified themselves, and the police also have a reason to lie and say they did. but there is no evidence either way of what actually happened. it is the officers' word against miles'.

meanwhile, there is evidence that contradicts the officers' soda bottle story, and in that case only one side has a reason to lie. so, again, based on evidence and not on my personal feelings about accused criminals vs cops, there is only one side that has likely been caught in a lie.

your idea of evidence that they identified themselves is that they're supposed to? ok, my evidence that i never speed is that there is a speed limit.

The word "evidence" was yours, not mine. My assumption is not based merely on that which the officers are "supposed to" do... it's based on what they by and large frequently do Perhaps they do so as a matter of protocol... perhaps it's because they're nice, friendly guys. Regardless, they typically identify themselves. Your speeding is a matter of which I have no concern.

As such, I would personally tend to tilt the "credibility meter" a touch in favor of the officers as to the specific issue of whether or not they identified themselves. Perhaps because there were a few of them... you know, 3 collective lies outweighs 1 solo lie? But wait... if all of the officers were lying about the identification, perhaps we could look into a conspiracy charge as well... I'll bring the popcorn.

Alas, the officers must be sunk, regardless, due to the phantom soda bottle. I suppose they should never have chased the young male who they testified acted suspiciously and took flight when approached. Reasonable minds can differ.

[groar]

it's not like all they did was chase him.

anyway, i think we've said all there is to be said to each other about this case. i think we can agree to disagree.

[onepoint]

Originally Posted by groar

it's not like all they did was chase him.

anyway, i think we've said all there is to be said to each other about this case. i think we can agree to disagree.

I respectfully agree (to disagree)

And regarding the amount of force used, judging by the post-altercation photos, I cannot imagine a scenario in which the police would have been justified in bloodying the kid up like that.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by onepoint

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

The point is that there is strong reason to believe that the police have lied----the neighbor's testimony contradicts their statement AND no soda bottle was taken into evidence.

But there is no real proof the boy lied except for the word of the police.

THAT is why MOST people are believing the boy, not the police.

Even if the boy did run from them after they identified themselves as police, the police have lost credibility because other things don't add up.