No charges to be filed in charlotte police shooting

If you are going to accuse somone of murder it is.

Refute the findings of the Districts Attorneys 16 career prosecutors who investigated it.

 

Right. So lets say I kill your mother. The cops come to me and ask, if I had to do that. I say yup. And since nobody can disprove otherwise, than it's just totally alright? Doesn't work like that, mate.

When 3 cops beat a guy to pulp for 20 minutes straight in jail where he was locked up, until he actually died, than it still is perfectly acceptable in the US. So just that the US justice system is right on par with the best of kangaroo courts of a banana republic doesn't mean it's alright. That goes along the line a woman got stoned to death in some weird ass muslim nation. Perfectly normal. Bunch of pro people investigated it, anda,.. yeah that was the verdict, so?

 

No let's stick with the case here and the facts and evidence presented. You are accusing the police of murder, prove it and refute the findings of the DA and the 16 career prosecutors who unanimously voted it was a legal justified self-defense.

 

No there is not any evidence.

Repeating yourself proves nothing

 

Here once again is your post.


Quote Originally Posted by CourtJester View Post
There is and was no evidence other than the officers testimony. Period! If you got it present it otherwise stop making stuff up.
Wrong there was and is physical evidence.

What is your evidence it was not a lawful shooting?

The entire discussion up to that point was about whether or not there was evidence that he was holding a gun and threatening the police which would have justified the shooting. You claimed that there was physical evidence other than the officers testimony. Not my fault that you make things up and then can't support your claims.

 

There is physical evidence DUH. The DA laid it out stop posting out of ignorance.

 

Oh on the contrary.
The police fails to prove he was holding on to a gun. They had him surrounded, with their body camera's. It's not on camera hence it didn't happen. And officer who felt he was in danger in such a way that he had to shoot the guy, shot the guy in the back. So it's rather on par with Walter Scott. Police gets caught blatantly lying with what went on, still sticks to their story, doesn't get convicted. Walter Scott was also shot in the back. And you're just hiding behind this type of kangaroo court system that rivals the best of banana republics.

 

Wrong.

Lack of video does not mean lack of evidence.

The fact that they repeatedly yelled at him to drop the gun is evidence that he had one in hand.

 

They were yelling that before he got out of the car. So that evidence is not evidence that he had a gun or did not have a gun when he was out of the car

 

They were yelling at him to drop it after he got out of the car

 

And before

 

No. He is on video, you can see his hands... but no gun in them. So it's just like Walter Scott. Police claim something. The video totally disproves it. The cop under oath still sticks to his story,... and gets off with nothing.

 

Wrong you cannot see both his hands in the video.

The video disproved nothing and the audio supports the police as does the recovered firearm.

That evidence is logical and conclusive. You have no evidence refuting it.

 

you can. 5th second in the vid his left hand, 8th second his right.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...that-shows-killing-of-black-man-a7328196.html


And don't go make that pathettic trip of I can not see it clearly.
You don't have any problem seeing that cop in the red shirt having a gun.

 

No you cant

 

Just another innocent Black man shot down like a dog while he was reading his Bible waiting to pick up his kid from school. The the cops had the audacity to plant a gun by his side and put an ankle holster on him.

 

I sourced and even put up exactly what second you can see them hands,
hence you're now just acting childish and the "no you cant" is unfounded.

 

You lied.

One cannot see his hands in it

 

Oh I pity the fool than only whines "oh you lied" when everything is being presented on a golden platter. Sources, exactly when to look. Everything you could have wished for. You've lost the argument there, buddy. His hands are perfectly visible in that vid and there is a huge difference with them hands and the hands of the cops holding on to guns.

 

You are lying and you know it.

You cannot see his hands period any where in that video, you lost this argument long ago and now simply look childish

 

Dude... you can see from his head to his upper legs with ease, and his hands are just along his side.

 

You cannot see his hand and are lying if you claim you can

 

The guy is surrounded by people wearing body camera's.
And on the vid I posted, you can clearly see his hands.
If you got a vid that shows he has a gun in his hands, than lets have it.

Otherwise I just have to dismiss your childish opinion.
You're just here to troll and not source a thing to put some weight in your words.

 

You cannot see a clear view of his hands. It was a lawful shooting as determined by 16 career prosecutors in a unanimous decision. If you have evidence which should overturn that then present it, none of the videos do.

 

The hands are there. The quality of the view oh his hands, and the hands of the cop is the same.
That the cop got a gun in his hands is totally visible. No gun is to be spotted in the hands of the victim.
End of case.