"I was afraid for my life!"

[Mr MojoRisin]

[QUOTE=WombRaider;1056593494]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

If his location was transmitted by his mdt, there wouldn't need to be radio transmission. You're trying to find something where there's nothing. Occams razor dictates we go with the one that has the least assumptions.

How do you know there's nothing, are you considering all the possibilities? I don't think you are.


Jim

[LexusLover]

[QUOTE=Mr MojoRisin;1056593470]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I understand what you're saying. But I just have a feeling there was no radio transmission before the video went on. I am sorry the whole incident has a scripted appearance.

Jim

Most traffic stops are going to have a "scripted" appearance when they begin, primarily because patrol officers go through "scripted" training in patrol procedures and then through their experience on the street they follow some modification of the script .... like I said ... watch the video and watch him "feel" of the driver's side quarter panel around the light and trunk area. He is also walking close to the side of the vehicle, but not up against it. I think I recall him leaning forward to address the driver before he moves full frontal outside the driver's door window. Those are all "scripted"!

By the time he walked back to this unit he was "comfortable" because he turned his back to the vehicle and driver .... which IMO is "complacency"!

If he thinks the guy has warrants or something doesn't chive .. he stays in his vehicle to get the information so the driver doesn't know what he knows, and he can wait for backup in the safety of his unit. The problem with leaving the guy in the vehicle and not making him stand at the trunk is then he has to reapproach the danger zone ... driver's side area.....when the guy came out of the vehicle .. that should have been a red flag....things are fixing to go South. And they did.

Before this incident is "closed" ... you will know what was transmitted before the video began. You will also know how he communicated with the dispatcher to determine valid DL, registration, and warrants.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I understand what you're saying. But I just have a feeling there was no radio transmission before the video went on. I am sorry the whole incident has a scripted appearance.

Jim

Mojo you're treading dangerously into JD territory. Not everything is a conspiracy. A cop is being charged for murder. That's about the only difference this one has from the hundreds of similar incidents that happen each year and result in the deaths of innocent civilians like you and I. It's a prevalent problem and it needs to be fixed, that's about it.

While we're on it, why don't you label the Eric Garner case a conspiracy too? surely, no one saw any "cigarettes" in his hand? I know JD will be right with you on this one.

In case you missed it:

[WombRaider]

[QUOTE=Mr MojoRisin;1056593549]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

How do you know there's nothing, are you considering all the possibilities? I don't think you are.


Jim

You're falling into a presuppositional trap. You're staying with the answer and then working your way backwards. That's not how any investigative science or any science for that fact, works. In the absence of evidence, it's perfectly logical to assume that infers it didn't occur.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

In the absence of evidence, it's perfectly logical to assume that infers it didn't occur.

.... so long as there has been an exhaustive search for the evidence that it did happen. And additionally, in a criminal case there may be "some" slight evidence that it may have occurred as alleged (or thought), but an honest and unbiased evaluation will conclude there is insufficient evidence to meet the burden.

[Mr MojoRisin]

[QUOTE=WombRaider;1056593620]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You're falling into a presuppositional trap. You're staying with the answer and then working your way backwards. That's not how any investigative science or any science for that fact, works. In the absence of evidence, it's perfectly logical to assume that infers it didn't occur.

Tell us about your investigative experiences? Not what you've read what you've actually done.

Jim

[WombRaider]

[QUOTE=Mr MojoRisin;1056593801]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Tell us about your investigative experiences? Not what you've read what you've actually done.

Jim

Here's a better question. Am I wrong? You can't fault my point so you've moved on to attack me personally. I don't need to have done something to know how basic science works. Receiving a college education took care of that. If you know anything about science you know that you don't begin with the answer. The evidence leads you to the answer. You're beginning with a presupposition that the event is somehow fishy or doesn't add up. You can't start there and then begin to look for supporting facts. That's not how it works. I don't have to be a scientist to understand that.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

If you know anything about science you know that you don't begin with the answer. The evidence leads you to the answer.

Mojo can speak for himself, but I suspect he would agree with this statement. I do.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're beginning with a presupposition that the event is somehow fishy or doesn't add up. You can't start there and then begin to look for supporting facts. That's not how it works. I don't have to be a scientist to understand that.

But ...again Mojo can speak for himself, but my take on what he is referencing is not "the beginning" of "the investigation" ..... the actual "beginning" of "the investigation" was the body lying on the ground in handcuffs with his arms behind his back and two officers on the scene .. one of whom apparently had shot the man lying on the ground.

Other "pieces" of the investigation began to be revealed, the first of which was the "damning" video by a bystander. That apparently showed a different scenario than what the shooter had claimed to the 2nd officer on the scene, and also what the shooter was reporting to dispatch on his "walkie"!

Mojo was looking at a unit cam video with audio, which may have been the beginning of the incident, but not "the investigation."

As the old comment goes ... you take 4-5 people who "witnessed" an intersectional collision of 2 vehicles underneath a traffic signal light and you will more than likely get 4-5 different descriptions about what happened, and their "take" on who was responsible.

Based on the "presumption" of innocence" the general rule is that if there are two explanations for an event and one of the explanations provides an "innocent" basis for what happened, then until something else comes along to destroy the "innocent" basis then the "innocent" explanation controls. That "rule" should apply to each element of the offense ... because the all must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Mojo can speak for himself, but I suspect he would agree with this statement. I do.



But ...again Mojo can speak for himself, but my take on what he is referencing is not "the beginning" of "the investigation" ..... the actual "beginning" of "the investigation" was the body lying on the ground in handcuffs with his arms behind his back and two officers on the scene .. one of whom apparently had shot the man lying on the ground.

Other "pieces" of the investigation began to be revealed, the first of which was the "damning" video by a bystander. That apparently showed a different scenario than what the shooter had claimed to the 2nd officer on the scene, and also what the shooter was reporting to dispatch on his "walkie"!

Mojo was looking at a unit cam video with audio, which may have been the beginning of the incident, but not "the investigation."

As the old comment goes ... you take 4-5 people who "witnessed" an intersectional collision of 2 vehicles underneath a traffic signal light and you will more than likely get 4-5 different descriptions about what happened, and their "take" on who was responsible.

Based on the "presumption" of innocence" the general rule is that if there are two explanations for an event and one of the explanations provides an "innocent" basis for what happened, then until something else comes along to destroy the "innocent" basis then the "innocent" explanation controls. That "rule" should apply to each element of the offense ... because the all must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

I'm referencing the beginning of the video, from the time we first have video of the incident. And you're correct, eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst and least accurate evidence you can have.