Unfortunately, the evidence being weighed is only the statements by the police officer in question and the several other accounts saying the old man didn't try to steal it. Then you have the witness who claims he didn't try to resist.Treblaine said:"Witness accounts" are far from facts:TheBelgianGuy said:HAHAHAHAHAHA. So what about, you're the one who doesn't want to read?TheBelgianGuy said:So what about, "we don't know what happened before they cuffed him" are you failing to grasp? That video starts off with the guy on the ground, cuffed and bleeding. We have no idea what happened before that. For all we know he was going bananas and the cops had to throw him to the ground to get him to stop.TheBelgianGuy said:snip
Again, we don;t know everything that lead up to that video starting. If we get the stuff that happened before we can better judge. If it proven the cop was over the line, throw the book at him and fire him from the force. Simple as that. But stop being judgmental when we don't have all the facts.
"
Jerald Newman, 54, spent Friday night in a Maricopa County jail hours after being arrested.
David Chadd, a CNN iReporter from Las Vegas, was among the crowd shopping for video games set up in the Walmart's grocery section. He said Newman "was not resisting" arrest as he was led away from the crowd by a police officer.
That officer, Chadd said, then suddenly hooked the suspect around the leg, grabbed him and "slammed him face first into the ground."
"It was like a bowling ball hitting the ground, that's how bad it was," he said.
Maybe read before you're judging other people for judging FACTS?
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009/multiplewitnesses.html
Consider all the spurious "witness account" of UFOs, Bigfoot, the grassy knoll and Elvis sightings and a load of other bollocks that makes up the billion dollar conspiracy industry.
There is a reason Hear-Say is not permitted as evidence in court. Witnesses are only valued in court Under Oath and under cross-examination which is a VITAL step in detecting what they actually saw without exaggeration, vagueness or bias. When you stick a camera in someone's face and ask the right question you can get the question you want. I've done it myself and even after that I've fallen for it.
When you hang the sword of perjury over people's heads and ask them what they ACTUALLY saw, and you'll find often "not resisting" was really "not resisting enough to deserve getting his head smashed in, in my opinion" but we don't know, these witnesses have not truly had their witness turned into evidence, that is fact.
You know what is going on here: it's trial-by-media
A kangaroo court with no representation operating FAR beyond the learned principals of justice.
I think this should be investigated and evidence gathered for a trial where the evidence can be weighed, NOT for it to be prejudged WITHOUT ALL the evidence being weighed.
Also, the police usually are not brought up to code on the "learned principals of justice" either. But, as you say, at this point it is all hearsay, even what the police officer said, up until he put it into his report. And other statements are hearsay, up until it's put into the police reports (seeing as how you are not allowed to lie in that document either). I would imagine, those other witnesses were not actually talked to because small town police tend to be kangaroo forces for justice who get off when they have done bad things because of their position in society.