Busted by YouTube

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, calling this corruption is not appropriate. He was not covered by the system; the system tried to take him down. It was the jury that cleared him.

Well, the system could of course try in a way to lean the jury in one way or another, no? Not that I think that happened here, but potentially, say if that happened in Iraq, and they put on a "trial" to prove the innocence.

As for the civil court thing, from what I understand, watching Ally McBeal all my live, he could be sued, but it doesn't seem like he was harmed very much, so I don't think there'd be much in for him.

He already got $85000 via suit; that issue is pretty much closed.

And I think the idea the jury was nobbled is too absurd to be considered in such a case.

well its not that absurd the bart cop trial the jury selection was extremely bias there was not a single black person in the jury..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
He already got $85000 via suit; that issue is pretty much closed.

And I think the idea the jury was nobbled is too absurd to be considered in such a case.

It seems like everything went fine really, although it does look like assault to me, he lost his job, which he really didn't seem fit for, the guy in question got reparations, youtube got another video, everyone wins.

Yeah, it's pretty absurd. It is also a poor thing to cry 'jury tampering' the moment things go the way you do not want them to.

Meanwhile, whilst mistakes are made, I am always hesitant to criticise a jury verdict when I was not there in the courtroom actually listening to the case details. One youtube video does not make us experts.

i am curious if the second officer said anything about the situation and filed his own report of the situation..

if he saw what happen and said or did nothing he is just as liable as the other officer and should be fired.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
He already got $85000 via suit; that issue is pretty much closed.

And I think the idea the jury was nobbled is too absurd to be considered in such a case.

Do you know who forked out the $85000 ?

Maybe I was asking for much.

I cannot find any mention anywhere of an $85,000 suit and If it's the state of New York that's forking out the money, and I was a taxpayer, I would be livid to say the least.

Just checked. It was $65000 and I believe it was indeed from the city.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Meanwhile, whilst mistakes are made, I am always hesitant to criticise a jury verdict when I was not there in the courtroom actually listening to the case details. One youtube video does not make us experts.

I always thought the video, immediately, made the person an expert. (in this particular case.)

This is what we can conclude from the video:

False police report filed.

Biker tried to avoid the officer.

The officer went out of his way to get in the biker's way.

The Biker actually went too far out of the officer's way so the Officer lunged at him to make contact.

Biker got laid the **** out. (was funny to watch)

The end.

Pretty clear cut and dry and no amount of "court case evidence" is needed at all to see that unlawful assault occured.

Was their a martial law declaration? Was there a "no bike allowed" zone?

If the former, force justified. If the latter, still not justified.

Similar to another video where this lady was accused of hitting another in the eye and the video clearly showed that she was just barely tapped on the back of the head with pieces of paper.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I always thought the video, immediately, made the person an expert. (in this particular case.)

This is what we can conclude from the video:

False police report filed.

Biker tried to avoid the officer.

The officer went out of his way to get in the biker's way.

The Biker actually went too far out of the officer's way so the Officer lunged at him to make contact.

Biker got laid the **** out. (was funny to watch)

The end.

Pretty clear cut and dry and no amount of "court case evidence" is needed at all to see that unlawful assault occured.

Was their a martial law declaration? Was there a "no bike allowed" zone?

If the former, force justified. If the latter, still not justified.

Similar to another video where this lady was accused of hitting another in the eye and the video clearly showed that she was just barely tapped on the back of the head with pieces of paper.

And I remember this video:

YouTube video

Thinking watching that video makes you an expert on the entire case is a very foolish position indeed. Laws and courts are a complex business and the amount of detail that goes into a conviction is immense. The judge may well have advised the jury to take into consideration a whole range of factors other than the literal facts of the incident- such as the defendant's state of mind and intent.

If the jury was not completely convinced beyond doubt that his intent was malicious, then they had to acquit. This would not have made the officer's actions correct, but it might have made them, legally speaking, NOT assault.

And to get those impressions, you would have had to have been in the court and listening to all of the witness testimony and relevant background information, and the judge's comments on what would and would not make it assault.

None of us did any of that, and to think that we know all the ins and outs of the case is very silly indeed. This sort of rush to judgement shows some of the worst sides of the human condition.

are you a cop? remember you have to tell me if you are? 😛

no watching a video doesnt make us legal nor visual experts but thinking that we need to be in order to form an opinion and pass judgment either based on emotion or interpretation of the law is asinine and its whats wrong with the legal system in itself when it becomes nothing more then who can PR better and discredit others..

what we saw and what we know is enough to say it was a crime now it is up for the system to decide the punishment if any hence why it was taken to court in the 1st place.

i personally believe the police officers punishment was too lenient but that shows how justice is not the same with modern law nor does it go hand in hand

There is nothing in the least bit asinine about thinking that the opinion of a person who was watched a video of an incident and nothing more is inferior to the opinions of those who sat through an entire court case on the matter and would have received legal advice on the rules involved.

This sort of automatic thinking that the jury must have all been either idiots or crooked speaks poorly of those that think it- especially when you are speaking from a position of relative ignorance. If you had actually been in the court yourself every day I might have a higher regard for your opinion.

You say it was a crime. The jury disagrees. That's the bottom line with justice. He was only done on falsifying the paperwork.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is nothing in the least bit asinine about thinking that the opinion of a person who was watched a video of an incident and nothing more is inferior to the opinions of those who sat through an entire court case on the matter and would have received legal advice on the rules involved.

This sort of automatic thinking that the jury must have all been either idiots or crooked speaks poorly of those that think it- especially when you are speaking from a position of relative ignorance. If you had actually been in the court yourself every day I might have a higher regard for your opinion.

You say it was a crime. The jury disagrees. That's the bottom line with justice. He was only done on falsifying the paperwork.

Well, the jury is made up of the people. It's a fair bet to say that a good percentile of it are idiots.

This may well be true, but I would rather judge potential idiocy by evidence rather than assumption- and assuming you know more than the jury is one such sort of evidence.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Thinking watching that video makes you an expert on the entire case is a very foolish position indeed. Laws and courts are a complex business and the amount of detail that goes into a conviction is immense. The judge may well have advised the jury to take into consideration a whole range of factors other than the literal facts of the incident- such as the defendant's state of mind and intent.

If the jury was not completely convinced beyond doubt that his intent was malicious, then they had to acquit. This would not have made the officer's actions correct, but it might have made them, legally speaking, NOT assault.

And to get those impressions, you would have had to have been in the court and listening to all of the witness testimony and relevant background information, and the judge's comments on what would and would not make it assault.

None of us did any of that, and to think that we know all the ins and outs of the case is very silly indeed. This sort of rush to judgement shows some of the worst sides of the human condition.

Nah. I think watching the video makes me an expert on the events that occured.

Namely: Criminal force was applied. Illegal. Criminal.

Falsification of police records to cover up guilt.

Innocense of the biker.

That's all from the video. Open and shut case. Nothing more would need to be argued.

Basically, this same information, when presented in court, doesn't magically become different. 😬

Well, you go on thinking like that then. Says a lot about you.

Some chick made a youtube vid trying to help underpriviliged kids and added a Charlie Chaplin song to it. Now she's in the middle of a copyright infringement.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah. I think watching the video makes me an expert on the events that occured.

Namely: Criminal force was applied. Illegal. Criminal.

Falsification of police records to cover up guilt.

Innocense of the biker.

That's all from the video. Open and shut case. Nothing more would need to be argued.

Basically, this same information, when presented in court, doesn't magically become different. 😬

Say it was a child rapist the police officer recognized and he pushed him over to arrest him before he got away, would that not change the circumstances with the exact same video?