Are you fucking kidding me? If felt endangered by her he wouldn’t have punched her and just left, he’d have arrested her or left the situation entirely. Ergo it’s not self-defense, ergo he had no reason to legal or moral reason to punch her. The fact that he just left means he could’ve done that from the start.
So if this is the case, why is the video cut in such a selective way?
And why is she tackled down by half a dozen policemen afterwards?
I read the reports on the event. They let the majority of the people just go home after some time. With the exception of those that commited criminal offenses. Like attacking policemen.
We just don’t know, because a crucial part of the video is missing.
Find me the rest and I will happily personnaly alert the state attorney to this incident.
But in this form, the evidence just is too thin.
So, anyone: Give me more! I want the raw data!
I just explained why we can make a judgement without the context and you’re there not addressing anything I said. You haven’t shown why we need to care about the context.
So if this is the case, why is the video cut in such a selective way?
And why is she tackled down by half a dozen policemen afterwards?
Don’t know, don’t care. Probably to declutter the video. Again, the only thing justifying such an action would be a credible threat of death or injury that he couldn’t disengage from, and we can plainly see that was not the case, because we literally see him fucking disengaging right after. Context is only necessary to resolve ambiguity, and there is nothing ambiguous here.
With the exception of those that commited criminal offenses. Like attacking policemen.
Well forgive me for not trusting the words of riot police out of all people.
But in this form, the evidence just is too thin.
We can see an instance of assault by a police officer on video but it’s “just too thin,” right…
You haven’t shown why we need to care about the context.
Why we need to care:
With context, the video might be sufficient to raise a charge against the policemen by the state prosecution.
Without, it is basically worthless.
They let the majority of the people just go home after some time. With the exception of those that commited criminal offenses. Like attacking policemen.
If a cop gets a hangnail while beating a protestor, they’ll say it was the protestor’s fault and charge them with assaulting an officer. They have charged people for breaking a cop’s hand, after the cop punched them in the face. I remember when I heard an old retired cop say that he and his buddies would knee someone in the balls, then refer to it in their reports as “the suspect violently groined my knee”.
Are you fucking kidding me? If felt endangered by her he wouldn’t have punched her and just left, he’d have arrested her or left the situation entirely. Ergo it’s not self-defense, ergo he had no reason to legal or moral reason to punch her. The fact that he just left means he could’ve done that from the start.
So if this is the case, why is the video cut in such a selective way?
And why is she tackled down by half a dozen policemen afterwards?
I read the reports on the event. They let the majority of the people just go home after some time. With the exception of those that commited criminal offenses. Like attacking policemen.
We just don’t know, because a crucial part of the video is missing.
Find me the rest and I will happily personnaly alert the state attorney to this incident.
But in this form, the evidence just is too thin.
So, anyone: Give me more! I want the raw data!
I just explained why we can make a judgement without the context and you’re there not addressing anything I said. You haven’t shown why we need to care about the context.
Don’t know, don’t care. Probably to declutter the video. Again, the only thing justifying such an action would be a credible threat of death or injury that he couldn’t disengage from, and we can plainly see that was not the case, because we literally see him fucking disengaging right after. Context is only necessary to resolve ambiguity, and there is nothing ambiguous here.
Well forgive me for not trusting the words of riot police out of all people.
We can see an instance of assault by a police officer on video but it’s “just too thin,” right…
Why we need to care:
With context, the video might be sufficient to raise a charge against the policemen by the state prosecution.
Without, it is basically worthless.
If a cop gets a hangnail while beating a protestor, they’ll say it was the protestor’s fault and charge them with assaulting an officer. They have charged people for breaking a cop’s hand, after the cop punched them in the face. I remember when I heard an old retired cop say that he and his buddies would knee someone in the balls, then refer to it in their reports as “the suspect violently groined my knee”.