police shoot outs, and a truth revealing video. (1 Viewer)

[Det. Brees]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWPUqzDq9LM
scary video here.


in these to videos the first one it looks like a man is gunned downed by police for no reason. but a video from a 2nd angle shows a completely different story.
this show that a video does not always show the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR5UI6p5kWI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc1hdOTEbPU&mode=related&search=

 

[Saint James]

Yeah, that both of them pretty much deserved what they got. Don't want to see people shot, but when you shoot at a cop (or anyone)...prepare to get shot.

 

[JimEverett]

why don't cops show this video in the far more common practice of "eyewitness" testimony? Police and prosecutors use eyewitness testimony exclusively in many cases they are seeking convictions. Yet they do not apply the same standard as when their own actions are called into question.
Why is that?

 

[Det. Brees]

why don't cops show this video in the far more common practice of "eyewitness" testimony? Police and prosecutors use eyewitness testimony exclusively in many cases they are seeking convictions. Yet they do not apply the same standard as when their own actions are called into question.
Why is that?

when ever video is available it is used to defend the officers. however many times it is twisted. if you look at the latest incident where in L.A. you see a officer strike a suspect on the face. well the media has twisted this incident . if a person looks closely you will see the suspect is grabbing the officers arm and pulling in trying to get free. this is before the officer strikes him. also the 2nd officer in near the suspect legs and i believe in on the radio calling for assistance. In this case the officers have been cleared of any wrong doing but the media is continuing to make a issue out of nothing.
often we have a video that does not show the entire truth , like the 2nd of the 3 videos i posted. however the 3rd video is more accurate.

 

[JimEverett]

I agree with you southland, but I am asking a different question. Why is "eyewitness" evidence - in this case from a camera, only discredited by cops when it is to their advantage? You are a cop, so you know very well that a lot of cases the police put forth depend on eyewitness testimony - testimony from a particular person, from a particular perspective and with all the biases, bad angles, bad lighting, etc. that goes along with it.
I have never seen a cop question eyewitness testimony when it suits their view, only when it hurts them directly or when it hurts their case. And many cases are built entirely on eyewitnesses.

 

[BullDawg]

JE...as a lawyer don't you try to discredit anything that will harm your client's defense? Unless I'm missing some critical point here, it seems that is all part of the lawyer tango.

 

[Det. Brees]

one of the things have found out about our criminal justice system is it is not a search for the truth, and that is very sad.
however, to answer your question. when i do my investigation i do note all of my witnesses and there testimony. when i find differences in the stories i then have to find out why. there can be several different reason. i would say on most of the cases i work the reason there is a difference of opinion is due to the fact one person is not being truthful. however there are other circumstance that must be considered like you stated. Bad fields of view, age , lighting and then there is the simple fact that each of us perceive things differently. i try to take in to account and many things as i possibly can to help me and the A. D. A. prosecute the case
, for the most part im putting together the case for the A.D.A. and if i do a bad job hit harder on him or her.

 

[brophy]

it was probably just an accident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVZjbyzFGQ&mode=related&search=

 

[Random Fan]

I agree with you southland, but I am asking a different question. Why is "eyewitness" evidence - in this case from a camera, only discredited by cops when it is to their advantage? You are a cop, so you know very well that a lot of cases the police put forth depend on eyewitness testimony - testimony from a particular person, from a particular perspective and with all the biases, bad angles, bad lighting, etc. that goes along with it.
I have never seen a cop question eyewitness testimony when it suits their view, only when it hurts them directly or when it hurts their case. And many cases are built entirely on eyewitnesses.

That's why we have an adversarial system of law.