Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
True, I wasn't there, but neither were the members of the jury in any criminal trial that goes on in this country. We don't ignore their opinion with the old "you weren't there" defense.
As for the "it doesn't matter what you saw" thing, that sounds like a pretty raw deal.
And I'm a regular, sighted Canadian citizen, so while it's well established that I'm no expert on the matter, I don't agree with the sentiment that I have "no clue" when police can use a certain level of force.
When a guy ends up dead on the floor of the airport because he had a temper tantrum I don't think I'm out of line if I question the level of force that was used.
|
Ya, there is a BIG difference between evidence presented at a trial and you judging another's behavior based solely on a snippet of video. If you can't figure that out, I certainly am not going to spell it out.
Unfortunately, whether you think it's a raw deal or not, it is the truth. You were not placed in that position. You don't know what they saw and you certainly can't tell them that their perception was wrong- thus, "it doesn't matter what you saw".
To say that you don't have to be an expert I will agree with. What I don't agree with (nor did I ever say you had to be an expert btw) is that again, you are judging another's behavior based on your own set of values and ideals without even attempting to gain any sort of insight as why this person did what they did. If you could come up with a valid reason that you think it was excessive force, I would be much more willing to understand your perspective. But, you just say, 'I think it was excessive because this guy died, and they didn't talk to him for long enough, and they didn't get an interpreter, blah, blah, blah.' All that does NOT address the concern that it was excessive force. You can't seem to see passed the outcome. You see, non-lethal force being used and the outcome was lethal, thus there must be an error. It's not that simple.