Originally Posted by blueblade:
“You see, it's at this point that so many will say "we only saw part of what happened, and you need to see it all to put in context - the officer may have had good reason to fear for his life and was therefore possibly justified in shooting dead Mr Scott"
Not that I believe he was, I'm simply playing devil's advocate as I've seen it all before on here.”
Not actually justifying anything, just saying I believe everyone has a right to a trial.
I recall a trial i witnessed once whereby 2 guys were caught on hidden CCTV taking money from the shop they worked. It was clear as day, they sat at the checkout at the end of the night, counted up the money, had a quick check to see if anyone was watching and then pocketed half the money. The CCTV was damning and it was hard to see how anyone would see beyond it. They gave a story, albeit it a rubbish one about how they would always bring the money back and in the end got found not guilty.
Now of course they haven't killed someone so I appreciate the stakes are lower here but if I had the CCTV and posted it on here I would Guarentee the vast majority would say they were guilty without question.
In this case was the jury bent? did they play the system? Who knows but regardless the decision was made and had to be agreed with.
My point is that the justice system is there For a reason and that officer will face the same process as any criminal does. If you condemn a person based upon one bit of information and already state that he must be found guilty if not the system is messed up then you have to question the entire legal system and apply the same rule to everyone, including yourself.
What that means is that we disband trials and witnesses and go solely on video evidence, nothing more. You get caught on CCTV doing anything then straight to jail for you no trial.
Is that what you want?