Now it's baton rouge

[sirs]

And we know that how again?? 

As in we don't know what happened just prior to this video being taken.....as in we don't have all the facts to make that claim.  That was the same claim given to Brown in the Ferguson shooting, until the facts provided that while Brown was "unarmed", he was hardly a non-threat, as he attacked and tried to disarm a police officer.

[Plane]

As in we don't know what happened just prior to this video being taken.....

This is what I think will make those body cams interesting.

I suspect that they don't make the police look innocent, they could have been published by now it they were clearly exonerating.

If the bodycams were any use, the time to use them is now or sooner.

I am afraid that the footage is so bad that they will be held back as long as possible , the old Clinton trick. The significance may be forgotten by the time the information is free.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The officers claimed that their body cams--BOTH of then-- were knocked off in the struggle.
I deem it probable that they did not have them on in the first place. These two cops were NOT making Baton Rouge safer.
They were bullying.

[sirs]

Your OPINION is duly noted.   The rest of us will wait for the actual facts to be presented

[Plane]

The officers claimed that their body cams--BOTH of then-- were knocked off in the struggle.
I deem it probable that they did not have them on in the first place. These two cops were NOT making Baton Rouge safer.
They were bullying.

Unless they were destroyed in the process these bodycams would be witness to the first few moments of that fight.

Perhaps including convincing proof perhaps not , but where is it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

No one has said one damned word about any bodycam images.
It is likely that they were not even wearing them, or turned them off.

Whey they would NOT show was this guy reaching for a gun. They would have shot him before any scuffle had that been the case.
The cops lied, and the head cops are covering up for them

[sirs]

Your OPINION is duly noted.   The rest of us will wait for the actual facts to be presented

[Plane]

Whey they would NOT show was this guy reaching for a gun. They would have shot him before any scuffle had that been the case.

This is probably true, but this is not an empty set.

If they had a good reason to grab him it might show in these videos , but I expect that the bodycams are showing misbehavior on the part of the police.

If what the bodycam shows is that the policeman turned the thing off just before beginning this confrontation this would be a malicious dereliction , it would show an intent to hide the truth, before there was anything to show.

If the knowledge that a person has a gun is by itself probable cause for arrest or reasonable excuse for policemen to knock you down, then the second amendment means nothing.

What happened in the moments immediately before this altercation is important to know.

If the police instigated the violence , they should be held responsible for the violence.

If they had the means to record that moment , and willfully refused to record that moment , then I think it reasonable to assume that they intended some bad behavior.

[sirs]

What happened in the moments immediately before this altercation is important to know.

If the police instigated the violence , they should be held responsible for the violence.

If they had the means to record that moment , and willfully refused to record that moment , then I think it reasonable to assume that they intended some bad behavior.

PRECISELY

[Xavier_Onassis]

I deem it improbable that any video taken by these body cams will ever be released to the public. At present, no one even knows if any footage even exists. It is clear that the cops entered the scene at a moment in which no one was being threatened by anyone. Some beggar simply ratted out the video guy for having a gun to get back at him for not giving him money.  The DVD seller had no way of knowing why the cops had come unless they told him: he did not hear the bum telephone them, so he did not know that the police thought he had a gun.

The police could not be certain that Sterling had a gun either. All they had was hearsay gossip, probably relayed by the dispatcher.

It is highly probable that the police deliberately took off their cameras and decided to beat the crap out of Sterling for refusing to obey them.

It is even more probable that they will be charged with anything, because the tradition is that cops get away with beating the Hell out of uppity Negroes.

[sirs]

Whatever you deem....the facts are we don't have all the facts

[Xavier_Onassis]

If the facts favor Sterling, they will be dispensed with and the cops will prevail.
They might lose their jobs or be forced to quit, as there will be those who will be gunning for them.

That is the worst that will happen to the cops.

[sirs]

If.....

THAT'S JUST IT.....you're just speculating at this point...If this, If that, If whatever.  You've already made up your mind, just like you did in Ferguson, and damn any facts to the contrary

[Plane]

  It is very ordinary for the set of facts to be incomplete.

   But...

   If it looks like some facts are missing because defendants have been destroying the record , I consider it fair to assume that the missing record was incriminating.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If it looks like some facts are missing because defendants have been destroying the record , I consider it fair to assume that the missing record was incriminating.
=============================================

I agree with you on this, Plane.

If we were to make a list of states in which corruption, racism by officials and shameless lying by officials were common, Louisiana would certainly be in the bottom five.

I am all for all the evidence being presented. But I note that possible video evidence from those body cams has so far been unmentioned by any official.