Current Events > In FL cops can shoot black men on the ground with their hands up.

(+) Yeah! (+)

lilORANG posted...

Wtf kind of expert testimony were they expecting from SWAT guy? That it is ok to shoot people for no reason? Absolutely absurd.

As long as the cop 'is in fear for their life', they can pretty much literally get away with murder.

Ruvan22 posted...

On a separate note, part of me is morbidly interested in why the ruling was overturned..

ETA Sorry, should have clarified - wouldn't not hearing testimony lead to retrial? And as lilORang said, how was it determined that SWAT testimony would be relevant?

Ruvan22 posted...

On a separate note, part of me is morbidly interested in why the ruling was overturned..

It says in the article. The trial judge refused to allow defense to call a random SWAT team member as a witness bc he wasn't qualified to act as an expert witness.

lilORANG posted...

It says in the article. The trial judge refused to allow defense to call a random SWAT team member as a witness bc he wasn't qualified to act as an expert witness.

Sorry see my edit

Only cowards and weak spineless bitches support the police going by the facts. If you're weak and can't defend yourself or problem solve like a normal or strong person in life would then you call the police and wait a few hours until they come.

Ruvan22 posted...

Sorry see my edit

That's not clear from the article. If I were a defense attorney wanting to call a SWAT member as an expert it would be to describe how dangerous police work is. But that's really not a thing you need an expert for. If that was the case, then I think the trial judge got it right and the appellate judge is just trying to protect the cop. But there may be more to the issue.

So they SWAT team was there too?

lilORANG posted...

That's not clear from the article. If I were a defense attorney wanting to call a SWAT member as an expert it would be to describe how dangerous police work is. But that's really not a thing you need an expert for. If that was the case, then I think the trial judge got it right and the appellate judge is just trying to protect the cop. But there may be more to the issue.

True - I'm also not a lawyer so not sure what happens next. Retrial? Charges dismissed?
Also if the cop said "I don't know" (as to why he shot), what can the SWAT testify to?

Ruvan22 posted...

True - I'm also not a lawyer so not sure what happens next. Retrial? Charges dismissed?
Also if the cop said "I don't know" (as to why he shot), what can the SWAT testify to?

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/appeals-court-overturns-conviction-of-north-miami-cop-in-2016-caretaker-shooting/2692373/

Here's a better article. Guy gets a new trial. They wanted his SWAT commander to testify to the training the cop received, I guess to say he acted appropriately in the situation.

lilORANG posted...

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/appeals-court-overturns-conviction-of-north-miami-cop-in-2016-caretaker-shooting/2692373/

Here's a better article. Guy gets a new trial. They wanted his SWAT commander to testify to the training the cop received, I guess to say he acted appropriately in the situation.

Thanks - similar to the Texas Ranger testifying in Botham's case?

Basically. That ranger's testimony got blocked too bc you can't just have a witness conclude that someone acted appropriately. That's a question for the jury to decide.

lilORANG posted...

Basically. That ranger's testimony got blocked too bc you can't just have a witness conclude that someone acted appropriately. That's a question for the jury to decide.

I'm trying not to be cynical about this, but it's getting harder...