Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Biased "expert" opinion. He has absolutely NO idea what she was doing or thinking that night.
Sure he does. He can look at the facts and using his experience and expertise, come to a conclusion about her actions and thoughts.
That, btw, is basically what our system is asking the jury to do. So, if opinion doesn't matter, than our whole system is a scam and we should go back to Trial by Combat.
A jury is instructed to rule on the facts. He is no more of an expert than the other 100 people the other side could present that state that they never walk into the wrong apartment.
He seems like he claimed that this was a common occurrence.
"
"How many of all floors have walked to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor and put their key in the wrong door?" the defense asked Armstrong, who replied, "That would be 15%"
"
A little unclear, but it seems that others do do it. So, any "other side" would have to explain why all those other residents were lying.
Police officers are known to lie.
So, it would be the job of the defense to ask the cop to support his claim, and then for him to either do it, or not be able to do it.
If he was unable to support his claim, then his "opinion" on the woman's actions, would hopefully not be given much weight by the jury.
Banning him from giving his professional, expert opinion, seems like an overreach by the judge.
Sure he does. He can look at the facts and using his experience and expertise, come to a conclusion about her actions and thoughts.
That, btw, is basically what our system is asking the jury to do. So, if opinion doesn't matter, than our whole system is a scam and we should go back to Trial by Combat.
A jury is instructed to rule on the facts. He is no more of an expert than the other 100 people the other side could present that state that they never walk into the wrong apartment.
He seems like he claimed that this was a common occurrence.
"
"How many of all floors have walked to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor and put their key in the wrong door?" the defense asked Armstrong, who replied, "That would be 15%"
"
A little unclear, but it seems that others do do it. So, any "other side" would have to explain why all those other residents were lying.
Police officers are known to lie.
So, it would be the job of the defense to ask the cop to support his claim, and then for him to either do it, or not be able to do it.
If he was unable to support his claim, then his "opinion" on the woman's actions, would hopefully not be given much weight by the jury.
Banning him from giving his professional, expert opinion, seems like an overreach by the judge.
You do not allow those with a biased opinion to state an opinion. It would be little different than allowing the man's mom to give her opinion.
We have to stop this idea that the police investigate and defend themselves. His is not an unbiased opinion.
A jury is instructed to rule on the facts. He is no more of an expert than the other 100 people the other side could present that state that they never walk into the wrong apartment.
He seems like he claimed that this was a common occurrence.
"
"How many of all floors have walked to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor and put their key in the wrong door?" the defense asked Armstrong, who replied, "That would be 15%"
"
A little unclear, but it seems that others do do it. So, any "other side" would have to explain why all those other residents were lying.
Police officers are known to lie.
So, it would be the job of the defense to ask the cop to support his claim, and then for him to either do it, or not be able to do it.
If he was unable to support his claim, then his "opinion" on the woman's actions, would hopefully not be given much weight by the jury.
Banning him from giving his professional, expert opinion, seems like an overreach by the judge.
You do not allow those with a biased opinion to state an opinion. It would be little different than allowing the man's mom to give her opinion.
We have to stop this idea that the police investigate and defend themselves. His is not an unbiased opinion.
I've never head of any such bar of objectivity being required for opinions.
He seems like he claimed that this was a common occurrence.
"
"How many of all floors have walked to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor and put their key in the wrong door?" the defense asked Armstrong, who replied, "That would be 15%"
"
A little unclear, but it seems that others do do it. So, any "other side" would have to explain why all those other residents were lying.
Police officers are known to lie.
So, it would be the job of the defense to ask the cop to support his claim, and then for him to either do it, or not be able to do it.
If he was unable to support his claim, then his "opinion" on the woman's actions, would hopefully not be given much weight by the jury.
Banning him from giving his professional, expert opinion, seems like an overreach by the judge.
You do not allow those with a biased opinion to state an opinion. It would be little different than allowing the man's mom to give her opinion.
We have to stop this idea that the police investigate and defend themselves. His is not an unbiased opinion.
I've never head of any such bar of objectivity being required for opinions.
You have now right? It's what many of us have argued for a long time. We have to stop the idea that the police can investigate themselves.
Police officers are known to lie.
So, it would be the job of the defense to ask the cop to support his claim, and then for him to either do it, or not be able to do it.
If he was unable to support his claim, then his "opinion" on the woman's actions, would hopefully not be given much weight by the jury.
Banning him from giving his professional, expert opinion, seems like an overreach by the judge.
You do not allow those with a biased opinion to state an opinion. It would be little different than allowing the man's mom to give her opinion.
We have to stop this idea that the police investigate and defend themselves. His is not an unbiased opinion.
I've never head of any such bar of objectivity being required for opinions.
You have now right? It's what many of us have argued for a long time. We have to stop the idea that the police can investigate themselves.
Mmm, so it's only COPS, who have to abide by this standard? Everyone else gets to have opinion expressed in their defense?
Pepper spray is not 100 percent reliable. One of the convicts I peppered was still able to hit me in the head 3 times before three of us could get him down.Another contention by the DA is that she could have used less than lethal force. As a 5 year veteran, Amber has obviously seen large suspects not phased by pepper spray or taser. She was also trained, especially as a small person, not to let an aggressor get close to her. The DA has also criticized her for not giving the victim CPR...HE WAS STILL BREATHING at the time. What if she had knelt down to give him unnecessary CPR and he'd grabbed her?
Pepper spray is not 100 percent reliable. One of the convicts I peppered was still able to hit me in the head 3 times before three of us could get him down.Another contention by the DA is that she could have used less than lethal force. As a 5 year veteran, Amber has obviously seen large suspects not phased by pepper spray or taser. She was also trained, especially as a small person, not to let an aggressor get close to her. The DA has also criticized her for not giving the victim CPR...HE WAS STILL BREATHING at the time. What if she had knelt down to give him unnecessary CPR and he'd grabbed her?
A person would have been within their rights to have pounded her in the head. You don't break into the home of another and point a gun at them.
A person would have been within their rights to have pounded her in the head. You don't break into the home of another and point a gun at them.
She didn't "break in" and she was in uniform, moron. If he'd complied he'd still be above ground...Sometimes life sneaks up on ya and the decision you only have a second or two to make is your future.
She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.
She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.
The expert in question is a 30 year veteran cop and an expert in police shootings. The judge decided she "didn't want the jury to hear that stuff"....incomprehensible.
The facts seem to be showing she is lying. People who did what she did will lie about it.
It's what many of us have been arguing for. The police should not be investigating themselves.
It's what many of us have been arguing for. The police should not be investigating themselves.
Who knows better about how a cop may react than a veteran cop? If the guy had been white you wouldn't even be interested. Black men have brought this upon themselves listening to gangsta rap and profiling as imaginary OGs. The cops who have to deal with them eventually realize there is no middle ground and if it's between the cop and assailant as to which is going home tonight, it's going to be the cop. BTW, her bond was set at $300K as if she's a flight risk....the DA is a total jackass which is why the moron judge feels empowered to act like she has been.
The cop was the assailant here.
The cop was the assailant here.
I don't believe small women should be beat cops and I have plenty of backup on that. Studies show they will drive past criminal activity rather than confront large black men. A guy with a female partner knows he has little if any help when the resisting arrest starts. Female cops are twice as apt to draw and fire their weapon as a male officer. PC feminists have insisted on women being beat cops and this is one of the outcomes for their idiocy.
So we seem to agree that she was in the wrong but the difference is, you felt a pressing need to deliver a racist rant.
The cop was the assailant here.
I don't believe small women should be beat cops and I have plenty of backup on that. Studies show they will drive past criminal activity rather than confront large black men. A guy with a female partner knows he has little if any help when the resisting arrest starts. Female cops are twice as apt to draw and fire their weapon as a male officer. PC feminists have insisted on women being beat cops and this is one of the outcomes for their idiocy.
So we seem to agree that she was in the wrong but the difference is, you felt a pressing need to deliver a racist rant.
The cop was the assailant here.
I don't believe small women should be beat cops and I have plenty of backup on that. Studies show they will drive past criminal activity rather than confront large black men. A guy with a female partner knows he has little if any help when the resisting arrest starts. Female cops are twice as apt to draw and fire their weapon as a male officer. PC feminists have insisted on women being beat cops and this is one of the outcomes for their idiocy.
So we seem to agree that she was in the wrong but the difference is, you felt a pressing need to deliver a racist rant.
You and the judge are the racists
Focus
Some people dont accept logic and reasonThe cop was the assailant here.
I don't believe small women should be beat cops and I have plenty of backup on that. Studies show they will drive past criminal activity rather than confront large black men. A guy with a female partner knows he has little if any help when the resisting arrest starts. Female cops are twice as apt to draw and fire their weapon as a male officer. PC feminists have insisted on women being beat cops and this is one of the outcomes for their idiocy.
So we seem to agree that she was in the wrong but the difference is, you felt a pressing need to deliver a racist rant.
You and the judge are the racists
Focus
You can counter my arguments or call me names.
