- Aug 4, 2018
- 62,978
- 27,655
- Thread starter
- #41
Blah blah blah....we have crimes on video and instead of criminals going to jail the police chief is fired. Great example for all. Lawlessness 101. If you agree with that arrests should not have been made then we have nothing more to discuss. Leftists are just awful people.I answer when I'm good and ready. I'll also answer when I'm not trying to type lengthy post on a damn smartphone.No reason to link. Just answer me. If there is a video that is concrete proof of guilt what more does one need?
So here https://www.wavy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/11/Dismissal-Motion.pdf this is the motion. I'll summarize.
-The first charge was destruction of property.
The motion says that since the value of the damaged property was never determined charging people with damaging it can not be filed.
-Second charge was conspiracy.
The motion says that there is no evidence that the defendants came together with the express purpose of committing a crime.
Then we come to the video evidence.
-The problem lies in admissibility. In order for evidence to be admissible the creators of the evidence have to go to court to state that the video is unaltered. In the few cases the person was identified they were unwilling to do so or were law enforcement officers who didn't make to videos. And as such their testimony would be considered hearsay.
The last argument has to do with due process. The police was present during the protests. Yet they did not intervene when they went after the monument. Charging them after is considered entrapment and as such violates the rights of the individuals. In other words the police doesn't have the right to let someone commit an actual crime to then charge them for it afterwards.