Followup on the Jonathan Ferrell shooting

[Jimmy Higgins]

Football is a cartoon sport.

Would that make Ferrell a cartoon character?

You couldn't see his skeleton when he was assaulted with a taser, so no.

 

[ksen]

Football is a cartoon sport.

Would that make Ferrell a cartoon character?

On the football field, yes.

Off the football field, no.

 

[Arctish]

This looks to me as if he had his head down as he charged. Putting his hand down would level the trajectories.

No one who testified at Kerrick's trial said Ferrell was charging when all of 10 of the bullets that struck him were fired.

No one.

Not even Kerrick.

The trajectory of the majority of the bullets is the result of Ferrell being on his hands and knees crawling forward, either in contact with Kerrick's lower legs (defense claim) or not (Prosecution claim), after having been already shot. And some of the trajectories may have been the result of Ferrell being shot in the back.

The notion that Ferrell was charging forward "like a linebacker" when he was shot 10 times has been thoroughly refuted at the trial.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He was obviously ordered to do nothing. You are using a god in the gaps fallacy. The taser was fired, therefore there had to of been an order to stop, and not walk slowly with your hands by your side.

And he didn't try to run away, he ran right at the cop. That's why he got shot.

He ran right towards whom? Which cop? I didn't see a cop in the video. Pretty certain you didn't either.

You see someone get out of the cop car parked to the right of where the camera-bearing car pulls up. While it's not clear enough to confirm that the person is a cop who else would be getting out of the driver's seat of a cop car on a call???

- - - Updated - - -

This looks to me as if he had his head down as he charged. Putting his hand down would level the trajectories.

Unless he was shot from behind, in which case the trajectory of the bullets would be consistent with a man in a kneel or on his hands and knees crawling away.

Do you actually know which ends of the wound tract are exit points?

If the tracks were backwards wouldn't that have been shouted from the rooftops by now? The autopsy can tell entry from exit.

- - - Updated - - -

When he calmly approached them with the intention of talking to them. Before they drew their weapons and attacked him. That the police chose not to make use of that opportunity is no fault of his.

While we lack the relevant audio it's pretty obvious he was ordered to stop.

We don't "lack relevant audio." The recording is complete and the order to stop was never not uttered until AFTER the taser was fired.

We most certainly do lack the relevant audio--the mic is on the officer driving the car with the camera. The car that is still driving up to the scene when any such stop order would have been given. How can the mic record what happens far from the mic????

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless he was shot from behind, in which case the trajectory of the bullets would be consistent with a man in a kneel or on his hands and knees crawling away.

Do you actually know which ends of the wound tract are exit points?

And who the hell actually, outside of cartoons, runs fully bent over at the waist?

Watch a football player going after the guy on the other side. Remember, this guy was a football player.

And it's not fully bent over at the waist--if it were the bullets would be straight down. They're at an angle.

- - - Updated - - -

I said outside of cartoons.

Football is a cartoon sport.

We keep bringing up football because the guy was a football player. Is it any wonder that he ran like a football player?

 

[Arctish]

He was obviously ordered to do nothing. You are using a god in the gaps fallacy. The taser was fired, therefore there had to of been an order to stop, and not walk slowly with your hands by your side.

He ran right towards whom? Which cop? I didn't see a cop in the video. Pretty certain you didn't either.

You see someone get out of the cop car parked to the right of where the camera-bearing car pulls up. While it's not clear enough to confirm that the person is a cop who else would be getting out of the driver's seat of a cop car on a call???

Your response is pretty non-responsive.

You don't know exactly where the cops were. The video doesn't show us their positions. You are supposing there was a cop directly in Ferrell's path when he started running from the cop shooting at him, and that Ferrell saw the cop there and made a deliberate choice to charge him. Racism aside, is there any reason to suppose Ferrell ran forward not to escape an unprovoked attack but to attack another?

This looks to me as if he had his head down as he charged. Putting his hand down would level the trajectories.

Unless he was shot from behind, in which case the trajectory of the bullets would be consistent with a man in a kneel or on his hands and knees crawling away.

Do you actually know which ends of the wound tract are exit points?

If the tracks were backwards wouldn't that have been shouted from the rooftops by now? The autopsy can tell entry from exit.

The Medical Examiner who conducted the autopsy testified he couldn't determine which were the entry wounds and which were exit wounds.

When he calmly approached them with the intention of talking to them. Before they drew their weapons and attacked him. That the police chose not to make use of that opportunity is no fault of his.

While we lack the relevant audio it's pretty obvious he was ordered to stop.

We don't "lack relevant audio." The recording is complete and the order to stop was never not uttered until AFTER the taser was fired.

We most certainly do lack the relevant audio--the mic is on the officer driving the car with the camera. The car that is still driving up to the scene when any such stop order would have been given. How can the mic record what happens far from the mic????

If there was on order given to stop before Little fired his taser it must have been spoken in a very quiet voice, because all of the orders given after the attempt to tase Ferrell are clearly audible. IOW, not the way police are trained to issue orders. When cops tell you to do something, they say it loud and clear so they can be sure you heard them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He was obviously ordered to do nothing. You are using a god in the gaps fallacy. The taser was fired, therefore there had to of been an order to stop, and not walk slowly with your hands by your side.

He ran right towards whom? Which cop? I didn't see a cop in the video. Pretty certain you didn't either.

You see someone get out of the cop car parked to the right of where the camera-bearing car pulls up. While it's not clear enough to confirm that the person is a cop who else would be getting out of the driver's seat of a cop car on a call???

I'm sorry, but you said that he ran right at the cop. I'm asking how you can tell he ran right at the cop? Did you zoom in on the video, enhance the reflection in his eyes before he was off screen?

 

[ksen]

didn't you?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We most certainly do lack the relevant audio--the mic is on the officer driving the car with the camera. The car that is still driving up to the scene when any such stop order would have been given.

Watching the video again, it appears he was already out of his car for several seconds before the taser shot was fired.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We most certainly do lack the relevant audio--the mic is on the officer driving the car with the camera. The car that is still driving up to the scene when any such stop order would have been given.

Watching the video again, it appears he was already out of his car for several seconds before the taser shot was fired.

What I find funny is that LP is noting we have a lack of audio coverage, while at the same time ignoring that we lack most of the video coverage as well.

The only video coverage we have is showing a clear act of assault on a person showing absolutely no physical intimidation at all.

 

[Derec]

Jury deadlocked 8-4 after deliberating for several days. Court did not say which way the majority is going, but I would say likely in favor of "not guilty". They continue deliberation but it's unlikely 4 will be persuaded to flip at this point, and even less likely that 8 will.

 

[Rhea]

Jury deadlocked 8-4 after deliberating for several days. Court did not say which way the majority is going, but I would say likely in favor of "not guilty". They continue deliberation but it's unlikely 4 will be persuaded to flip at this point, and even less likely that 8 will.

Wondering what possible reason you have to assume the 8 are on the not-guilty side.

 

[Derec]

Wondering what possible reason you have to assume the 8 are on the not-guilty side.

Because there is more than enough reasonable doubt and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is still required for criminal trials.

 

[Rhea]

Oh. In your opinion.

 

[Derec]

Oh. In your opinion.

Of course in my opinion. Hence my wording of "I would say likely".

Funny how often semantics is discussed on this forum. I remember some taking exception at "specimen" and implied it was racist.

 

[Rhea]

What I had meant was, "what makes you say 'likely'," and your reply answered, approximately, "because I'd think that way, so it must be a majority opinion." Which is fine, now that I understand what you meant.

 

[Derec]

What I had meant was, "what makes you say 'likely'," and your reply answered, approximately, "because I'd think that way, so it must be a majority opinion." Which is fine, now that I understand what you meant.

No, my explanation didn't hinge on my opinion (shooting likely justified) having to match the majority opinion. It hinged on the fact that majority only has to think that the state didn't prove that the shooting was unjustified beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I had meant was, "what makes you say 'likely'," and your reply answered, approximately, "because I'd think that way, so it must be a majority opinion." Which is fine, now that I understand what you meant.

No, my explanation didn't hinge on my opinion (shooting likely justified) having to match the majority opinion.

Yes it does. Because that was your opinion. You said it was your opinion the majority wanted to acquit. You can only be right if the majority wanted to acquit... so your opinion hinges on that.

 

[Derec]

No, my explanation didn't hinge on my opinion (shooting likely justified) having to match the majority opinion.

Yes it does. Because that was your opinion. You said it was your opinion the majority wanted to acquit. You can only be right if the majority wanted to acquit... so your opinion hinges on that.

You are conflating different things here and coming up with a tautology. Again, there is too much silly debates about language on this forum.

By the way:
Live updates: Jury deadlocks, mistrial declared in Kerrick police shooting trial

A clean acquittal would have been better.
Hopefully the DA will not pursue a retrial.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes it does. Because that was your opinion. You said it was your opinion the majority wanted to acquit. You can only be right if the majority wanted to acquit... so your opinion hinges on that.

You are conflating different things here and coming up with a tautology. Again, there is too much silly debates about language on this forum.

Whatever dude. It is only your opinion what the jury thought.

You were wrong about this case initially, and really have little to go on these days as well.