[quote=pri_dk][quote=zk]You don’t see much additional information?[/quote]
I never challenged the fact that King tried to escape from the police. That’s all the additional video shows, so there is nothing new. What we don’t know from the video is what happened from the very beginning.
Were the beatings prompted by him attacking the police, or did he try to escape because he was being beaten? That’s the crux of it, and the video does not answer that question.
It does, however, show that he was hit many, many times when laying on the ground. That’s when the cops became criminals.
Did King get up because he wanted to hurt the cops, or because he feared for his life? The video does not answer that crucial question.
[quote]You assume that whites must be unable to see the cops as guilty. Have you considered that maybe it’s the other way around? Maybe blacks are unable to see them as innocent.[/quote]
The first trial had a jury with no blacks. Not exactly representative of the population.
The second trial had only two blacks. The jury convicted unanimously. Your assertion that he was convicted by racially-biased blacks doesn’t hold up to basic logic. Most of the jury that convicted was not black.
[quote]Also, the police reports were corroborated by all present officers. Including the ones who aren’t “convicted criminals.”[/quote]
Oh, so all the cops said the same thing – all in favor of the other cop’s story?
Are you really that naive?
[quote]In any case, your attempt to dismiss entirely the police reports because some of those present were convicted in one out of two trials shows the weakness of your arguments.[/quote]
Right, because people convicted of only one crime instead of two aren’t really criminals. And cops never lie to back each other up.
I didn’t know the term “convicted criminal” got a one-time pass.
[quote]Strong enough to throw two men off his back.[/quote]
There’s no proof that he ever did this.
Get it?
[quote]If he’s strong enough to throw two men off his back, […][/quote]
Building the whole argument on weak evidence again.
[quote]You haven’t been paying attention at all. He did get up with 400+ pounds of weight on his back.[/quote]
You can repeat it over and over, there’s still no proof.
There were five cops – most likely with martial arts training – and they believed they would not be able to collectively hold him down?
[quote=pri_dk] I said “I wouldn’t have thrown two officers off my back, then got up and charged them.”[/quote]
This is getting tiresome. Your entire argument is based upon a claim for which there is no proof. We don’t know what happened before the video started. Perhaps he did comply and was beaten just the same? There is no evidence either way.
Your entire explanation of what would have happened is predicated by speculation rooted in nonexistent evidence.
Normally I would give the testimony of cops the benefit of the doubt, but not cops whom I see beating a guy on the ground.
56 blows and 6 kicks.[/quote]
I could refute each of your points, but I agree this is getting tiresome. Your basic argument at this point is that there’s no proof that King threw two officers off his back. Fine. There’s no proof that he didn’t, either. You yourself said there’s no proof either way. So if that’s the crux of your argument, then I don’t see how you can say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the cops are guilty. For them to be guilty, they all (all 23 of them) have to be lying. Is that possible? Sure. Would I say that, beyond a reasonable doubt they’re all lying? No way. So if it’s true that he did throw them off his back, then your arguments fail. And, since you can’t prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that they’re all lying, then you can’t prove that they’re guilty. Get it?
