Pensacola cop found not guilty

Dreamsglore wrote:I can't believe people think this is ok and in the course of your duties? He clearly slammed this woman's face on the car. Inexcusable. I assume the jury didn't think it reached criminal charges which is still puzzling.

Markle wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:I can't believe people think this is ok and in the course of your duties? He clearly slammed this woman's face on the car. Inexcusable. I assume the jury didn't think it reached criminal charges which is still puzzling.

It is too bad that you weren't on the jury. You could have told them you had seen the edited, short version of the tape, he was guilty, end of trial.

It took the jury FIFTEEN MINUTES to find him not guilty. Do you think there is a slim chance they saw something you have not?

Bob wrote:

Markle wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:I can't believe people think this is ok and in the course of your duties? He clearly slammed this woman's face on the car. Inexcusable. I assume the jury didn't think it reached criminal charges which is still puzzling.

It is too bad that you weren't on the jury. You could have told them you had seen the edited, short version of the tape, he was guilty, end of trial.

It took the jury FIFTEEN MINUTES to find him not guilty. Do you think there is a slim chance they saw something you have not?

No, she only thinks that when the suspect is found not guilty. In the other thread running right now which is about a suspect found not guilty ("Are jurors really that stupid?"), she says this...

"Apparently, the jury has more facts then we do and saw it for what it was."

So for her, whenever we're forming an opinion about any trial from a brief newspaper report, the jury is always right when the suspect is acquitted, and the jury is always wrong when the cop is acquitted.

You just can't make this stuff up. lol

No, if you had a lick of sense,Bob ,you would know the cases are different because there is direct evidence,ie, a video. I saw the video in which the cop clearly slams the woman into the car. The other cases involves testimony of which we didn't hear.Big difference. Does that make sense to you? I doubt it.

Dreamsglore wrote:
No, if you had a lick of sense,Bob ,you would know the cases are different because there is direct evidence,ie, a video. I saw the video in which the cop clearly slams the woman into the car. The other cases involves testimony of which we didn't hear.Big difference. Does that make sense to you? I doubt it.

Ironsights wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
No, if you had a lick of sense,Bob ,you would know the cases are different because there is direct evidence,ie, a video. I saw the video in which the cop clearly slams the woman into the car. The other cases involves testimony of which we didn't hear.Big difference. Does that make sense to you? I doubt it.

You mean you saw an edited video which didn't show everything and formed an opinion and were upset because the jury didn't agree with you

Ironsights wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
No, if you had a lick of sense,Bob ,you would know the cases are different because there is direct evidence,ie, a video. I saw the video in which the cop clearly slams the woman into the car. The other cases involves testimony of which we didn't hear.Big difference. Does that make sense to you? I doubt it.

You mean you saw an edited video which didn't show everything and formed an opinion and were upset because the jury didn't agree with you

Dreamsglore wrote:

Ironsights wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
No, if you had a lick of sense,Bob ,you would know the cases are different because there is direct evidence,ie, a video. I saw the video in which the cop clearly slams the woman into the car. The other cases involves testimony of which we didn't hear.Big difference. Does that make sense to you? I doubt it.

You mean you saw an edited video which didn't show everything and formed an opinion and were upset because the jury didn't agree with you

I saw a video where a cop takes a woman and slams her face into a car. What occurred prior to that has no bearing. The police dept. obviously didn't think it mattered either because they fired him and we all know they stick together... but they didn't in this case, did they?

This is the unedited version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNALrpzdRUY

Floridatexan wrote:

I don't see how the jury came to that conclusion, after watching the video. The woman was dumb for not following the cop's instructions to get back into the car, but the cop was obviously getting an attitude because of it.
One thing for sure, that I know from personal experience...cops stick together on their story, no matter what the truth is. And I don't know how many times I've seen the headline: "Deputies cleared in shooting." I'm glad they fired him.

Once, in Houston, I was driving home from a Christmas party completely sloshed. A village cop put my car in the police lot and drove me home, 20 miles out of his way, at 3 am. Now that was a nice guy. Even inebriated as I was, tho, I was respectful to him.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

I don't see how the jury came to that conclusion, after watching the video. The woman was dumb for not following the cop's instructions to get back into the car, but the cop was obviously getting an attitude because of it.
One thing for sure, that I know from personal experience...cops stick together on their story, no matter what the truth is. And I don't know how many times I've seen the headline: "Deputies cleared in shooting." I'm glad they fired him.

Once, in Houston, I was driving home from a Christmas party completely sloshed. A village cop put my car in the police lot and drove me home, 20 miles out of his way, at 3 am. Now that was a nice guy. Even inebriated as I was, tho, I was respectful to him.

That may have worked out well years ago but in today's times, a cop doing a good deed such as that would be leaving himself open to a sexual assault accusation, substantiated or not.

It hasn't been too long ago that an ECSO deputy was accused of rape after driving a woman home from PCB to Cantonment.