Did they KILL someone without provocation who they were in no possible danger from? Yes.
How do you know? There's NO way you and I know that....There were two conficting stories....and the prosecution failed to PROVE that the cops were NOT in danger....
Now if the case was clear cut.....(which it wasn't) then I'd be for the conviction.
But in our glorious, but flawed court system, they must walk...
A lot of people (not pointing out anyone in here) made their decisions way before they went to trial....mostly emotional accusations.
Yes if the races were different, maybe that would've changed the outcome of the case......
But who lives their lives saying "what if"?
How did OJ win his case?
Of course most people believe he did it......but the prosecution failed to prove he did.....soooooo OJ walked....
My decision was based strictly on evidence presented......not by what I thought the cops saw through their eyes or what they might've seen..
Sad thing is, the prosecution didn't have enough credible witnesses to back their story........sad..but true...
Now about the requesting a trial with no jury, that was pure genius... But hey...if you were them, wouldn't you? If they asked for a jury trial, they would've all been convicted. That was smart on their parts. That's why it's always good to know your rights.
If you think a cop is going to shoot you, the court will automatically think you were possibly committing a crime. Cops are there to enforce the law, so if they were going to use deadly force on you, there had to be a reason. Of course that sounds like pure bullshit to you and I. But that's the way it is....yes they are held to different standards than we are. Mainly because they are trained individuals, while you and I are not.
But hey..some people rather be judged by twelve than carried by six....
This is why we have to vote.... People talk allll the shit in the world about how this country sucks..but no one gets off their lazy asses to go vote...or even register...