No, you’ve tried, but all you’ve got is acab.

Please do your best to act in good faith. I have, obviously, laid out several lines of thought and my rationale is not a slogan. It’s important to be honest even if you disagree with someone. I would say it is even more important than otherwise, as that is when you will be most tempted to check out.

And remember, your thesis here is that OP was being misleading. Do you see the hypocrisy?

Certainly, cops do sometimes lie, no question.

Cops lie systemically and for reasons with root causes. Students of criminal justice know that cop testimony is among the least reliable information in any case.

In a country with millions of police officers, though, the anecdotal accounts your media is likely flooded with are insufficient […]

Just straw man after straw man. I have already replied, at length, with my own positions. Ask yourself why you are making up positions and actions on my behalf while ignoring what I said. Do you think that is a moral thing for you to be doing?

If you’d like to criticize being skeptical of cop testimony, you should either educate yourself on what people actually say about this or ask me and I might, generously, take some time to explain despite this bad faith behavior.

This skews your perceptions.

You have invented a fiction of what I do and are now drawing conclusions from it like a gotcha, lmao.

You’re also neglecting that this individual had previous convictions and had just been in a bar fight.

The felony was for possession of an illegal weapon.

Clearly a violent man.

If you applied this poor logic consistly you would be a very racist person.

I do dispute the characterization that he should still be presumed innocent.

I will remind you that Harris used a technicality on timing rather than actually arguing against the merits of overturning the conviction. There is a reason for that. Think critically.

Could the additional two witnesses have swayed the decision? Maybe. That’s the best we have.

No, I have already laid out a series of points that, together, show how absurd this conclusion is. You are just ignoring them.

To presume they would have is inappropriate though, and there is valid reason to keep him behind bars while the process plays out.

To presume they would not have is literally the outcome sought in the appeal decision. The one stymied by technicalities. “The process”, lmao. The process is damning for your pro-cop guesswork.

I clearly disagree that we should automatically be biased against police testimony.

Which is the same as saying you are unfamiliar with the criminal justice system and how cops behave. You keep repeating this claim and I have acknowledged and criticized it at least 3 times, to no response. How would you describe someone that acted like that?

All witness testimony should be considered with a certain measure of doubt, but I would need some harder data to convince me police testimony is false a statistically significant amount of the time.

Well luckily we have things like research papers and political organizations and the ability to ask questions so you can go figure this out. All it requires is curiosity. Unfortunately you seem to think your ignorance is better than my knowledge.

You’ve now listed a long string of arguments, but you didn’t earlier, you’re mischaracterizing.

No, I did.I counted them, you know. It did not take me long to list arguments I’ve made about how it is reasonable to say OP’s statement that was wrongly convicted match works cited. Two ways the process was flawed (incompetent defense lawyer and shutting down appeals in technicalities), three arguments about witnesses (cops are unreliable, other witnesses disagreed but were not brought forward, one contradicting witness is a cop), one argument about the presumption of guilt and evidentiary onuses, one argument about an article literally saying what OP said verbatim. There are probably more, these just come to mind immediately.

The problem is that you are not directly responding to what I am saying but choose to dance around these things and deal in straw men. Don’t blame me when you can’t remember the list of conveniently-ignored arguments, let alone synthesize it into a larger case.

Your previous comment can be summed up entirely with four words: You don’t trust cops.

Instead of providing inaccurate summaries, please reply directly to what I say.

This is fine, but I have higher standards.

As I already explained, you have lower standards. You claim to appreciate nuance and then argue for ignoring context and systemic problems.

I neither trust nor distrust them by default, I sit between the two.

I’ve already addressed this. Instead of repeating yourself, please reply directly to what I have already said in response.

Oh dear?

Yes, oh dear. I’m rolling my eyes at the unearned condescension.

When I get around to reading news articles again, likely tomorrow morning, I’ll provide you a few more and we can resume this.

I won’t hold my breath.

I’m not interested in a systemic discussion with you, is what that means.

Then you are unqualified to discuss this topic at all, which I’d inherently about the criminal justice system, how it functions, and Harris’ role in it re: this case. Your aversion to discussing or acknowledging the actual realities of the system so that you can imagine the system actually works a different way encapsulates the fundamental flaw in your ad-hoc rationales.

Though the largest issue is an unwillingness to acknowledge or engage with what I’ve said, such as, for the fourth time now, the fact that one of the articles has a verbatim repetition of the claim you say is different from the articles’ contents. That one point makes everything you have said moot. No wonder you have fully avoided talking about it.

I know full well we’d be going back and forth for quite some time, given the strength of your beliefs.

If it followed the current pattern, the length would be due to you repeating yourself and ignoring what I say.

Given that I do not think a systems-basef view captures even most of the necessary information, I would find the exercise rather pointless.

This is not a good faith characterization of what I have said when I have pointed to a series of specific case factors and you have ignored most of them.

You certainly like your pithy comebacks

My responses are anything but pithy.

but I prefer a more rigorous and colder logic.

Like cherry picking, straw men, and lauding the ignoring of context? lmao

Ultimately, the man was a danger, and this was an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial power.

There’s that pro-cop bias.