jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "
Why do you think they were justified? Were they justified because he wasn't a "gentle soul?" That's ludicrous.
It is about a rally for a supposedly "gentle soul", who, as I showed, wasn't a gentle soul as claimed in the OP.
So, what you do not understand about that, or why you oppose my showing the provided information was false, is irrelevant.
It was applicable to what was stated in the OP.
As for the discussing the specific case. There are other threads for that.
And the evidence is in the Officers' favor, and they were justified in their actions. Kelly was resiting with great force. Multiple tasering had no effect. And it took many Officers to get him subdued.
In the process Kelly's chest was inadvertently crushed, which lead to asphyxiation.
Nothing criminal happened, as determined by a Jury who saw more evidence than you or I have.
If you are interested in what the Defense presented to the Jury, as well as the evidence they pointed out in the video and the contradictions from the examiner. Then feel free to read what is at the following link.
You just might come to understand why the jury found them not guilty.
Kelly Thomas Trial Update: Defense tells jury to analyze case 'without the emotion' | 89.3 KPCC
"The law is reason, free from passion."
The guy was clearly not right in the head, and Excon's trying to paint him as a dangerous criminal? Seriously, we don't even know why the police were talking to him in the first place, but it's obvious that the dude was nuts.
I can accept the verdict. My beef is with Excon's characterization of the guy, which has absolutely no bearing on what happened that night.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK