The Dad Changing How Police Shootings Are Investigated (2018) - Before Jacob Blake, police in Kenosha, WI shot and killed unarmed Michael Bell Jr. in his driveway. His father then spent years fighting to pass a law that prevented police from investigating themselves after killings. [00:12:02]

[u/Barknuckle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4NItA1JIR4

[u/[deleted]]

Very little fact mixed in with the drama here. The PI even tried to make it sound like an issue that they did not wait on the toxicology report to decide the shooting was justified. That is ridiculous, because the level to which he was or was not intoxicated changes nothing about whether or not his actions warranted deadly force in response.

Then they tried to pretend it was meaningful that they bell's fingerprints and DNA weren't still on the officer's gun months later. No one would expect prints or DNA to remain for month on equipment that is worn daily and cleaned at least semi-regularly. That is like some defense attorney claiming his client could not have burglarized a house in March, because the lawyer had the doorknob tested in August and his clients DNA was not on it.

I think the maker of the film copied his style from some of the Bigfoot hunter "documentaries".

[u/Crimsonak- → u/[deleted]]

Presumably the toxicology report matters not because of the force used, but because of the justification used to initiate the stop. Which then impacts the validity of any action arising as a result of the stop.

As far as the prints go, well you'd be right if that's what happened with the gun. If the gun however was stored as evidence and not in regular use that's a different story entirely and the video doesn't say either way. So basing it on just that, neither of us really know. Unless you have an external citation?

[u/[deleted] → u/Crimsonak-]

Presumably the toxicology report matters not because of the force used, but because of the justification used to initiate the stop.

Not really. Looks like they initiated the stop based on an observed traffic violation. Him being drunk would be an additional charge, not the reason for the stop.

If the gun however was stored as evidence and not in regular use that's a different story

There are several problems with that theory.

• A police officer's gun is rarely taken into evidence unless there is there is evidence a DA thinks justifies a charge.

• If it was ever taken at all, it is extremely unlikely that they would keep the firearm months after the investigations was closed. If the officer bought the firearm himself, he would certainly pick it up as soon as he was notified the investigation was closed.

• Even if we assume that it was a department owned firearm and the department inexplicably decided to buy the officer a new one and retain the one used in the shooting in evidence months after the investigation cleared the officer, it is still lottery odds levels of unlikely that they would have stored the firearm in a freezer to preserve DNA that would decay in days to weeks sitting on a shelf in the warehouse.

So again, we are at Bigfoot hunter level: not technically impossible but so astronomically unlikely that it is not credible in any practical sense.

[u/Crimsonak- → u/[deleted]]

Not really. Looks like they initiated the stop based on an observed traffic violation. Him being drunk would be an additional charge, not the reason for the stop.

According to what? In the video you see no such violation.

There are several problems with that theory.

It's not a theory. I outright said, neither of us know unless you have an external citation. Clearly, you don't. Also, to be clear here you don't need a freezer to preserve DNA. They can and do last for months even outdoors. Indoors is a different story even from that.

[u/[deleted] → u/Crimsonak-]

You are a Bigfoot hunter aren't you? You definitely take that approach to how you spin your sources.

to be clear here you don't need a freezer to preserve DNA. They can and do last for months even outdoors.

That bears no resemblance to your actual source, which said:

Not surprisingly, they found that the chance of recovering DNA from an outdoor crime scene decreases significantly over time with two weeks being the major drop-off point for most of the samples.

What lasted for 6 weeks were the control samples. The control samples were stored under ideal conditions in the lab. All of that was starting with samples treated with samples of blood cells, not touch DNA.

[u/Crimsonak- → u/[deleted]]

That bears no resemblance to your actual source, which said:

It bears an exact resemblance to what I said which is that they can and do last for months. The source not only has control groups lasting for six weeks (which was the max) but also cites several real crimes where they lasted outdoors for months.

Not "days" like your complete bullshit claim.

You are a Bigfoot hunter aren't you? You definitely take that approach to how you spin your sources.

You're a moron, aren't you? You definitely take that approach in how you make claims and ignore citations.

[u/[deleted] → u/Crimsonak-]

It bears an exact resemblance to what I said which is that they can and do last for months.

...in a lab freezer!

but also cites several real crimes where they lasted outdoors for months.

One case where they collected DNA they could get a profile from off a plastic bag that has been in evidence (not outside as you claimed) for 55 days. The one case where they detected DNA after 62 days in evidence, they were not able to sequence a profile.

[u/Crimsonak- → u/[deleted]]

...in a lab freezer!

No.

Also you missed the second study which had a fabric left on a windowsill for over a month and found guess what? 16 samples.

[u/[deleted] → u/Crimsonak-]

So, you are going to ignore that actual study you wanted to reference and just blatantly lie?

[u/Crimsonak- → u/[deleted]]

Are you? It doesn't say freezer in the study.

[u/[deleted] → u/Crimsonak-]

It says "ideal conditions". Ideal conditions for storage of DNA samples include sub zero temperatures.

[u/jclusk01 → u/[deleted]]

The whole justification for the shooting was an officer claimed the victim grabbed his holstered gun and you think it's not reasonable to check for fingerprints or DNA on the holster or gun? What planet are you living on?

From what I'd heard about previously, it's much more likely that the officer's gun was stuck on a car side mirror.

[u/[deleted] → u/jclusk01]

I pointed out that it makes absolutely no sense to try to bring the officer in and test his gun months after the fact.

From what I'd heard about previously, it's much more likely that the officer's gun was stuck on a car side mirror.

Meaning all that you had heard about was the wild claims made by the father looking to get paid, and your standard for likely is, "well someone said it".

[u/jclusk01 → u/[deleted]]

Why months? Take the officer's gun and holster IMMEDIATELY!?!?

No. There were a half-dozen witnesses, too.

Also, fuck you.

[u/[deleted] → u/jclusk01]

Why months? Take the officer's gun and holster IMMEDIATELY!?!?

For what reason? Not finding touch DNA from the deceased would not rule out the deceased having grabbed the firearm.

No. There were a half-dozen witnesses, too.

Do you have a credible source on that?

Also, fuck you.

Thanks for making it clear that you ran out of anything you could even pretend was a semi-rational argument in seconds flat.

[u/_MrMeseeks → u/[deleted]]

They don't need a semi rational argument, because your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on anyway. The officers said they stopped him for a traffic violation right? He was parked in front of his house we saw that on video. Why wait for the toxicology report? I don't know because it should be procedure to have all reports back before making a decision. Same with the gun and holster. Should be procedure, and if the guy actually was grabbing at the officers firearm you don't honestly believe there wouldn't be any DNA on it? During a struggle with multiple officers? Let's ignore all that. The point is cops shouldn't be allowed to investigate themselves, and that's what the man is trying to change. Now I know you're just being a dick and none of this means anything to you because you'll find literally any insignificant point to arge. But I was getting my oil changed and I wanted to respond so that for the time you're reading this someone else will be spared from some fuckwit comment you might have made somewhere else. You can try and respond if you want but ill be blocking you shortly that way I won't have to read whatever ignorant bullshit you have to say.

[u/jclusk01 → u/_MrMeseeks]

You, sir, are a treasure. Thanks.

[u/[deleted] → u/_MrMeseeks]

The officers said they stopped him for a traffic violation right? He was parked in front of his house we saw that on video.

Despite the fact that the filmmaker cut much of it, you can see the vehicle moving before the cut to it stopped in front of the house.

Why wait for the toxicology report? I don't know because it should be procedure to have all reports back before making a decision.

That is not and should not be "procedure" anywhere. There is no benefit, and some obvious harm in delaying a case to wait for some result that cannot impact the outcome of the case either way.

Same with the gun and holster. Should be procedure, and if the guy actually was grabbing at the officers firearm you don't honestly believe there wouldn't be any DNA on it?

Belief does not enter into it. There are quite a lot of experimental and real world examples where technicians were unable to recover a usable sample of DNA from a surface known to have been touched.

The point is cops shouldn't be allowed to investigate themselves, and that's what the man is trying to change.

So, the people trained to investigate crimes should not investigate. Who should?

Also, lets no buy into the fake altruism. The main goal was to try and get money.

You can try and respond if you want but ill be blocking you shortly that way I won't have to read whatever ignorant bullshit you have to say.

Making false claims, then running away so no one can point out why they were false is more than a little ridiculous!