He's there as the LT in charge of that particular crime scene, not a use of force expert. Defense clarified that when it comes to use of force training, he's a student not a trainer. He goes through the same training every other Officer gets every year, he certainly doesn't know any less.
If he was lying, it's stupid to have Court rules prevent that from being challenged so false ideas sink into the Jury over the weekend.
From what i saw, I thought the defense lawyer did a good job pointing out the nature of his work vs his testimony. Tough case anyway you look at it but I thought that interaction was won by the defense.. Not a lawyer and therefore this message can not be perceived as legal guidance lol.
This is my basic point, it's a tough case. Everybody seems to think it's open and shut, on both sides. I can understand having strong opinions for almost a year with no new evidence, but evidence is coming out now.
I hope everything this LT said gets thrown out based on the "maximal restraint" they had GF in being in their manual. (Assuming it is) if LT is willing to straight up LIE about that, prosecution needs to establish everything he said from somebody else.
I don't think what he said will be thrown out based on 35 years of experience, more than anyone else in the city. Seems like a strange idea people here are advancing.
He's there as the LT in charge of that particular crime scene, not a use of force expert. Defense clarified that when it comes to use of force training, he's a student not a trainer. He goes through the same training every other Officer gets every year, he certainly doesn't know any less.
If he was lying, it's stupid to have Court rules prevent that from being challenged so false ideas sink into the Jury over the weekend.
From what i saw, I thought the defense lawyer did a good job pointing out the nature of his work vs his testimony. Tough case anyway you look at it but I thought that interaction was won by the defense.. Not a lawyer and therefore this message can not be perceived as legal guidance lol.
This is my basic point, it's a tough case. Everybody seems to think it's open and shut, on both sides. I can understand having strong opinions for almost a year with no new evidence, but evidence is coming out now.
I hope everything this LT said gets thrown out based on the "maximal restraint" they had GF in being in their manual. (Assuming it is) if LT is willing to straight up LIE about that, prosecution needs to establish everything he said from somebody else.
I don't think what he said will be thrown out based on 35 years of experience, more than anyone else in the city. Seems like a strange idea people here are advancing.