zlacker

>>jselig+(OP)
I think because we all made the presumption that obvious police abuses would be punished once we had video evidence.

We didn't take into consideration the justice system's complete lack of appetite at holding officers responsible for egregious violations of life, civil liberties, and property rights.

>>isbjor+96
Well, I always think about the Rodney King case: you and I saw a very damning video, played over and over again, on the news that looked incriminating as hell. But when the case went to trial, the jury voted not guilty. What did they see that we didn't? Did they make the right choice, after having seen a lot more evidence than we did? Or are jury trials just inherently untrustworthy?

>>comman+Pi
> "[The beating tape] didn't look good. It looked bad. But it was, as far as I was concerned, it wasn't against the law. And then I couldn't convict 'em because to me they were doing what they were supposed to do. And, well, the majority of us felt the same way at the trial."

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/fall-rodney-king-juror-...

> "But I assumed that the videotape showed everything that had happened. I was amazed to discover how much more of it existed than had been shown on television. The whole tape was only eighty-one seconds, but even so, only a small portion of that eighty-one seconds had been shown on television. The whole tape, seen in context, presented a far different scenario than what the public had seen."

Source: https://laist.com/2017/04/25/rodney_king_jury.php

It's a shame they were acquitted, but our culture of violence runs deep, and our [low] expectations reflect that. It's not surprising that the jurors considered the brutality justified.