So then I guess you'd better call the family's lawyer for the civil trial, since the police officer lied about a fact that can be easily proved or disproved on the record in open court. They can get him arrested for perjury, get the verdict thrown out and try him again and then rake in the cash at the civil trial. I'm sure the family's civil lawyers haven't thought about something difficult like actually checking facts that were entered in sworn testimony at trial.
unless you can show me that license plates numbers are generated by some system that accounts for makes and models, I'm not buying the story.
Seriously, if you think the cops are dumb enough to perjure themselves on facts that can be pinned down, and the civil lawyers are too dumb to check facts, you should call the civil lawyers up and offer your services. It could be the start of a new, lucrative career. Fame and fortune awaits! I'm sure the cop probably ran the plates in the first place because they saw a black man, and I'm sure they'd lie about it because it is impossible to verify what is going on in their mind. But to enter court and make a false claim that can be true/false verified in a matter of minutes if not seconds?
no need to be a dick, I just think the story is unlikely and no where does it say they provided proof how about we do this, I had a 99 accord, pretty popular car, if I can remember the plate I'll post it, and we'll see if anyone with a 99 accord had a number one off from, mine, no we'll include 98 and 00 to make it fair since they said it was one year off
I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm saying if you really and truly believe they are all that negligent/stupid, then it is a big opportunity. Seriously. No dickishness or joking. If they lied, and you are the only person to figure it out, you can prove it and sell that information to the civil lawyers. If the civil lawyers pulled out a conspiracy to cover up the facts after the fact? That would be worth big money to the family. If I had crucial information that only I knew, I promise you I'd try to leverage it.
I'm guessing the jury saw proof. But by all means, believe what you want. But to hold onto the belief that the jury was the one incorrect when they received information that you did not, makes you the fool. And whatever information was received, was subject to cross examination and verification by the prosecution (and ultimately the civil attorneys).
I didn't say I would dispute any info the jury said the saw. the article never says they saw the proof, all I want to see is the proof because the article isn't clear and the odds seem pretty unlikely. no need to call me a fool
They don't account for make/models. But if both vehicles were purchased by separate people, at the same dealer, then it is very possible. As proof, my company gets all of their fleet vehicles from one dealer here in Houston. We all got our 09 models at the same time. All 7 of our plates are just a few digits off from each other. If the officer in the case is lying, and the whole plate story is just a fabrication, then that would lead most folks to believe the officer was randomly looking to pull someone over and shoot them. I am with Otto. It wouldn't be hard to verify the officer's story. You compare the victim's plate with the plate of the other vehicle that was reported to be stolen to see if they were just 1 digit off, and if they were the same make, model and color. This would take all of a few mins to check into. I'd be shocked if no one that was involved in the case checked this out. Not to mention the fact that any officer making a database request would have that request logged.
Which makes it still highly unlikely. you are talking fleet vehicles which are purchased multiple at a time. and then under one ownership, so assuming these vehicles were purchased at the same time they'd have to come from the same dealer and still be under the same ownership. the one number off doesn't sound right. its only come up in the trial from my readings of stories from when it actually happened. I don't know what happened at the trial, maybe there is no way they can verify that info a year and almost a half later.
they made a movie about it already <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IQxfBBTWoNU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IQxfBBTWoNU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
No, they wouldn't have to be under the same ownership. The registration of the plates would just have to occur at the same time (i.e. the owner of the plates don't register them, the dealer does when the file the new title after the sale (dealers get their plates in bulk).
oh yeah, and the vehicles are a year apart meaning they would have been purchased as used vehicles right after each other from the same dealership. come on now, I don't have to be Mel Gibson to question that edit: I can see to different new cars being bought being a year apart but still
what i'm saying is the same owners would still have to be owning them, meaning the two different purchasers edit: new plates come with change in ownership
