• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

But for the video…

LTC8K6

Penultimate Amazing
LTC8K6
Joined
Nov 26, 2002
Messages
21,423
Location
Directly under a deadly chemtrail
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/02/27/but-for-the-video/

The latest example of cellphone video vindicating someone from false charges is a doozy. It comes from Washington Parish, La., and WWL TV
Click to expand...

He was not only arrested, he was also charged with two felonies and a misdemeanor. A prior drug charge on his record meant he was potentially looking at decades in prison. Seven witnesses backed up the police account that Dendinger had assaulted Cassard.
Click to expand...

But here’s my question: Why aren’t the seven witnesses to Dendinger’s nonexistent assault on Cassard already facing felony charges? Why are all but one of the cops who filed false reports still wearing badges and collecting paychecks? Why aren’t the attorneys who filed false reports facing disbarment? Dendinger’s prosecutors both filed false reports, then prosecuted Dendinger based on the reports they knew were false. They should be looking for new careers — after they get out of jail.

If a group of regular citizens had pulled this on someone, they’d all likely be facing criminal conspiracy charges on top of the perjury and other charges. So why aren’t these cops and prosecutors?
Click to expand...

Guy serves a paper on a cop.

It goes crashing downhill for him from that point on.

Who would ever trust these cops?

Would you bet your life on them coming to save you?
 
In the blog's quote bloc, it's mentioned that "Dendinger spent nearly a year waiting for trial, racking up attorney’s fees." Why? Given the supposedly clear-as-day video, why weren't the charges promptly dropped?
 
In a deposition taken by Kaplan, one Bogalusa police officer, Lt. Patrick Lyons, said he witnessed a battery that knocked Cassard back several feet. But the video shows him far in the distance with his back turned.
Click to expand...


That's a crooked cop who will say or do anything to put a citizen in jail, or seize his property.

He should be in jail.
 
We had a judge here in Oz go to jail for signing a false declaration on a speeding ticket. Surely something like this should be investigated?
 
The statements are all clearly false, so how can they justify not charging anyone?
Ridiculous stuff.
 
They seem to have waited a year to file charges, and it appears that Cassard was not even a police officer when the incident occurred.

The prosecutor must have been very secure that he would not have any trouble...

After a year, they must have been certain that no assault took place, and they certainly knew that Cassard was not a police officer in the first place, yet they filed those charges.

That is corruption, wide and deep, imo.
 
Last edited:
Dissolution said:
The statements are all clearly false, so how can they justify not charging anyone?
Ridiculous stuff.
Click to expand...

I think it's dogma here that eye-witness reports are often in error. Can they then be held accountable for the errors?
 
marplots said:
I think it's dogma here that eye-witness reports are often in error. Can they then be held accountable for the errors?
Click to expand...

In a deposition taken by Kaplan, one Bogalusa police officer, Lt. Patrick Lyons, said he witnessed a battery that knocked Cassard back several feet. But the video shows him far in the distance with his back turned.
Click to expand...

That's not an error, that's a lie.
 
LTC8K6 said:
That's not an error, that's a lie.
Click to expand...

Tough to prove the difference. A lie requires the person knows the truth. Unless they admit they lied, how can you observe the contents of their mind?

ETA: Maybe they didn't show the whole video, but from what they did show, it looks like Dendinger's account is also incorrect.
“It was like sticking a stick in a bee’s nest.” Dendinger, 47, recalled. “They started cursing me. They threw the summons at me. Right at my face, but it fell short. Vulgarities. I just didn’t know what to think. I was a little shocked.”

It looks like he hands it over and walks away without further incident. But maybe there's a second interaction not shown? Or perhaps he's talking about the arrest later on.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
Tough to prove the difference. A lie requires the person knows the truth. Unless they admit they lied, how can you observe the contents of their mind?
Click to expand...

We can see in the video that he could not have witnessed the exchange of the envelope. He could not have seen what he swore to. Therefore his account is proven to be a lie by the video.
 
LTC8K6 said:
We can see in the video that he could not have witnessed the exchange of the envelope. He could not have seen what he swore to. Therefore his account is proven to be a lie by the video.
Click to expand...

I think we are using two different senses of the word lie:

1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth

vs.

2) an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

Since we are talking about prosecuting someone for their false statements, I hold the first definition to be the more relevant. Unless the intent is to prosecute someone for a mistake?
 
marplots said:
I think we are using two different senses of the word lie:

1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth

vs.

2) an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

Since we are talking about prosecuting someone for their false statements, I hold the first definition to be the more relevant. Unless the intent is to prosecute someone for a mistake?
Click to expand...

I think a jury would clearly see that he manufactured a story/evidence to put an innocent man in jail.

You can use whatever term you need to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom