bigdaddyman6969 t1_j7e3yh4 wrote

Reply to comment by UnderThenOver in RPD lies again! by MeanMasheen5

I know I’m getting killed in the comment section but this is a legitimate question I have if you have a second to answer.

It does look like the person who is being arrested is certainly resisting arrest. He appears to push the officers and maybe take a swing?

At what point does what he is doing become resisting arrest? Or escalate from resisting arrest to assaulting a police officer? Is what is happening in this case basically - ‘the police had no reason to even be involved with this guy so the fact that he may have assaulted them is irrelevant’ or ‘what he is on camera doing is not assault or resisting arrest’. Genuinely curious.

Thanks !


bigdaddyman6969 t1_j7dymmd wrote

Reply to comment by augie_wartooth in RPD lies again! by MeanMasheen5

Your obviously upset and that’s fine- but you shouldn’t be rude. All I was saying is that the prosecutors have discretion on what cases to bring to trial. Once it was determined that that reason for the 911 call was going to be inadmissible- the prosecutor no longer felt they could try the case effectively.

Literally all of this is in the article. If I’m wrong on something here I’d love for you to point it out to me. But you won’t because your just emotional and lashing out.


bigdaddyman6969 t1_j7du3in wrote

Reply to comment by MsKawasaki in RPD lies again! by MeanMasheen5

Dude this is literally directly from the article. The DA dropped the charges because key info in the case was ruled inadmissible. For better or worse.

> McEachin said that her office did not "have any issue with the legitimacy of the charge in this case," and that their decision not to proceed with charges "was unrelated to the implication suggested in your reporting."

> McEachin said that at a hearing the Friday before Holley's trial, the judge had ruled the 911 call for service that brought Yoon and Onorati to Maggie Walker Plaza was inadmissible.

> McEachin said the call for service was for a report of a man attacking people with a glass bottle.

> “The exclusion of the crucial evidence left our prosecutor in a position which she would no longer be able to present at trial the context and reported violence that led the officers to approach Mr. Holley," McEachin said


bigdaddyman6969 t1_j7drs7w wrote

Reply to comment by augie_wartooth in RPD lies again! by MeanMasheen5

It’s from the article homie. I realize it goes against “POLICE ALL BAD” narrative Reddit loves. But if you think that cops just decide what charges are brought and that’s the end of the story I don’t know what to tell you.


bigdaddyman6969 t1_j7dp65l wrote

Reply to comment by UnderThenOver in RPD lies again! by MeanMasheen5

I’m not a lawyer- but the DA obviously has to be on board for the case to move forward. So either the DA is just as corrupt as the police officers or something else is also at play.

Reading in between the lines a little bit it looks like the DA chose to drop the case when the reason for the call that brought the police out in the first place(suspect threatening people with a broken glass bottle) was ruled inadmissible.