These postings come from two of my “go to” blogs Patterico’s Pontifications and Power line. Both blogs are written by attorneys. Patterico expresses his own opinions and not those of his office but he is a career prosecutor with the Los Angeles County District Attorney. The second blog, located in Minnesota is written by Paul Mirengoff also an attorney. Both consider themselves to be conservative and lean towards Libertarian. Each has reported on the same event and REACHED OPPOSING CONCLUSIONS. Mirengoff sees a clear cut case for a Murder verdict. Why-doesn’t-Daniel-Shavers-life-matter. Patterico, on the hand, sees a reasonably returned verdict of not guilty. The-shooting-of-Daniel-Shaver-the-law-enforcement-perspective.
Both Patterico and Mirengoff use similar terms in describing events leading up to the shooting. I believe Patterico is the more caustic and critical of the two. The ultimate parting is based on their previous experience. Patterico is cautionary, not willing to put his full reliance on a single piece of evidence. They also part company over the role of the jury. Patterico points out that the jury was there for every moment of the trial and had access to all of the testimony and evidence, while the readers have only the video evidence. He points out that video evidence only tells part of the story, generally from one point of view. That vantage point can lead to an erroneous impression as to event.
One issue that they have not addressed is that two generally conservative attorneys and writers have assessed the same incident and honestly arrived at opposite conclusions. Any bets on whether two Black Lives Matter (BLM) types would be able to break step and do the same thing?