This comment is worthless garbage. You are trying to be reasonable but you are also being lazy and sloppy and just plain dumb. The deceased is not on trial, which is where the presumption of innocence comes into play. Your writing is poor, but you seem to be saying that the officers (who in fact are under investigation) are not entitled to the presumption of innocence because they are "agents of the state". This is retarded as a matter of law (of course they enjoy the same legal presumption as private citizens) but also is wildly impractical. Imagine trying to recruit officers while telling them that their every action would be reviewed under a presumption of guilt. Good luck filling those assignments!
Ahhhh; that's the kind of flourish that has made FR what it is today. Did you cut your rhetorical teeth behind the fence debating umpires?
The deceased is not on trial, which is where the presumption of innocence comes into play.
I'm not the one who put him on trial: you are. Remember?
You do not have sufficient information to reasonably conclude that the force was excessive or that the citizen was innocent.
...you seem to be saying that the officers (who in fact are under investigation) are not entitled to the presumption of innocence because they are "agents of the state". This is retarded as a matter of law (of course they enjoy the same legal presumption as private citizens) but also is wildly impractical. Imagine trying to recruit officers while telling them that their every action would be reviewed under a presumption of guilt. Good luck filling those assignments!
It's not my problem if your understanding of legal nuance is on par with a preschool appreciation of algebra. The culpability of state agencies as opposed to their officials is well recognized by most functionally literate Americans.