Back the Murder.

[Malintent]

There was nothing in the linked article, or any of the sources linked therein, that supports the OPs accusations of allegiance of the dissenting juror to the police or any agency. The Juror's identity was not even addressed. The letter to the judge from that Juror stated that while he could not convict the cop of murder, specifically, he (or she) could also not in good conscious tell the victim's family that the shooter was "innocent".
That does not sound like a foaming-at-the-mouth-radical-cop-lover... It sounds to me more like a person too wrapped up in the definitions of specific words to see the forest through the trees, so to speak.. like maybe he (or she) was mildly autistic... In another note from another Juror (who also wrote, "sorry for all the notes") it was written that the jury was unanimous, except for one juror that "just had to go... has issues". Sounds like a disturbed, or poorly functioning person, made it through selection, and blew this trial.

So, when there is a mistrial, does the defendant "go free" for a time until they are retried, or do they just sit in jail? How does that work (or, how is that working here - SC)?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've been called for jury duty many times, and in every criminal case, they ask if you are related in any way to a policeman. Anyone who says yes is recused.

Another question they ask is if you would put more weight on a policeman's testimony, than an ordinary citizen. The jury has always been picked before they come to me, but damn, I want to answer that question.

"I'm sorry, did you just ask me if I was prejudiced against the Defendant?"

- - - Updated - - -

There was nothing in the linked article, or any of the sources linked therein, that supports the OPs accusations of allegiance of the dissenting juror to the police or any agency. The Juror's identity was not even addressed. The letter to the judge from that Juror stated that while he could not convict the cop of murder, specifically, he (or she) could also not in good conscious tell the victim's family that the shooter was "innocent".
That does not sound like a foaming-at-the-mouth-radical-cop-lover... It sounds to me more like a person too wrapped up in the definitions of specific words to see the forest through the trees, so to speak.. like maybe he (or she) was mildly autistic... In another note from another Juror (who also wrote, "sorry for all the notes") it was written that the jury was unanimous, except for one juror that "just had to go... has issues". Sounds like a disturbed, or poorly functioning person, made it through selection, and blew this trial.

No, it sounded like a person that was never going to convict.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Judge Declares Mistrial In Murder Case Against Former S.C. Police Officer

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...murder-case-against-former-s-c-police-officer

For all you police apologists that seriously wonder why there is so much hostility towards cops, here's a prime example of why. This is why people hate police culture, the justice system, and the 'back the blue' types that enable it all. This cop was caught red-handed on tape planting a taser in an unarmed mans hands, to make it appear as though the victim was a threat the public; had there been no video, the victim likely would have been painted as a mad man that had to be killed by media.

Yes, I know it was a mistrial. It was likely some dumbass juror that has a cop in their family that is on the polices side no matter what. Still, this shit is just getting pathetic and frankly, it's starting to make me despise most police - I know not all are rogues.

Here is the letter from the dissenting juror in all it's disgrace.


You are sir, are a coward or someone that is too stupid to have the same rights as everyone else. My hunch is that the you simply have some family connection to law-enforcement, so you are emotionally unable to do what it is right - despite concrete video footage. I hope the next juror does not have someone like you on it - for the sake of real justice.

Crawl into a hole and die, you fuck.

As mentioned in the article, the questions included why manslaughter was offered as a potential verdict, and what was meant by "imminent danger."
This was declared a mistrial so the case will be tried again. What's the problem?

The officer was on video shooting a man, at distance, in the back. The problem is the jury didn't convict on what couldn't have possibly been an easier case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it sounded like a person that was never going to convict.

It sounds to me like someone holding out for a lesser charge. I have a hard time with the notion of a murder charge for a cop's mistake--murder requires intent, I don't believe any oops can rise to that level.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, it sounded like a person that was never going to convict.

It sounds to me like someone holding out for a lesser charge. I have a hard time with the notion of a murder charge for a cop's mistake--murder requires intent, I don't believe any oops can rise to that level.

Manslaughter was the lesser charge!

 

[laughing dog]

No, it sounded like a person that was never going to convict.

It sounds to me like someone holding out for a lesser charge. I have a hard time with the notion of a murder charge for a cop's mistake--murder requires intent, I don't believe any oops can rise to that level.

The police officer drew his weapon, aimed and fired at the back of a man who was running away. There was no oops. There was no mistake - he meant to shoot. Are you claiming the police officer did not intend to shoot the man or that he did not intend to shoot to kill?

 

[ZiprHead]

No, it sounded like a person that was never going to convict.

It sounds to me like someone holding out for a lesser charge. I have a hard time with the notion of a murder charge for a cop's mistake--murder requires intent, I don't believe any oops can rise to that level.

What, he didn't intend to shoot that guy in the back?

 

[Deepak]

Manslaughter was the lesser charge!

Manslaughter is, almost as a rule, included as a lesser charge in cases like these. When people talk about prosecutors 'overcharging' cops they mean the charge should be littering since the cops didn't dispose of their bullets in a proper trash receptacle.

http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/568

No, it sounded like a person that was never going to convict.

It sounds to me like someone holding out for a lesser charge. I have a hard time with the notion of a murder charge for a cop's mistake--murder requires intent, I don't believe any oops can rise to that level.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1897

Second Degree Murder

n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from first degree murder, which is a premeditated, intentional killing or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It sounds to me like someone holding out for a lesser charge. I have a hard time with the notion of a murder charge for a cop's mistake--murder requires intent, I don't believe any oops can rise to that level.

Manslaughter was the lesser charge!

I thought the situation was some voted for murder, some for manslaughter and the jury couldn't get 12 to vote for either.

 

[skepticalbip]

It would be interesting test of the law system (in any direction for any case) for a juror to say/write something like "he is guilty, but I will say not guilty" and then give lame reasons. Or what if he said, something like "he is cleaning the street of stupid niggers and should have a medal", could he be held in criminal contempt for that statement? Would that make it not a mistrial, but extend the trial until an alternate could be installed in his place? Maybe the guy wants to say that, but knows the result would be a conviction of the cop.

But regarding this exact case, EVEN IF there was footage before of the dead man spitting on the cop or insulting him in very crude, personal terms it would not justify the shooting. Can't handle that (which probably did not happen) you should be convicted of manslaughter at the least and never be a cop or security guard again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

My State has jury nullification specifically spelled out in its Constitution even though they don't call it jury nullification. It is the jury's duty to judge both the law and the facts. If the law is deemed unjust then the jury delivering a not guilty verdict is sanctioned even if the person on trial confessed to breaking the law on the stand. Of course the judge, prosecutor, or defense lawyer will never say that to the jury. Also any perspective juror that cites that section of the State Constitution will never be seated as a juror.

Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors.
(a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.

 

[Deepak]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

My State has jury nullification specifically spelled out in its Constitution even though they don't call it jury nullification. It is the jury's duty to judge both the law and the facts. If the law is deemed unjust then the jury delivering a not guilty verdict is sanctioned even if the person on trial confessed to breaking the law on the stand. Of course the judge, prosecutor, or defense lawyer will never say that to the jury. Also any perspective juror that cites that section of the State Constitution will never be seated as a juror.

Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors.
(a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.

Which is not what's happening here - as it's the defendant's rank and not the law that's causing the nullification.

Juries judging a law would protect against unjust laws, but no one actually thinks that the laws themselves regarding homicide are unjust. 'Judging the law' can actually have an evolutionary effect on the law through consistent precedent, but 'judging the law shouldn't apply to this specific person because of his station in life' by its nature is a muddled and capricious morass.

"Justice is indiscriminately due to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank."

 

[skepticalbip]

My State has jury nullification specifically spelled out in its Constitution even though they don't call it jury nullification. It is the jury's duty to judge both the law and the facts. If the law is deemed unjust then the jury delivering a not guilty verdict is sanctioned even if the person on trial confessed to breaking the law on the stand. Of course the judge, prosecutor, or defense lawyer will never say that to the jury. Also any perspective juror that cites that section of the State Constitution will never be seated as a juror.

Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors.
(a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.

Which is not what's happening here - as it's the defendant's rank and not the law that's causing the nullification.

Juries judging a law would protect against unjust laws, but no one actually thinks that the laws themselves regarding homicide are unjust. 'Judging the law' can actually have an evolutionary effect on the law through consistent precedent, but 'judging the law shouldn't apply to this specific person because of his station in life' by its nature is a muddled and capricious morass.

"Justice is indiscriminately due to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank."

Yes, I know. I was responding to the post by LordKiran that linked a video describing jury nullification.

This is the one LordKiran linked. It is titled "The Law You Won't Be Told".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

 

[Deepak]

Manslaughter was the lesser charge!

I thought the situation was some voted for murder, some for manslaughter and the jury couldn't get 12 to vote for either.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats...t-vote-guilty.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

Yes, I know. I was responding to the post by LordKiran that linked a video describing jury nullification.

This is the one LordKiran linked. It is titled "The Law You Won't Be Told".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

I was putting a finer point on it as the video didn't draw that distinction while the PA quote does - and it's absolutely salient to this specific case.

 

[LordKiran]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

My State has jury nullification specifically spelled out in its Constitution even though they don't call it jury nullification. It is the jury's duty to judge both the law and the facts. If the law is deemed unjust then the jury delivering a not guilty verdict is sanctioned even if the person on trial confessed to breaking the law on the stand. Of course the judge, prosecutor, or defense lawyer will never say that to the jury. Also any perspective juror that cites that section of the State Constitution will never be seated as a juror.

Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors.
(a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.

What state if I may ask? And how would you say it relates to cases like these?

My State has jury nullification specifically spelled out in its Constitution even though they don't call it jury nullification. It is the jury's duty to judge both the law and the facts. If the law is deemed unjust then the jury delivering a not guilty verdict is sanctioned even if the person on trial confessed to breaking the law on the stand. Of course the judge, prosecutor, or defense lawyer will never say that to the jury. Also any perspective juror that cites that section of the State Constitution will never be seated as a juror.

Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors.
(a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.

Which is not what's happening here - as it's the defendant's rank and not the law that's causing the nullification.

Juries judging a law would protect against unjust laws, but no one actually thinks that the laws themselves regarding homicide are unjust. 'Judging the law' can actually have an evolutionary effect on the law through consistent precedent, but 'judging the law shouldn't apply to this specific person because of his station in life' by its nature is a muddled and capricious morass.

"Justice is indiscriminately due to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank."

I would argue that justice is a social construct and is almost entirely a communal concern. (Thus the term "Social Justice" is a tautology)

The purpose of courts and police departments is not to seek justice but to maintain order through the enforcement and execution of the law. This is why juries exist and are made up of one's peers. As it relates to your point though I agree with your assessment but don't think anything can or should be changed in the interest of maintaining a proper court system.

 

[skepticalbip]

My State has jury nullification specifically spelled out in its Constitution even though they don't call it jury nullification. It is the jury's duty to judge both the law and the facts. If the law is deemed unjust then the jury delivering a not guilty verdict is sanctioned even if the person on trial confessed to breaking the law on the stand. Of course the judge, prosecutor, or defense lawyer will never say that to the jury. Also any perspective juror that cites that section of the State Constitution will never be seated as a juror.

Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors.
(a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.

What state if I may ask? And how would you say it relates to cases like these?
.

It is Georgia. I don't think it would have anything to do with this specific case. I can't imagine anyone could reasonably claim that a law against murder, regardless of who does it, is an unjust law.

I just thought I would mention it because the video you linked made it sound like a legally sneaky secret. Georgia doesn't make it a secret.

That clause in our Constitution, however, is frequently used by jurors to justify refusing to convict kids on charges like possession of marijuana. I am glad that our State congresscritters recognize the people's right to question the law enough to place such language in the Constitution.

 

[Deepak]

I would argue that justice is a social construct and is almost entirely a communal concern. (Thus the term "Social Justice" is a tautology)

The purpose of courts and police departments is not to seek justice but to maintain order through the enforcement and execution of the law. This is why juries exist and are made up of one's peers. As it relates to your point though I agree with your assessment but don't think anything can or should be changed in the interest of maintaining a proper court system.

The Jay quote isn't contingent on the philosophy of justice as much as the egalitarian application of the justice system. I'd argue that the purpose of the police is to enforce and execute the law, and the purpose of the courts (which includes juries) is to affirm both that the law and the execution of the law was just. In principle there should be a healthy antagonistic relationship between the two, which is why cases like this are doubly perverse.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Manslaughter was the lesser charge!

I thought the situation was some voted for murder, some for manslaughter and the jury couldn't get 12 to vote for either.

One juror said he couldn't convict on even manslaughter. I think someone else was right and they thought littering was appropriate, both for the bullets and planting the taser.

 

[Rhea]

When he says he "can't consider a guilty verdict," he makes it sound like he went into the trial already thinking that. I would have hoped that was disqualifying and when he wrote that note, the judge would question him about it.

 

[Derec]

When he says he "can't consider a guilty verdict," he makes it sound like he went into the trial already thinking that. I would have hoped that was disqualifying and when he wrote that note, the judge would question him about it.

 

[Deepak]

When he says he "can't consider a guilty verdict," he makes it sound like he went into the trial already thinking that. I would have hoped that was disqualifying and when he wrote that note, the judge would question him about it.

The foreman actually requested his dismissal, but an alternate wasn't provided. Most likely it was at a stage where they'd have to repeat the entire trial.