Back the Murder.

[Malintent]

"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.

never going to convict for murder, no.... but apparently was open to 'manslaughter', since that was a question the jury had (Why manslaughter was not an option on the table for them to deliberate on).

I kind of get that... a little. I mean, there should be some relevant difference in the punishments for someone who wakes up in the morning thinking, "how many people can I kill today", versus, "I hope I don't get killed on the job today"

 

[BH]

Do you think he may have had someone or some folks in law enforcement have some dirt on him and told him to hang the jury or else?

I doubt it. Slager certainly made a horrible mistake that cost somebody their life. Why manipulate a jury to get him off? He is finished as a cop anyway. It's not even a questionable situation like the mistrial in the Sam DuBose case.
I don't think Slager is a murderer but he should get manslaughter based on the facts as I understand them.

Thank you for your comment.

 

[Deepak]

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

- - - Updated - - -

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

never going to convict for murder, no.... but apparently was open to 'manslaughter', since that was a question the jury had (Why manslaughter was not an option on the table for them to deliberate on).

I kind of get that... a little. I mean, there should be some relevant difference in the punishments for someone who wakes up in the morning thinking, "how many people can I kill today", versus, "I hope I don't get killed on the job today"

Where are you getting this from? Do you have a link?

It's already been established that that they received instructions for manslaughter, and the link in my post (53) indicates that 11 of the 12 were ready to deem Slager guilty for either murder or manslaughter with the remaining juror stating he wouldn't agree with guilt on either count.

 

[Malintent]

never going to convict for murder, no.... but apparently was open to 'manslaughter', since that was a question the jury had (Why manslaughter was not an option on the table for them to deliberate on).

I kind of get that... a little. I mean, there should be some relevant difference in the punishments for someone who wakes up in the morning thinking, "how many people can I kill today", versus, "I hope I don't get killed on the job today"

Where are you getting this from? Do you have a link?

It's already been established that that they received instructions for manslaughter, and the link in my post (53) indicates that 11 of the 12 were ready to deem Slager guilty for either murder or manslaughter with the remaining juror stating he wouldn't agree with guilt on either count.

same source as yours... perhaps I misread the detail about manslaughter... I did explore all of the posted article's linked sources too, so that may have confused me on that particular point. That juror didn't;t agree with "involuntary manslaughter" or "murder".. His questions were apparently about the definition of words such as 'passion' and 'fear'... I still think this juror had Asperger's, or was otherwise one of those types of people that find definitions to be completely rigid.

My point is that it sounded to me like a failing of the jury selection process, and not like there was a 'cop-lover' embedded to ensure the "blue was protected from scrutiny" or anything like that. This could have been a Medical Malpractice case and the same juror would have been complaining about a lack of clarity of the term "blood pressure" or "body temperature" and refused to hold a surgeon accountable for gross negligence because he didn't like the word "gross".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Where are you getting this from? Do you have a link?

It's already been established that that they received instructions for manslaughter, and the link in my post (53) indicates that 11 of the 12 were ready to deem Slager guilty for either murder or manslaughter with the remaining juror stating he wouldn't agree with guilt on either count.

same source as yours... perhaps I misread the detail about manslaughter... I did explore all of the posted article's linked sources too, so that may have confused me on that particular point. That juror didn't;t agree with "involuntary manslaughter" or "murder".. His questions were apparently about the definition of words such as 'passion' and 'fear'... I still think this juror had Asperger's, or was otherwise one of those types of people that find definitions to be completely rigid.

You misspelled "was never going to convict a cop for killing a black man". At best he was a jury troll, but most likely he was never going to convict.

But good job on conserving the blame on the prosecution, from demanding too high a crime of murder (instead of manslaughter) down to bad jury selection.

 

[Malintent]

same source as yours... perhaps I misread the detail about manslaughter... I did explore all of the posted article's linked sources too, so that may have confused me on that particular point. That juror didn't;t agree with "involuntary manslaughter" or "murder".. His questions were apparently about the definition of words such as 'passion' and 'fear'... I still think this juror had Asperger's, or was otherwise one of those types of people that find definitions to be completely rigid.

You misspelled "was never going to convict a cop for killing a black man". At best he was a jury troll, but most likely he was never going to convict.

But good job on conserving the blame on the prosecution, from demanding too high a crime of murder (instead of manslaughter) down to bad jury selection.

So, to be clear, you are saying that it is impossible that this juror was like so many flawed humans, and that the "best case" is that he was intentionally obstructive... and that the prosecution has no liability to the quality of jurors they accept... that about cover your comment about what one should assume about people (you know.. .like the intent of cops, intent of robbers, intent of jurors... or is this just related to the intent of the juror and not the perpetrator.. THAT guy (because he was black?) could only have had the best of intentions, but everyone else must hav ehad the worst of intentions... like that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You misspelled "was never going to convict a cop for killing a black man". At best he was a jury troll, but most likely he was never going to convict.

But good job on conserving the blame on the prosecution, from demanding too high a crime of murder (instead of manslaughter) down to bad jury selection.

So, to be clear, you are saying that it is impossible that this juror was like so many flawed humans, and that the "best case" is that he was intentionally obstructive... and that the prosecution has no liability to the quality of jurors they accept... that about cover your comment about what one should assume about people (you know.. .like the intent of cops, intent of robbers, intent of jurors... or is this just related to the intent of the juror and not the perpetrator.. THAT guy (because he was black?) could only have had the best of intentions, but everyone else must hav ehad the worst of intentions... like that?

His letter to the judge pretty much sums him up to make the conclusion I made about him.

 

[Malintent]

So, to be clear, you are saying that it is impossible that this juror was like so many flawed humans, and that the "best case" is that he was intentionally obstructive... and that the prosecution has no liability to the quality of jurors they accept... that about cover your comment about what one should assume about people (you know.. .like the intent of cops, intent of robbers, intent of jurors... or is this just related to the intent of the juror and not the perpetrator.. THAT guy (because he was black?) could only have had the best of intentions, but everyone else must hav ehad the worst of intentions... like that?

His letter to the judge pretty much sums him up to make the conclusion I made about him.

which part of the letter? The part where he says that he cannot in good conscious tell the Scott family that the person who shot him was 'innocent'? Or the part where he says that 'Murder' seems an inappropriate conviction? Which part shall we ignore?
Put both parts together, and maintain context, and you have a person that has issues with the meaning of words, not the color of skin... or accent of dialect, or religion, or anything else you are personally deriving out of your own personal bias.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

His letter to the judge pretty much sums him up to make the conclusion I made about him.

which part of the letter? The part where he says that he cannot in good conscious tell the Scott family that the person who shot him was 'innocent'? Or the part where he says that 'Murder' seems an inappropriate conviction? Which part shall we ignore?

Firstly, he stated murder or manslaughter, not just murder.

And yes, it was those two parts that tell me he never had the intention to convict on anything. It is extremely insincere, and obviously so.

 

[Derec]

which part of the letter? The part where he says that he cannot in good conscious tell the Scott family that the person who shot him was 'innocent'? Or the part where he says that 'Murder' seems an inappropriate conviction? Which part shall we ignore?

Firstly, he stated murder or manslaughter, not just murder.

And yes, it was those two parts that tell me he never had the intention to convict on anything. It is extremely insincere, and obviously so.

It doesn't matter though, because apparently jurors are beyond criticism. As Elixir wrote,

Why? The accused is innocent until proven guilty, beyond and doubt considered reasonable by the jury, under the judge's instructions.

 

[Elixir]

It doesn't matter though, because apparently jurors are beyond criticism.

Is that gospel according to Derec? If so, forgive me for I have sinned...

Why? The accused is innocent until proven guilty, beyond and doubt considered reasonable by the jury, under the judge's instructions.

Please tell me - in what twisted alt-reality does that make jurors beyond criticism? Derecistan gets weirder by the post...

 

[Derec]

Please tell me - in what twisted alt-reality does that make jurors beyond criticism? Derecistan gets weirder by the post...

You used that sentence in response to me criticizing the three jurors who voted to acquit the obviously guilty woman due to either idiocy, bias or both.

Which is then? Do we have to blindly accept whatever jurors say or not? Things are even weirder in Elixirstan.

 

[Elixir]

Please tell me - in what twisted alt-reality does that make jurors beyond criticism? Derecistan gets weirder by the post...

You used that sentence in response to me criticizing the three jurors who voted to acquit

Call the WAAAmbulance! You criticized them on the basis of your idiotic presumption that you know more about the facts of the case than they do. Get a grip on yourself, boy. You're doing it again:

...the obviously guilty woman...

 

[Derec]

Call the WAAAmbulance! You criticized them on the basis of your idiotic presumption that you know more about the facts of the case than they do. Get a grip on yourself, boy.

By that same token you can't criticize the juror in this case because that would be presuming you know more about the facts in the case than he does.

I have seen the same video where she admitted to wanting her husband dead as the jurors saw.
And I have seen the same video of the shooting of Walter Scott the jury has seen.

You're doing it again:

Well she is. Just like Michael Slager is. If we can be outraged at the mistrial in one case, we can be in the other as well.

 

[Elixir]

By that same token you can't criticize the juror in this case because that would be presuming you know more about the facts in the case than he does.

I can criticize them all I want, just as you can. Add both of our opinions together, add $5 and you can get a latté at Starbucks.

I have seen the same video where she admitted to wanting her husband dead as the jurors saw.

I guess that makes you more knowledgeable than they are on all facts of the case.
Oh - wait... no it doesn't.

And I have seen the same video of the shooting of Walter Scott the jury has seen.

See above.

If we can be outraged at the mistrial in one case, we can be in the other as well.

Your ability to be outraged at whatever you want to be outraged about, is limited only by your tolerance for the well-earned ridicule that is heaped on you for the reasons I and others have outlined.
Enjoy the fruits of your outrage, Derec!