Back the Murder.

[Sea of red]

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.

In a letter read from the bench by Judge Clifton Newman, the dissenting juror wrote, 'I understand the position of the court, but I cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict. ... I expect those who hold opposing views will not change those views.'

" 'We all struggle with the death of a man and with all that has been put before us,' the letter continued. 'I still cannot convict the defendant. At the same time my heart does not want to tell the Scott family that the man who killed [Walter Scott] ... is innocent. But with the choices, I cannot and will not change my mind"

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.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The unanimous verdict thing is kind of stupid. There's no getting around the fact that society includes people like this. I think that ten out of twelve should be good. That way, if you have some intransigent moron in the group, he doesn't invalidate the entire group.

 

[Derec]

Mistrial means they can try again. And what does a mistrial have to do with "why there is so much hostility towards cops"?

 

[repoman]

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.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

 

[LordKiran]

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

 

[repoman]

search engined "racist juror contempt"

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/judge-sentences-racist-juror-to-indefinite-jury-duty/

And this report from october is very interesting,

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/1010/At-what-point-does-a-racist-juror-undermine-the-legal-system

 

[James Brown]

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 curious what you would say.

 

[Mumbles]

I'm shocked.

...is what I would like to say. But I'm not.

On the plus side, it was just one juror who was a complete asshole, as opposed to all 12.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But the cop was afraid of the man running away from him. He had to shoot. That man may have lit a fart and fried the cop!

And he's Black.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The unanimous verdict thing is kind of stupid. There's no getting around the fact that society includes people like this. I think that ten out of twelve should be good. That way, if you have some intransigent moron in the group, he doesn't invalidate the entire group.

Criminal convictions should be beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus I support a unanimous verdict requirement.

Sure, it will result in a few repeated trials when a jury deadlocks. I think it's worth it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The only time I've gotten as far as von dire was in an educational setting, I was one of the "jurors" the lawyers were using for demonstration purposes. The lawyer blew it, although he never knew. The "case" in question was personal injury, he didn't ask about relatives in the medical field. He would have bounced me anyway for thinking the word of a neurosurgeon meant more than the word of a chiropractor, though.

I've also been on a mock jury in a personal injury case, their screening questions once again failed to consider relatives. (And in that case it certainly mattered. I recognized the pattern of milking a personal injury claim.)

In the real courtroom I've been called a few times, always dismissed before even being assigned to a trial.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

In a letter read from the bench by Judge Clifton Newman, the dissenting juror wrote, 'I understand the position of the court, but I cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict. ... I expect those who hold opposing views will not change those views.'

" 'We all struggle with the death of a man and with all that has been put before us,' the letter continued. 'I still cannot convict the defendant. At the same time my heart does not want to tell the Scott family that the man who killed [Walter Scott] ... is innocent. But with the choices, I cannot and will not change my mind"

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?

 

[ronburgundy]

The unanimous verdict thing is kind of stupid. There's no getting around the fact that society includes people like this. I think that ten out of twelve should be good. That way, if you have some intransigent moron in the group, he doesn't invalidate the entire group.

Criminal convictions should be beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus I support a unanimous verdict requirement.

Sure, it will result in a few repeated trials when a jury deadlocks. I think it's worth it.

But let's say 1 in 12 jurors on 3 consecutive juries refuse to give a guilty verdict. I'd say that at least 1 in 12 people are unreasonable and/or incapable of determining what is reasonable. Thus, such a result is highly plausible even when there is no reasonable doubt about guilt.

The unanimous requirement greatly contributes to the problem of juries being non-representative samples chosen to have particular biases during the selection process.
An entire science has been created to help lawyers select the type of jury best suited for the verdict they are seeking given the particular issues their case deals with.

Perhaps a solution is requiring unanimous verdict in the first trial, but if there is only 1 not-guilty verdict, then the second trial only requires 11 of 12, making it 22 out of 24 people that found them guilty.

 

[laughing dog]

Mistrial means they can try again. And what does a mistrial have to do with "why there is so much hostility towards cops"?

I think the point is that in the opinion of the OP there should not have been a mistrial, and that this police officer got a break (i.e no conviction and will be home for Christmas) because he was a police officer.

 

[Sea of red]

Mistrial means they can try again. And what does a mistrial have to do with "why there is so much hostility towards cops"?

I think the point is that in the opinion of the OP there should not have been a mistrial, and that this police officer got a break (i.e no conviction and will be home for Christmas) because he was a police officer.

Yep.

If this was a drunk driver, he would get twenty years like it was candy. But when a cop is on trail there always seems to be at least one idiot that refuses to render a guilty verdict, and it ends with the cop walking - even in the face of damning video footage.

 

[Sea of red]

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 problem is that even so, this is a crystal clear case. The cop shot a man that was no threat to public safety six times in the back, then proceeded to stage the scene with his taser, in order to make his murder look like a case of self-defense - which it was assumed to be before the video was made public. This was all caught on tape clear as day, yet we still have assholes like this that stick up for the cop anyways.

It's just pathetic. I would bet green money that the juror is a wing nut. These people have their own version of reality.

IMHO: the people that defend these kind of cops (that are obviously guilty) have blood on their hands.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Criminal convictions should be beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus I support a unanimous verdict requirement.

Sure, it will result in a few repeated trials when a jury deadlocks. I think it's worth it.

But let's say 1 in 12 jurors on 3 consecutive juries refuse to give a guilty verdict. I'd say that at least 1 in 12 people are unreasonable and/or incapable of determining what is reasonable. Thus, such a result is highly plausible even when there is no reasonable doubt about guilt.

The unanimous requirement greatly contributes to the problem of juries being non-representative samples chosen to have particular biases during the selection process.
An entire science has been created to help lawyers select the type of jury best suited for the verdict they are seeking given the particular issues their case deals with.

Perhaps a solution is requiring unanimous verdict in the first trial, but if there is only 1 not-guilty verdict, then the second trial only requires 11 of 12, making it 22 out of 24 people that found them guilty.

The number of juries that deadlock is low.

And if 3 out of 36 don't think he's guilty then I have a hard time with the idea that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Now, making 11:1 for acquittal result in an acquittal is another matter. That I would agree with.)

 

[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?

 

[Derec]

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.