If you want to understand why there is a BLM movement, just look at this case. Blatant murder, no jail time.
I still go back to that Staten Island police murder, when no indictment followed the guy getting choked on camera. The prosecutor cooked the grand jury.
Now we have evidence for what black people have said for decades: the cops use excessive force in minority neighborhoods, without fear of ever facing justice.
And he will absolutely do prison time. His own cops -- who usually refuse to say a single critical word about one another, let alone charge one of their own, wanted nothing to do with him, and neither did his original lawyer after seeing the video.
I can't speak for the sole juror who somehow couldn't be certain that this was murder, but the guy is going to do some time. Agree with your points, otherwise, although I'd say that many cops operate with zero fear of repercussions for how they treat anyone other than the super-wealthy, rather than just the white.
(no message)
Jurors can bring their bias intro a courtroom, not unlike posters do here, -- albeit without taking an oath.
Jury trials are not a perfect system, but the best thing going. A jury also has the better vantage point in weighing the evidence vs what we gather via media accounts.
The accused remains presumed innocent, but he was not acquitted. He can be retried, or he may cut a deal if it was 11-1 jury split.
My guess there will be a plea.
knowing one or two of your fellow jurors is corrupt enough to distort truth and facts as acceptable.
Having been there and seen, lived it, it leaves one with a sense of total disgust and contempt for others. I hope I should never be on another trial of this magnitude again.
This one hold out clearly has been corrupted and can never be challenged openly.
As a juror it is with great difficulty to convict knowing you have the power over another's life in this way but when given the task as daunting as it first seems, following the truth is the only way to go and yet this hold out (knowing their reasoning) is clearly in the bag.
What will likely happen is a retrial with the defendant asking for a bench trial - he won't be acquitted rather given a lengthy probation and purged from the police dept. losing all benefits. And this will be considered a conviction.
The next jury almost always convicts in a clear case where there was jury nullification.
If they plead this out they are selling the victims family down the river as they have a strong murder case on video.
prolly a bench trial or their version of one.
And that it is profoundly unfair. Right or wrong, it is results like this that explain why there is a BLM movement.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
No cop wakes in the morning planning on killing anybody--especially a black person. If he kills a black person then his career is over. No matter the circumstances.
Police officers have gone to jail--rightfully so, after a jury of their peer find them guilty. Back the black persons.
They commit more crimes--violent ones in case you haven't noticed. You might have a case if black criminal commit crimes against white victims.
But we all know that isn't so. Black on black crimes says it all. Why do the police even care?
Because black people--law abiding black persons--call the police for help more than white people do.
Those officers go to their aide, white, black, Hispanic and any other nationality officers, they go to help.
The high crime rate put officers in those areas trying to stop crime before it happens. Thus the conflict
Saying police are more likely to rough up black suspects/criminals per police contact compared to white suspects/criminals, but less likely to shoot and kill them.
And given that black people constitute 39% of all violent crime arrests but just 25-35% of all police shooting victims, there is no evidence that cops target black suspects/criminals for death...in fact, every statistical study says the opposite.
The boy who cried wolf fable comes to mind.
(no message)
...regardless of race.
Instead, the movement was shoehorned into racial politics, thereby nullifying its ability to cause real, worthwhile change. Instead, we just get DOJ running select local police forces with no effective change across the country.
This is yet another example.
There is such a long history of it that even when the system works as designed and reaches the proper conclusion, no one gives it the benefit of the doubt.
This is a bad one...but that Staten Island choke job, and failure to indict, was the worst.
(no message)
That case was amazing to me in that there was a trained police supervisor not only not stopping it but supporting it as it happened.
He was selling single cigarettes, I believe.
It took six guys to kill him, but they got the job done.
And then they walked.
so they called 911 to get him away from their stores. The police never witnessed him selling single cigs. They just showed up and tried to move him away from the store fronts there. He apparently had a colorful history in the neighborhood and with the police dept..
No one thought to use any common sense.
Mind boggling if you know anything about police procedure.
But, since some of them including the supervisor were black, where is the racial motive?
But they treated him with far more violence because he was (1) poor and (2) black. They didn't mean to kill him.
But the notion that they would have assaulted a white guy in a suit with the same amount of force strikes many people as implausible.
This guy was selling singles for a long time. Prolly knew and didn't like him or meebe were having a bad day.
Don't think they would have done this to a well dressed white or black guy charged with a minor offense. They did it cause they thought he was a shitbird plain and simple.
(no message)
couldn't agree that what happened was murder, I might feel a bit different.
(no message)
No way.
(no message)
I doubt that guy ultimately gets off.
couldn't bring him to trial within the speedy trial deadline due to the Roof prosecution.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)