Again...considering the "ignorance" of a pig is three times above the intelligence level of the average Canadian, I'll accept that.rstrong wrote: "In his defense, willful pig-ignorance is apparently the foundation of his personal faith."
No, actually- if you read "exactly" what I wrote, you failed to understand it. I will not waste further bandwidth attempting to explain to you. Again, your local literacy folks may be able to help.Mr.B wrote:Boatrocker wrote: "Reading comprehension remains a serious......chore for you."
Not really; I read exactly what you wrote. Sentence structure is your serious chore.
"Don't be afraid to ask for help. Contact your local Literacy Project office."
Well, we know for a surety not to ask you because judging by your language, you speak the language of street illiterates; therefore you've not a clue what literacy is. You're welcome, sore loser.
Vrede too wrote:... In a different case, I am certain that a jury watching the video would have convicted rapidly if the roles and/or races were reversed.
Sincere opinion or was he bribed or threatened?Michael Slager trial: Lone juror is holdout on verdict, judge says
A lone juror will not vote to convict Michael Slager, the former South Carolina police officer accused in the fatal shooting of a black man. But jurors told the judge late Friday afternoon that they would continue deliberating and wish to return at 9 a.m. on Monday.
Slager, who is white, is charged in the death of 50-year-old Walter Scott, who was shot five times in the back in April 2015 as he fled a traffic stop after his 1990 Mercedes was pulled for a broken taillight. A bystander’s cellphone video of the shooting shocked the nation.
On Friday afternoon, the jury announced they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict, but a judge sent them back to continue deliberations. Around 4:30 p.m., Judge Clifton Newman read a letter from a single juror who said it was impossible for him or her to agree with the other jurors on a guilty verdict.
Newman read the letter to the court in which the juror wrote he “can’t in good conscience approve a guilty verdict” and would not change his mind....
The 12-member jury - comprised of 11 white members and one African-American ...Charleston, South Carolina is 70.2% White, 25.4% African American.
Judge Declares Mistrial in Michael Slager Murder Trial
... Scott family attorney L. Chris Stewart said at a news conference after the mistrial was announced, "If you thought that we were going to come out here crying or weeping or weak, you don't know the Scott family, who've become my family."
Slager "dodged it by a hair," Stewart said, adding, "he's not dodging it again."
"The fight isn't over," he said, "That was round one."
Stewart said the solicitor will try the case again and the Department of Justice will also be trying the case.
Slager "delayed justice," he added, but "he did not escape it." ...
Sincere thoughts:Vrede too wrote:Michael Slager trial: Lone juror is holdout on verdict, judge says
"A lone juror will not vote to convict Michael Slager, the former South Carolina police officer accused in the fatal shooting of a black man. But jurors told the judge late Friday afternoon that they would continue deliberating and wish to return at 9 a.m. on Monday."
"Sincere opinion or was he bribed or threatened?
Mr.B wrote:Sincere thoughts:Vrede too wrote:Michael Slager trial: Lone juror is holdout on verdict, judge says
"A lone juror will not vote to convict Michael Slager, the former South Carolina police officer accused in the fatal shooting of a black man. But jurors told the judge late Friday afternoon that they would continue deliberating and wish to return at 9 a.m. on Monday."
"Sincere opinion or was he bribed or threatened?
Could have been either.
The juror could have current or past associations with Slager.
Given it's in the south, the juror could be racially biased.
The juror says he/she couldn't convict on the charges of murder or involuntary manslaughter.
Why would there be any question if this was a case of murder or involuntary manslaughter? Involuntary manslaughter means you didn't mean to kill; by Slager drawing his weapon and firing at Scott's running away back, he fully intended to kill Scott! Shooting a man in the back has always been the brand of a coward!
At any rate, it's unbelievable that an honest juror could not see the shooting was CLEARLY intentional. Who fears for their life when an unarmed opponent is running away in the opposite direction? Why did he pick up the taser (that he "thought" Scott had ) and drop it next to Scott's body?
Vrede too wrote:The options were murder or voluntary manslaughter. I'd have to know the specifics of the law and/or hear the judge's instructions to know which I would choose in this case. One option you didn't mention is the 'cops can do no wrong' mentality, in association with any of the other reasons or not.
Jury nullification is not exclusively a rightwing thing and I'm not automatically opposed to it. There's a reason that we have juries rather than major cases decided by computers or judges.
As the article describes, people are refusing to convict pot offenders. It ain't because they're stoners, but rather because they recognize an outrageous and failed system created in part by Big Pharma and booze makers, with the assistance of freedom haters, and maintained not for society's interest but for the interest of the prison-industrial complex. Why should a jury convict when the same thing is perfectly legal 5 miles away across a state border?
Also, there are places where juries refuse to convict those who have engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience. Why not when judges often stifle the defense from even discussing the reason for the act or presenting supporting testimony and evidence? Trespassing on a torture/rendition flight site is not the same as trespassing on someone's private property even if the prosecutor/law/judge claims that it is.
It's not "anarchy" when jurors in good conscience decide based on the ultimate good for society. That's their real job in place of being mindless and complicit automatons.
Who here would vote to convict if Jim Crow laws were still on the books or if sodomy laws, many of which are still in state law, hadn't been struck down by SCOTUS?
billy.pilgrim wrote:I thought I covered the cop is always right scenario.
You did, but in conjunction with "the liberal evils of BLM". I thought it should also appear stand-alone generically as an addition to Mr.B's decent list and he's the "you" that I meant. Sorry that I wasn't clear.
Anyone who admitted that a cop can do no wrong during jury selection would not have been on the jury. As this would have been a question, the juror lied during jury selection in order to get on the jury and help the poor cop.
I doubt many would admit to "always" even to themselves, even if that's how they are in real life. But, it's true that he might have flat out lied.
Aside: I have no problem with jury duty in general, but there was a particular case that I didn't want to sit on. I didn't lie a bit, but I went out of my way to volunteer things that would get the prosecutor to dismiss me, and he did. I talked to his semi-apologetic intern weeks later, they had no idea that I was trying to get disqualified.
I hope someone investigates the juror - at least look at his bumper stickers and facebook
Jurors aren't prosecuted based on subjective matters. It would take a provable lie and even then it's rare - they just get scolded and thrown off the panel - or evidence of bribery.
Pretty fair bet out of 11 SC whites that at least one is, or 11 northern whites.Mr.B wrote:... Given it's in the south, the juror could be racially biased....
Or, the dog didn't want to.Man in silver skeleton mask robs Spartanburg bank
... A perimeter was set up, but officers with the K-9 unit were unable to track him....
How many of them learned to kick down doors and shoot first while in iraq.Vrede too wrote:73-Year-Old Man With Dementia May Have Been Waving Crucifix When Cops Fatally Shot Him: Family
Religion is dangerous. Cops are, too.
Of course they would and of course it will never happen, but their acting with impunity is spreading and can only get worse.Vrede too wrote:It would be an interesting and valuable study - Are combat vets more trigger happy than other cops? I'll bet that both the police and military would resist it ever happening.
billy.pilgrim wrote:"Of course they would and of course it will never happen, but their acting with impunity is spreading and can only get worse. -- Just be sure the body cam fails before you kick in the guy's teeth."Vrede too wrote:"It would be an interesting and valuable study - Are combat vets more trigger happy than other cops? I'll bet that both the police and military would resist it ever happening."
rstrong wrote: "But those in urban combat AS a hostile force - like occupying a city in Iraq or Afghanistan against non-uniformed combatants and insurgents.... that's a different story. The vital training they need for that job, training to treat EVERYONE else as hostiles, is not what you want in police." (Best comment award.)
Vrede too wrote:"I know there's some level of psych screening - probably varies by dept. - but I wonder if anyone has ever studied what backgrounds and education make for good and bad cops."
Someone calls in about a man with a gun. Someone else calls in and says the man has dementia. It's dark. The cop sees the man coming at him with his hand reaching into his pocket. Again, the man was reported to have a gun ... The man keeps coming at the cop ignoring his commands ... even someone with dementia can fire a weapon ...O Really wrote:"Cop shops love them some vets. But they don't know if they're better or worse cops overall. They do know they are comfortable in a quasi-military organization, understand orders and commands, and usually have some applicable training."
