# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 155
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3081 "2015-05-29T15:59:24Z")
Let me guess : in the three months since nothing has been done whatsoever and the public have completely forgotten about it ? Because that site seems riot-worthy, yanno. Of course, I’m saying this because Bastille-burning is a tradition among my tribe, but. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3082 "2015-05-29T16:13:35Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > So every prosecutor in the world who ever tried someone for murder is irrational? No, only those who do so when there’s not enough evidence to get a conviction. A good, non-police, example of that would be the Casey Anthony trial, where the over-charging by the prosecutor lead, predictably, to an acquittal. The prosecutor made (and was probably pressured to make) a decision on emotional, not rational, grounds. Hopefully the large number of people here who are deciding things on similar grounds will never serve on a jury. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3083 "2015-05-29T16:16:37Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Because that site seems riot-worthy, yanno. Of course, I’m saying this because Bastille-burning is a tradition among my tribe, but. Nah, no appliances to be had there. Plus, you know, they might actually get **SHOT** for trying! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3084 "2015-05-29T17:14:19Z")
Tell you what, you tell them how they can conduct a protest, assemble peacefully to petition for a redress of grievances, without creating an opportunity for assholes to take advantage of the situation. Because if you can’t, then all you are saying is sit down, shut up, and take it. Are the peaceful protestors somehow responsible for the looting? If that is your case, say it. Insinuation is for cowards. ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3085 "2015-05-29T17:25:15Z")
[![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZaoYeXq_Km0/maxresdefault.jpg "Dude Plays The Silent Treatment With Police Officer Who Repeatedly Knocks On His Car Window!") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaoYeXq_Km0) Guy eating in car when cop approaches. Originally posted to World Star Hip-hop. Vertical video. 11 minutes long but worth the watch for the ending. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3086 "2015-05-29T19:11:09Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, only those who do so when there’s not enough evidence to get a conviction. A good, non-police, example of that would be the Casey Anthony trial, where the over-charging by the prosecutor lead, predictably, to an acquittal. The prosecutor made (and was probably pressured to make) a decision on emotional, not rational, grounds. > > Hopefully the large number of people here who are deciding things on similar grounds will never serve on a jury. > [@Steophan](#): > > No, pre-judging a killing as murder in defiance of the available evidence shows a lack of rationality. How is referring to a convicted murderer as “a murderer” irrational. Besides you’re the one who pre-judged Jordan Davis by classifying him as “a thug”. Beyond that, since you’ve insisted that the jury in the Emmett Till case made the right decision when the defense attorneys urged them to “do their Anglo Saxon duty” it’s a bit difficult to believe you understand the word “rationality” at least not in regards to trials of white people accused of killing blacks. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3087 "2015-05-29T19:56:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I know that’s how it’s done, but it shouldn’t be. That a jury is unable to reach a verdict is a clear demonstration that there’s reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, and that should, morally, be the end of it. In your opinion, perhaps – in my opinion it could just as easily be a sign that one juror is a nut, or a bigot, or unable to analyze the case rationally for some other reason, while all the other jurors are reasonable. One nutty/bigoted/idiotic juror shouldn’t be enough to scuttle justice. Thankfully, it’s not. And it goes the other way, too – one nutty/bigoted/idiotic juror isn’t enough to scuttle the possibility of a man’s freedom – if a unanimous verdict isn’t reached, then try it again with a new jury. > [@](#): > > The continuing erosion of the protection of defendants is worrying, and incongruous at a time when the protection of other human rights is increasing. From what I’ve seen, jury trials and our justice system is far more just now than in the past, even though it has many problems. For most of American history, white people (cops or not) could get away with murdering and raping black people (mostly) regardless of evidence. Now, while it’s still far from perfect, Americans of all backgrounds have a better chance at reaching a just verdict. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3088 "2015-05-29T19:58:50Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Nah, no appliances to be had there. Plus, you know, they might actually get **SHOT** for trying! It should make _you_ want to riot, too. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3089 "2015-05-29T21:33:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In your opinion, perhaps – in my opinion it could just as easily be a sign that one juror is a nut, or a bigot, or unable to analyze the case rationally for some other reason, while all the other jurors are reasonable. One nutty/bigoted/idiotic juror shouldn’t be enough to scuttle justice. > > Thankfully, it’s not. And it goes the other way, too – one nutty/bigoted/idiotic juror isn’t enough to scuttle the possibility of a man’s freedom – if a unanimous verdict isn’t reached, then try it again with a new jury. It’s not supposed to be balanced, it’s supposed to be extremely difficult to convict someone. Even one person who’s seen all the evidence doubting guilt should be sufficient - especially when you have a system that screens out nutty, bigoted and idiotic jurors. That said, I don’t think much of any juror who, confronted with the doubts of their peers, still votes for guilty. That shows they don’t understand the job they’re supposed to be doing, or the concept of reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3090 "2015-05-29T21:50:21Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s not supposed to be balanced, it’s supposed to be extremely difficult to convict someone. Even one person who’s seen all the evidence doubting guilt should be sufficient - especially when you have a system that screens out nutty, bigoted and idiotic jurors. Heh. Funny, when “a gun was found on or near the dead body” is apparently enough for you to assume the dead guy must have attacked his shooter first. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3091 "2015-05-29T22:41:53Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I’m waiting for rules of engagement to be passed that are so restrictive that cops start saying “Fuck this shit”; and refusing to enforce the laws against simple possession and petty offences like solicitation, loitering, panhandling and open bottles. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > Aw, the poor little babies might not like being told they can fire whenever they feel like it? That was quicker than I’d have thought: [Baltimore gets bloodier as arrests drop post- Freddie Gray](http://www.dailyprogress.com/newsvirginian/news/state/wire/baltimore-gets-bloodier-as-arrests-drop-post-freddie-gray/article_0f72a531-f75c-5ff1-abbc-3e49554a80d9.html) ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3092 "2015-05-29T23:32:07Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Heh. Funny, when “a gun was found on or near the dead body” is apparently enough for you to assume the dead guy must have attacked his shooter first. No, it’s enough for me to assume that he _might_ have done. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the defendant is therefore innocent. Prove the defendant wasn’t acting in self defence, or accept that he keeps the innocence he’s presumed to have, it’s that simple. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3093 "2015-05-30T00:23:23Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, it’s enough for me to assume that he _might_ have done. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the defendant is therefore innocent. Prove the defendant wasn’t acting in self defence, or accept that he keeps the innocence he’s presumed to have, it’s that simple. Defendants are never found “innocent”, only “not guilty”. We accept that someone who looks damned suspicious may not meet the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; but common sense can suggest at times that it is possible, probable, or damn-near-certain that someone committed a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3094 "2015-05-30T00:41:38Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, it’s enough for me to assume that he _might_ have done. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the defendant is therefore innocent. Prove the defendant wasn’t acting in self defence, or accept that he keeps the innocence he’s presumed to have, it’s that simple. So then why did you assume Jordan Davis was a “thug”(your word not mine)? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3095 "2015-05-30T01:24:14Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Defendants are never found “innocent”, only “not guilty”. But you are innocent until proven guilty. If you are found not guilty, by definition you are innocent. Right? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3096 "2015-05-30T01:27:53Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > But you are innocent until proven guilty. If you are found not guilty, by definition you are innocent. Right? Yes, you _ **are** _ innocent, but you have not been _ **found** _ innocent. You have been found “not guilty.” ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3097 "2015-05-30T01:32:56Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, it’s enough for me to assume that he _might_ have done. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the defendant is therefore innocent. Prove the defendant wasn’t acting in self defence, or accept that he keeps the innocence he’s presumed to have, it’s that simple. But you’re handing out a verdict of self-defence, which cannot happen in a vacuum. A trial cannot end in a verdict of “_shrug_ buggered if I know”. By saying “this guy acted in self defence”, you’re automatically saying “that guy attacked him”. Which means you’re tarring the dead guy, and his surviving relatives, absent any evidence. IOW, where is the \*dead guy’s \*presumption of innocence ? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3098 "2015-05-30T01:33:15Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So then why did you assume Jordan Davis was a “thug”(your word not mine)? I didn’t assume anything. Not that that’s relevant, anyway. There’s no equivalence between calling someone who acts in an antisocial manner a thug, and someone who acts in self defence a murderer. The former is, at worst, hyperbole, the latter is claiming that a victim of crime is, in fact, about as bad a criminal as it’s possible to be. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3099 "2015-05-30T01:34:28Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Yes, you _ **are** _ innocent, but you have not been _ **found** _ innocent. You have been found “not guilty.” And, being found something other than “guilty” makes you innocent. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3100 "2015-05-30T01:39:19Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > But you’re handing out a verdict of self-defence, which cannot happen in a vacuum. A trial cannot end in a verdict of “_shrug_ buggered if I know”. > By saying “this guy acted in self defence”, you’re automatically saying “that guy attacked him”. Which means you’re tarring the dead guy, and his surviving relatives, absent any evidence. IOW, where is the \*dead guy’s \*presumption of innocence ? No, I’m not saying the dead guy attacked him. I’m saying that the defendant may have reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury at the hands of the dead guy. The dead guy isn’t accused of anything, so presumption of innocence isn’t relevant. His actions are relevant only where they affect the state of mind of the accused, and his intent is entirely irrelevant. Oh, and “buggered if I know” means “not guilty”. Anything other than " I know he’s guilty, beyond reasonable doubt" means he’s not guilty. There’s no verdict of “self defence”, either. It’s simply “not guilty”. Of course, as I’ve just said, what’s happened is that you’ve put the _victim_ of a crime on trial for murder, and claimed he should have to prove his innocence. That is, under any circumstances, utterly unacceptable. _No-one_ should have to prove their innocence, and it’s especially egregious when it’s a victim who’s being asked to do so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=154) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=156)