Firstly, it has nothing to do with whether or not they are a cop, the same principle should apply to everybody. And secondly, the real travesty is that, despite several people who heard all the evidence and considered that it did not prove his guilt, he has still been convicted. Finally, as I’m sure you are aware, juries are carefully selected to remove people with biases for or against the defendant - or at least, they are if the prosecution and defence are doing their jobs. If the prosecution failed to do so, they shouldn’t get a second chance.
Several. Out of 36.
nm
Yes, exactly. One would be sufficient to show reasonable doubt of guilt, but there were many more.
If you could guarantee absolute impartiality, sure. Like others have said, a single person on a jury like you would be certain the cop did no wrong and vote not guilty every time, no matter the evidence. Until you can eliminate the possibility of rogue jurors, declaring a mistrial and starting over is the best course of action.
If you were called to be a juror in a trial involving a cop, would you admit that you would refuse to convict him, regardless of what evidence was presented?
No. Were I a juror, I’d do my best to make a decision based on the facts presented to me, and the law as explained by the judge. I would give any defendant all the benefit of the doubt, as I would be legally and morally required to do. Which would probably mean that I’d be more likely than not to find any defendant not guilty, although it’s hard to say for sure never having been in that situation. All of which would also probably mean the prosecution would try to have me removed as a juror.
Would you, or others who post in this thread, admit that you are biased against cops, and would convict them even if the evidence didn’t show they broke the law? Because that is what has been called for probably hundreds of times now.
If asked, I would admit that I would hold the cop in no higher nor lower regard than anyone else that sat in the defendant’s chair.
The defense may want to get rid of me for that reason, but if they are able to present a sufficient defense that I would find myself with a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, I would not vote to convict.
In this mistrials, there has been one juror who, regardless of any evidence given, refused to convict. It’s a bit frustrating.
In this case, you can’t even use the excuse that he is a cop and has a dangerous job. He wasn’t on duty at the time that he killed his daughter’s boyfriend. Most cops who kill, even in cases where the killing is not justified, did not begin the encounter with the desire to kill. In this case, he did. There was no self defense here, it was simply murder.
The fact that he was a cop, even though not on duty at the time, is why there were cop worshippers in the jury that refused to look at evidence, and instead just bask in the knowledge that they were helping a cop to get away with murder.
The final trial had no problem convincing the jury, the evidence was overwhelming. The only reason for the mistrials is because the guy was a cop, and there managed to be, out of 12 people, one that just refused to admit that a cop could do wrong, just like you.
To be fair I doubt this had much to do with the guy being a cop, and a lot more to do with the young man being black.
This country is racist as fuck.
What is the victim was a thug playing loud music?
Truth.
I don’t believe you. You have stated several times in his thread that if a cop is afraid for his life you are OK with him gunning somebody down, but if a black man is afraid for his life and runs, he is a criminal that deserves to die. I don’t think you are truly impartial.
Eleven (out of 12) good men and true determined that he was “guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.” If this sounds like acquittal to you, I suggest you re-read your dictionaries.
While I do agree with your sentiments, if Steophan is a male humanoid(*), then your use of ‘prick’ may be sexist. AFAICT, in the politically-correct era only women can be described as ‘prick.’ You are free, I guess, to call Steophan a ‘whore’ or ‘slut.’
-
- For a while I assumed Steophan was a mis-programmed bot. But an AI bot would learn over time, while Steophbot just seems to get stupider and stupider.
You realize that Muffin was going for meter and assonant rhyme there, right? Because, if I recall my HS Sex-Ed correctly, urethral discharge is not a typical symptom of syphilis, but it scans better than other options.
Good point. I’ll take meter and assonant rhyme over political correctness any day. 
I’m glad you called attention to Muffin’s poetic prowess. (If there’s sufficient clamoring for it, I’ll post my own meager attempt at a Villanelle in Trump’s honor. :eek:)
Interesting that everyone is focussing on one of the trials where it was an 11-1 split, rather than the one where it was a 6-6 split. That completely destroys the narrative that it was a lone holdout, rather than serious problems with the evidence.
You have fundamentally misunderstood what I’ve written. Anyone, regardless of race or profession, should have the right to defend themselves if their life is being threatened. People also have the right to defend others - so, if an armed man is running away from you after having fired at you and missed, obviously you have the right to shoot him to protect others.
This is not about cops, or about race. It’s about the right to self defence, and the right to be presumed innocent of a crime until proven otherwise. Killing someone in self defence, or in defence of another, is not a crime, and should not be treated as one. There should be strong evidence that it was not self defence before any accusation of criminality is made.
Why are we still feeding the troll?
Yup. The phrase is from a song:
Some die of drinking water, Some die of drinking beer.
Some die of constipation, And some of diarrhea.
But of all the world’s diseases, There is none that can compare.
With the drip, drip,drip of the syphilitic prick, Of the British Grenadier.
Unless the person threatening you is a cop. Or, of course, if your home is invaded by criminals, you need to ask them for ID before shooting them, ot make sure that they are not a cop serving a no-knock warrant at the wrong house.
And if an unarmed man is running from you, obviously you have the right to shoot him, and plant evidence to make it look like he was a threat to others.
Like a complete lack of weapon on the dead body? Cameras showing that the cop was the aggressor and escalator in the situation?
In your world, I could walk up to you on the street, shoot you in the head, and no one could convict me, because I would claim that I thought I saw you make a gesture that I perceived as threatening, and there would be no way to prove that I didn’t think that I saw a gesture that I percieved as threatening.