# Did anyone follow the Kelly Thomas trial? Cops' use of force caused a death; cops aquitted **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2014, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785 "2014-01-14T15:04:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/141 "2014-01-29T20:56:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I know you don’t understand, that’s obvious. Read some law, Get behind the concept of “burden of proof’. Read the OJ story- he was acquitted of Murder as the defense was able to show 'reasonable doubt” but was found liable in a civil lawsuit as the “preponderance of evidence” showed he was guilty. And of course, the OJ trial is widely regarded as an absolute miscarriage of justice. But that wasn’t the question I asked. I’m aware of the way things are, just pointing out that they’re not therefore good by definition, i.e. I’m posing the question of what sense it makes to be found guilty in one context, not guilty in another. Do you think it’s sensible to both condemn and absolve somebody for his acts? I’m aware that of course the impact of a guilty verdict in a criminal case is different than in a civil trial—only the former can send you to jail. So, there’s a reasonable case to be made for using greater care in that case. But does this have to entail dual standards? Also, every verdict sends a message, both to the public and to e.g. friends and families of the victim(s). What do you think such mixed messages do with them? > [@DrDeth](#): > > **Half Man Half Wit** my apologies for that. Whether or not you meant it as an insult, I’ve been on the internet (and out of grade school) long enough not to waste and whither in its wake, so no hard feelings. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/142 "2014-01-29T21:13:46Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Bullshit. Your posts in this thread say exactly the opposite. > > And yes, for the most part one only need watch the video to realize it’s a _homicide_. Unless, of course, you can’t believe your eyes. _Homicide_ is not a crime in any jurisdiction I know of. What happened in that video is grounds for a serious, criminal investigation, but not grounds for conviction. And that’s the problem with repeatedly asking what could justify that conduct. it’s not relevant, and probably not possible. The burden is on those who claim it’s murder, those who claim the jury was wrong, to provide the evidence that it was so. One possibility is that it wasn’t murder, but was another, less serious crime, and the prosecutor erred by overcharging. In that case it would both be true that the jury was correct, and that there is nothing that can justify the actions in the video. My guess (and it’s nothing more than that) is that something like this occurred. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/143 "2014-01-29T22:48:28Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > _Homicide_ is not a crime in any jurisdiction I know of. What happened in that video is grounds for a serious, criminal investigation, but not grounds for conviction… Fair enough, not a legal eagle as can be plainly seen. Is _murder_ good enough for your requirements? For the life of me I simply can’t understand anyone watching that video & coming to a different conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/144 "2014-01-29T23:00:30Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > _Homicide_ is not a crime in any jurisdiction I know of. What happened in that video is grounds for a serious, criminal investigation, but not grounds for conviction. Which element of second degree murder do you think it fails to prove? ---
**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:** [January 29, 2014, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/145 "2014-01-29T23:28:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Which element of second degree murder do you think it fails to prove? That video doesn’t prove that anyone died, let alone as a result of the attack. It also doesn’t prove that the victim and the attackers are who it’s claimed, nor does it prove where the attack happened - necessary for a conviction in a specific court. It is evidence, however, for all these things, and as I said should be the start of a major investigation. But not the end of one. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/146 "2014-01-29T23:38:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That video doesn’t prove that anyone died, let alone as a result of the attack. It also doesn’t prove that the victim and the attackers are who it’s claimed, nor does it prove where the attack happened - necessary for a conviction in a specific court. > > It is evidence, however, for all these things, and as I said should be the start of a major investigation. But not the end of one. Dude it’s been _proven_ that the guy dies directly as a result of what happened in the video. I mean, no shit – who wouldn’t? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/147 "2014-01-29T23:43:20Z")
[**Police beating caused Kelly Thomas’ death, coroner testifies**](http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/05/local/la-me-ln-kelly-thomas-death-20131205) ---
**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:** [January 29, 2014, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/148 "2014-01-29T23:44:50Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Dude it’s been _proven_ that the guy dies directly as a result of what happened in the video. > > I mean, no shit – who wouldn’t? I’m not denying that. I’m saying that the video by itself, contrary to what people are saying, isn’t proof. The jury will require actual proof of it, usually from an autopsy report or similar. It’s very likely from the video that he died because of those actions, but very likely isn’t sufficient for conviction. It’s clear that you, and others here, don’t actually understand or care what is necessary for proof of guilt of a crime. This doesn’t surprise me, as it’s a pattern in many threads, but it’s still deeply disturbing that people want convictions without proof. ETA Thanks for the link. I note that it isn’t based solely on the video, but also on a physical examination of the body. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/149 "2014-01-29T23:49:07Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > . . . It’s very likely from the video that he died because of those actions, but very likely isn’t sufficient for conviction. . . . And, very specifically, in this case, it wasn’t sufficient for conviction. Maybe the jury screwed up, or maybe not. Maybe the prosecutor screwed up. In any case, the evidence wasn’t enough to prompt a jury to convict. We don’t have to like it, but it’s the way the system works. That same protection might help any one of us, some day, if we are charged with a crime. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a pretty darn high hurdle to have to clear. This time, the prosecutor bumped into the bar. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/150 "2014-01-30T00:10:39Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Dude it’s been _proven_ that the guy dies directly as a result of what happened in the video. He was responding to a very specific question I posed without reference to additional evidence. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/151 "2014-01-30T00:34:16Z")
I should make it clear I’m not defending these officer’s actions, I’m defending the system that makes it extremely difficult to convict _anybody_, as that system protects all of us from abuses of power. Not perfectly, as this case appears to demonstrate, but I support the principle of requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. I also strongly suspect that the jury found the officers not guilty for a reason, not just on a whim, and I don’t know what the reason was. It’s possible they all blindly support the police, or all hate the mentally ill and want to see them killed, but I tend to doubt that. It’s also possible that the authorities deliberately overcharged, to make it look like something was being done but with the hope of this result, or because they felt that any lower charge would be unacceptable to the public regardless of the result. Or, the evidence simply didn’t support proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime committed. I’ve not seen enough in depth analysis of the trial to even begin to decide what it was. Reading this thread, it doesn’t seem like anyone else has either. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/152 "2014-01-30T06:15:31Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > And, very specifically, in this case, it wasn’t sufficient for conviction. > > Maybe the jury screwed up, or maybe not. Maybe the prosecutor screwed up. In any case, the evidence wasn’t enough to prompt a jury to convict. We don’t have to like it, but it’s the way the system works. That same protection might help any one of us, some day, if we are charged with a crime. > > “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a pretty darn high hurdle to have to clear. This time, the prosecutor bumped into the bar. Yes, evidently that is exactly what happened: after all, the accused did walk. But again, not the issue: the question is, how could that have happened? And perhaps, was it OK that things happened this way? What people, myself included, have trouble understanding is how, given the video (and other) evidence, there could have been reasonable doubt in the guilt of the officers. Pointing out that there was doubt (whether or not it was ‘reasonable’) doesn’t address this issue. What I would be interested in seeing is somebody making a case that the doubt was, in fact, reasonable, and moreover, sufficient (not necessarily from a legal, but from an ethical or moral point of view) for a ‘not guilty’ verdict, because try as I might, I can’t come up with a (plausible) scenario. **DrDeth** has provided at least some material in that direction, though I still can’t see anything I would consider sufficient. > [@Steophan](#): > > I should make it clear I’m not defending these officer’s actions, I’m defending the system that makes it extremely difficult to convict _anybody_, as that system protects all of us from abuses of power. Not perfectly, as this case appears to demonstrate, but I support the principle of requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. Well, again, I don’t think that addresses the point. The question is, rather, was there in fact grounds for reasonable doubt? How could there have been, in the face of what we know? What is it that could ameliorate somebody clearly stating their intent to hurt someone else, then proceeding to do so, as a result of which the other party dies? What is more plausible in this situation—that the trial, for whatever reason, failed to come to an appropriate verdict, or that there in fact were sufficient attenuating factors present for a ‘not guilty’-verdict? And, if you will, what do you think—do those officers have some moral blame regarding the death of Thomas? And if so, and the trial did not establish this, isn’t there then a problem with that? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/153 "2014-01-30T06:42:26Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > . . . The question is, rather, was there in fact grounds for reasonable doubt? How could there have been, in the face of what we know? . . . The twelve jurors thought so. Have any of them given interviews? The way I reason it, if all twelve jurors thought there was at least some element of reasonable doubt…then I, in their place, would probably have thought so also. They are (probably) sufficiently representative of We The People, as a whole, to have acted validly in our place. What are the odds that all twelve of them dorked it up somehow? ---
**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:** [January 30, 2014, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/154 "2014-01-30T07:04:38Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Well, again, I don’t think that addresses the point. The question is, rather, was there in fact grounds for reasonable doubt? How could there have been, in the face of what we know? What is it that could ameliorate somebody clearly stating their intent to hurt someone else, then proceeding to do so, as a result of which the other party dies? What is more plausible in this situation—that the trial, for whatever reason, failed to come to an appropriate verdict, or that there in fact were sufficient attenuating factors present for a ‘not guilty’-verdict? And, if you will, what do you think—do those officers have some moral blame regarding the death of Thomas? And if so, and the trial did not establish this, isn’t there then a problem with that? The obvious possibility for reasonable doubt would come with criminal intent, that they genuinely and reasonably believed that what they were doing was legal, and what was expected of the as police officers. But it’s not a case of what exists to create reasonable doubt, it’s what exists to prove _beyond_ it. What you and others are doing is presuming guilt, and asking what evidence there is to show innocence - a jury may not do that, so you won’t get the answers you want by questioning it that way. Another possibility is flaws in the investigation which would lead to some evidence not being admissible at trial - again, a necessary protection for innocent people that may lead to some guilty people going free. If the jury had reason to doubt guilt, then a not guilty verdict is _always_ appropriate. Based on the video and the rather shallow news reports I’ve read, yes they were morally responsible for his death. And no, it’s not a problem that the trial doesn’t establish that - a trial is solely supposed to find out if the law has been broken, to an extremely high standard of proof. If they were morally culpable, and the action was not illegal, your disagreement should be with the law, not with the court. If they did, in fact, break the law in question at the trial - that is, murder, not battery or whatever - but it was impossible to prove to a sufficient standard, then you should accept that and be thankful that the rules that applied to them would also apply to you if you were falsely accused of a crime. Again, unless and until I see in depth coverage of the trial, it’s impossible to give any more than wild speculation as to why the jury decided the way it did. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2014, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/155 "2014-01-30T07:06:46Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > What are the odds that all twelve of them dorked it up somehow? Minimal, to put it mildly. If the wrong verdict was reached, it is far more likely to be a failure on the part of the investigators or the prosecution, or possibly the instructions from the judge. It’s certainly conceivable that any of them could have wanted to protect the police officers, far more so than the jury. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/156 "2014-01-30T13:11:02Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I also strongly suspect that the jury found the officers not guilty for a reason, not just on a whim, and I don’t know what the reason was. It’s possible they all blindly support the police, or all hate the mentally ill and want to see them killed, but I tend to doubt that. Blind support for the police is a pretty common attribute for people to have, especially if the prosecution did a good job in voir dire of removing anyone willing to cop to anti-police feelings. > [@Steophan](#): > > It’s also possible that the authorities deliberately overcharged, to make it look like something was being done but with the hope of this result, or because they felt that any lower charge would be unacceptable to the public regardless of the result. In California, [involuntary manslaughter](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199) is a [lesser included offense](http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/580.html) to murder, so there’s no overcharging here. Involuntary manslaughter (192(b) in the first link) is: Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds… (b) Involuntary–in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle. How the officer’s conduct didn’t amount to exactly that escapes me. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/157 "2014-01-30T14:03:52Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > In California, [involuntary manslaughter](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199) is a [lesser included offense](http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/580.html) to murder, so there’s no overcharging here. Involuntary manslaughter (192(b) in the first link) is: > > Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without > malice. It is of three kinds… > (b) Involuntary–in the commission of an unlawful act, not > amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might > produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and > circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in > the driving of a vehicle. > > How the officer’s conduct didn’t amount to exactly that escapes me. Was the lesser included offense instruction given? Most of the law on less incuded offenses that I am aware of is concerned with a defendant being overconvicted because a jury didn’t want to acquit someone who was guilty of something. It always seemed to me that, in the face of overcharging, not asking for it made some sense because you avoided the risk of a compromise verdict. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/158 "2014-01-30T14:14:21Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Was the lesser included offense instruction given? Most of the law on less incuded offenses that I am aware of is concerned with a defendant being overconvicted because a jury didn’t want to acquit someone who was guilty of something. It always seemed to me that, in the face of overcharging, not asking for it made some sense because you avoided the risk of a compromise verdict. I can’t find a copy of the jury instructions online, but according to the news coverage ([example](http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/13/local/la-me-0114-kelly-thomas-verdict-20140114)), Ramos was charged with murder and involuntary manslaughter, and Cicinelli with excessive force and involuntary manslaughter, so they should have been instructed on involuntary manslaughter. [This report on the closing arguments](http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/01/08/41443/kelly-thomas-trial-closing-arguments-continue-wedn/) includes the defense attorney specifically addressing involuntary manslaughter. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/159 "2014-01-30T14:20:17Z")
From the second article, overlooked it the first time: > [@](#): > > Schwartz next used the jury instructions relating to the charge of involuntary manslaughter, one of two charges Cicinelli faces. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785/160 "2014-01-30T19:21:24Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The twelve jurors thought so. Have any of them given interviews? > > The way I reason it, if all twelve jurors thought there was at least some element of reasonable doubt…then I, in their place, would probably have thought so also. They are (probably) sufficiently representative of We The People, as a whole, to have acted validly in our place. This doesn’t address my post. You assume that the verdict that was reached is appropriate, and from this, deduce that some additional evidence must have been presented to ameliorate what we are privvy to. I’m rather asking, without making any assumption on whether the verdict was the right one, what do you think would be sufficient evidence to reach a not guilty verdict? And do you think that if nothing beyond the video in fact was presented, the cops should have been found guilty? > [@](#): > > What are the odds that all twelve of them dorked it up somehow? Probably small, but definitely nonzero, and improbable things happen all the time. Add to this the fact that it’s not the case that all twelve must dork up, but only a vocal minority, and that there’s all manner of biases—pro-cop, pro-authority, anti-homeless, anti-mentally ill, and so on—that could contribute to a false verdict here, and I don’t think the probability is all that small anymore. > [@Steophan](#): > > The obvious possibility for reasonable doubt would come with criminal intent, that they genuinely and reasonably believed that what they were doing was legal, and what was expected of the as police officers. They thought that it was expected of them to announce their intent to beat people up? > [@](#): > > But it’s not a case of what exists to create reasonable doubt, it’s what exists to prove _beyond_ it. What you and others are doing is presuming guilt, and asking what evidence there is to show innocence - a jury may not do that, so you won’t get the answers you want by questioning it that way. No, we’re working from the evidence we have, the video, autopsy etc., which clearly implies guilt, and asking what else there could have been to ameliorate this. Guilt is not a presumption, but the only judgment I can come to upon watchin the video. > [@](#): > > Another possibility is flaws in the investigation which would lead to some evidence not being admissible at trial - again, a necessary protection for innocent people that may lead to some guilty people going free. > > If the jury had reason to doubt guilt, then a not guilty verdict is _always_ appropriate. Yes, but again, not my question. What reason might there have been to doubt guilt? > [@](#): > > If they were morally culpable, and the action was not illegal, your disagreement should be with the law, not with the court. If they did, in fact, break the law in question at the trial - that is, murder, not battery or whatever - but it was impossible to prove to a sufficient standard, then you should accept that and be thankful that the rules that applied to them would also apply to you if you were falsely accused of a crime. No, there’s another option: sometimes, jury verdicts are false, that is, despite a clear case for guilt being present, they fail to judge accordingly. But somehow, it appears to ruffle feathers to explore this possibility. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-follow-the-kelly-thomas-trial-cops-use-of-force-caused-a-death-cops-aquitted/678785.md?page=9)