Yes, you’re right that it’s an idealistic view, but I’m not going to take the stand that, because other people have been treated badly by the system, these people should also be. That would, in my opinion, only increase the injustice.
As for being acquitted of all charges, at a trial someone isn’t charged with “all charges”. They are charged with a single charge, and possibly some lesser included offences. It certainly happens that sometimes a prosecutor charges with murder that can’t be proven, when battery could be proved, for example. This may be what happened in this case. But they can’t simply create a new charge at trial if the case for the original one isn’t going well, as that would prevent the defendant from having the chance to defend himself adequately. Also, no-one is “found innocent” at trial, that’s not how it works.
I certainly wouldn’t want you to take that stand, I was just making a kind of side-point that people generally aren’t treated as innocent once they are within the legal system.
I understand that, but I have known charges to change, and for people to be charged with different charges from the same statute. A guy was charged with Driving Under the Influence and causing serious bodily injury to another (a class D felony). His passenger was hurt badly in the car crash, but then she wrote a deposition stating that she grabbed the wheel and caused them to crash. The prosecutor dropped the bodily harm portion and just charged the guy with a DUI (a class A misdemeanor). This is what I meant by “all charges.” If police officer #1 in the Kelly Thomas trial is not guilty of second degree murder or involuntary manslaughter, then why is he also not guilty of battery like you said? Was there not enough evidence to get a conviction of battery either? I understand that the standard of evidence for a DUI as opposed to a violent crime is much different, but it seems only right that someone be found guilty of what they are guilty of. Just because he beat the murder case shouldn’t mean he gets to walk away with complete legal innocence.
I’m not saying they create a new charge in the middle of it and complicate things. There should be a simple precise way of charging in tiers, if you will. The prosecutor usually wants to max out the charges to help ensure a conviction of the highest magnitude. If they cannot prove the maximum charge there should default charges that may or may not still be applicable. I just think there should be a more defined order of charges. Why should the prosecutor have to gamble on what he chooses to charge the defendant with? If you prove within the murder trial that the defendant is at least guilty of excessive force, then that charge should remain if they are found not guilty on the murder charge.
You did, and I’m sorry for not replying earlier; but that’s only because I (broadly at least) agree with you, and posting ‘me too’* has never seemed terribly productive to me.
Yet still, the point you keep making again and again is that for varying reasons, you don’t consider the matter suited for debate. No, this is not restricting me in any way, which would be kinda hard to do via the net anyway, but it’s at least somewhat irritating for somebody to come into a debate with such a mantra.
But questions are perfectly valid starting points for a debate. In fact, even a debate starting from a resolution implicitly raises the question of whether this resolution is adequate; else, there wouldn’t be any point in debating it. I can quite validly put the question ‘Was the verdict reached in the Kelly Thomas case appropriate?’ up for debate, and one can produce arguments for either side—if you want to, you can take the thesis to be ‘the verdict was appropriate’, and then we can discuss arguments supporting that, and other arguments against it; likewise, you can take as a thesis ‘the verdict wasn’t appropriate’, and we can exchange pro and contra.
This doesn’t change the arguments, note: the argument contra the thesis of reasonableness regarding the video and forensic evidence freely available is an argument supporting the thesis of non-reasonableness, while the argument supporting the thesis of reasonableness that the medical testimony is conflicting, yielding possible grounds for reasonable doubt, is an argument against the thesis of non-reasonableness. And so on; in that vein, it seems to me to be quite simple to debate the question, but it’s proven a lot harder in practice.
These two paragraphs seem to me to be inconsistent: one claims that the system produces bad verdicts, while the other proclaims that it is impossible to decide whether a verdict is bad, implying that you can’t find reasonable grounds for the thesis that the system produces bad verdicts.
And of course, the method to discover bad verdicts is the same as that of making verdicts in the first place: by critical examination of the available evidence. This doesn’t imply something as formal as a new trial, or an appeals process, because it works on the level of social discourse about these things, not within them; and this, to me, is a discourse which it is of paramount importance to have in any functioning democracy (which is not to imply that you were in any way attempting to repress this discourse, I just want to lay out my reasons as clearly as possible).
And I can only answer once more the same way I’ve answered that question for the past gazillion** posts: to have a debate on the question of whether the verdict in the Kelly Thomas case was appropriate. If that doesn’t satisfy you, I’m sorry—but I don’t know another answer to give.
*Like some brain-dead AOLer… sorry.
**Number approximate.
Lol, yeah that’s a valid point, I just wasn’t sure if it was because I was addressing a “played out” portion of the discussion, and you guys had moved to a more broad philosophical look at the legal system in general. I also wasn’t sure what everyone’s stance on the verdict was.
Seeing now that the verdict itself is still entirely open to debate, what aspects of the verdict do you specifically find questionable? I hope I’m not asking you to annoyingly repeat your thoughts, if so could you kindly tell me what previous posts would best answer my question?
Well, personally, I just fail to see how, given what can be clearly seen in the video, an acquittal of all charges is reasonable. We see clear malicious intent, and it seems to me, clear use of excessive force (relevant quote by Cicinelli: “I got the end of my Taser and I probably… I just smashed his face to hell.”). Nevertheless, the verdict that was found was ‘not guilty’, and most of all I want to understand how this came about.
I’ve studied the case made by the defense as presented in the closing arguments on the final three days, and it seems to me, the two most important points brought forward were the history of the victim, which was allegedly one of violence and drug abuse, and the fact that different medical examiners had different opinions about the connection between the force used by the police officers and Thomas’ death, citing an enlarged heart due to drug abuse.
Both of these, in a sense, come dangerously close to a ‘blame the victim’ or ‘he had it coming’ kind of attitude. The tenor is, if he hadn’t been so violent, hadn’t done drugs, perhaps hadn’t been mentally ill (despite a bit of a modernization of our views in this regard, we still tend to view mental illness as a character fault), then the outcome might have been different. But the past violence of a person does not justify greater violence used against them in an incident where they had not so far engaged in violent behaviour, and in fact, should if anything only urge creater caution. Similarly, Thomas death, whether the ‘enlarged heart’ was causative or not, was certainly a result of the cops’ force; he didn’t just die by coincidence, and would certainly not have died had the incident not occurred in this way.
Generally, I believe that if you hit someone, and they die, it’s murder, whether or not they die because of a heart condition (if you didn’t have a legally defensible standing in hitting them, such as out of self-defense). I think YogSosoth mentioned this as the ‘eggshell skull’-rule (if I got this wrong, please correct me, anybody). So if there was misconduct on the side of the police, it seems to me as if it also should be murder, and frankly, I think that misconduct is obvious from the video from Ramos’ announcement “You see these fists? They’re about to fuck you up.”.
So ultimately, the only conclusion that seems to reasonably explain a complete acquittal to me is that the arguments of the defense—pointing to Thomas’ at times violent schizophrenia and his history of drug abuse—played into an anti-homeless, anti-mentally ill, anti-drug abuser bias by the jury (which doesn’t mean blaming the jury—it’s simply a fact that these biases are present in a large part of the populace, and thus, are likely to be present in any representative subset of it), and caused them to see the officer’s actions as potentially excusable when in fact, it doesn’t seem to me they were. Potentially, a pro-cop bias played a role, as well (there was certainly a bit of the ‘cops have such a hard job’-rhetoric from the defense—and this is true, but part of this hard job is that due to the authority we invest in them, we must also hold them to an exceptionally high moral standard, not cut them some slack).
If that’s how you want to have it, be my guest. I’ve given you a clear example of how this debate might go even if I don’t put forward some resolution—which after all only would be an opinion, and according to you, opinions can’t be debated, either, so I’m not sure how I could have supplied what you’re asking for. You could put forward an argument regarding whether or not you think the verdict to be reasonable, etc., but then again, you never really were interested in any debate.
No. If you hit someone and cause them to die, and have criminal intent, it’s murder. At minimum, the cites you provided show reasonable doubt that the hitting caused the death.
You’ve repeatedly answered your own questions here, and done so even more in your last post. You list several reasons the jury could have acquitted, and any one of them would be legitimate, let alone if several of them at once.
And which of these requirements do you think is not met in the present case? The intent, as stated by Ramos, is clear: “to fuck [Thomas] up.” That he was hit, likewise, is clear in the video. That the injuries he received—possible in addition with his enlarged heart—were causative in his death, as well, isn’t in question. He would not just have died anyway if nothing had happened, and I don’t think any of the medical examiner’s statements can be reasonably interpreted that way.
I don’t see it. It’s not the case that just any potential source of doubt is ‘reasonable’. One might argue that Ramos was mind controlled by evil aliens, and if that were the case, he certainly should not have been convicted, and thus, was correctly acquitted. But there’s a minimum standard to which a possibility must rise to produce ‘reasonable doubt’, and I guess you agree with me that the ‘evil aliens’ hypothesis doesn’t meet it. Likewise, I don’t see how the defense’s arguments do.
And I’ll try once more. I believe the verdict was reasonable. I believe the jurors examined the evidence carefully and fairly, and evaluated it honestly. I think they came up with the best possible verdict. I think that the verdict is correct, proper, justified, and moral. I think that the jurors did the right thing in every possible detail. If the trial were held again with different jurors, I think the result would be the same, not just once, but 97 times in 100.
Well, that’s an opinion. Weren’t you, just a few posts back, quite clear about how those don’t constitute debate?
Less flippantly, how do you arrive at this view? Do you have arguments to support it, beyond your default judgment that the verdict is accurate? Because those would be what I’m interested in in this thread. And again, this is not a question regarding whether the verdict was reached by following proper procedure, but whether it accurately reflects the moral content of the incident.
However, the prosecutor may choose to avoid that approach for strategic reasons. He may worry that the jury, faced with an option to convict for murder or for unlawful assault, let’s say, will choose the option of unlawful assault based on their desire for leniency in punishment, or a necessity to compromise during deliberations.
By choosing to charge the most serious offense the facts support, the prosecutor makes a strategic choice to give the jury only two options, hoping that if faced between complete acquittal and conviction of murder, they will select the latter.
The prosecutor does not have to gamble, in other words, but chooses to.
Content, not character, meaning whether what happened in this situation, i.e. the police’s conduct, was defensible in the sense that a not guilty verdict was reasonable.
I had not seen that quote, and it raises more questions, since smashing someones face to hell is not part of the procedure of detaining. Police are taught specific tactics and pressure points to subdue and cuff a perp. How is it that a man who had no drugs in his system, was able to prevent trained professionals from subduing him for so long?
I suppose, technically speaking, the different views of the medical examiners could create reasonable doubt, but I think it’s non-applicable due to the eggshell skull rule.
Bolding mine, I think this highlights exactly what was wrong with the incident. The officers behavior, excessive force, and malicious intent clearly resulted in the death of Thomas. Regardless of preexisting health conditions, THAT IS WRONG.
I think you’re absolutely right. The eggshell skull rule certainly applies in this scenario. A preexisting heart condition honestly shouldn’t even be a point of defense (according to the rule). Here’s an example of the rule in action, “There is no requirement of physical contact with the victim - if a trespasser’s wrongful presence on the victim’s property so terrifies the victim that he has a fatal heart attack, the trespasser will be liable for the damages stemming from his original tort.” This quote is taken from the wiki description HERE Wiki also provides real examples of where the eggshell law was used in cases in the US and the UK.
Bolding mine. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Cops NEED to be held to a higher standard because of the fact that they have so much authority. Cops are constantly making judgement calls. Any loss of balance in those calls is inexcusable.
Why is the eggshell skull rule then ignored? Police officer #1 clearly had malicious intent, he clearly abused Thomas beyond any reasonable police conduct for that scenario, and Thomas died as a result. It’s not like it was easy for Thomas’ heart to give out, they had to beat him severely for an extended period of time.
I noted only one semi-plausible reason for acquittal. Even if Kelly Thomas were found to be a fugitive murderer during the incident, the following events are still not justified according to the law. I don’t think many would object to him dying in that scenario, but it still would not be in accordance with the law.
It still seems like a loophole for the defendant. IMO, I think it would be better, when certain criteria is met, if you could present new charges for the same incident, following an acquittal. I understand this contradicts our double jeopardy laws, but if it’s a separate charge with separate consequences, I think it should be allowed in some cases. I don’t know how exactly they would draw this up, but I’m sure it could be done in a way that prevents abuse of reapplying charges to an individual.
It seems as though this is more an expression of your faith in the system, and not really an evaluation of what actually happened. I think that given the quotes of the defendants, and the video of the incident, it’s pretty clear something illegal happened. I think it would have been quite fair to convict the man of involuntary manslaughter, and even murder if were basing it on others who have been convicted of murder for lesser reasons.
Well, is it “faith” that I believe in the existence of New York City, even though I’ve never seen it?
I’ve actually seen the justice system in action (I dated a law student, and her idea of a thrilling date was to go down to the courthouse and watch a malpractice trial!) It isn’t “faith” on my part that the system works; I’ve watched it.
If the verdict had been blatantly wrong, this would be all over all the news sources and opinion sources. The family would be on every talk show in the land. The ACLU would have filed all sorts of lawsuits.
There was a brief public-interest flurry of petitions for a full FBI probe, and for a new trial on the grounds of civil rights violations. None of this has gone much of anywhere.
I agree that it is a fallacy to say, “There’s no smoke, so there must be no fire.” But if there is a problem with the verdict, I’d really like someone to try to tell me why. The “burden of proof” is now heavily on the side of the verdict’s skeptics.
That’s fine, I don’t necessarily disagree that “the system works,” but that doesn’t mean every verdict is correct. Whether the verdict is lawful and immoral, or unlawful and/or immoral.
I don’t understand how multiple police officers, who are professionally trained, beat a man for 10 minutes until he was unconscious in order to subdue him. They should have had him hogtied and immobile without killing him or even knocking him unconscious relatively quickly.
Not many are willing to attack/prosecute the people who protect us.
As far as I know, the FBI is conducting their own investigation.
Also, nobody said that the verdict was “blatantly wrong,” nobody is saying the jury is somehow stupid, I’m just voicing my opinion and questioning, rightfully, how these officers could be acquitted. I’ve seen other people (civilians) convicted of murder for less, why exactly do these cops get a pass?
The problem has been discussed. People have a hard time convicting police officers of crimes of this nature. The DA was so disturbed by the footage that he wanted to try the officers himself! When would a DA, who has a political agenda, ever try an officer of the law? That’s asking for a backlash.
I still think there is inherently something wrong with what happened. Thomas was not being “combative,” he was sitting down when he was basically assaulted. If anything, he was being slightly unruly, which can be expected from a mentally ill person or a person who has problems with authority. The officer never even asked him about the car handles, which is why he was called out there in the first place. Before he pounced on Thomas, the officer never said, “put your hands behind your back,” he simply began attacking the man.
Well I’m saying that barring one whopping good piece of missing information the jury is stupid. I leave open the option they could be right and I can’t pinky swear there isn’t a logical explanation since I haven’t seen the transcripts. But I’ll be damned if I can imagine one beyond convincing them this was the proper technique to use and the guy just spontaneously broke out in bruises and died.
I have to disagree with this. We had an incident in my city where an officer pepper sprayed a Wendy’s employee because he thought she gave him the wrong change. His fellow officers wanted him gone. Sure, there’s a gray area where ranks get closed. They have to put up with a lot of crap. This wasn’t one of those situations IMO. I would bet good money the other officers wanted these guys in jail.