I signed the petition. It looks like they need another 5,000 signatures. My condolences to Kelly Thomas and his family. This video:
Not necessarily. There’s a pretty broad gulf between acceptable law enforcement tactics and murder (and termination doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.)
So they were fired because… Severe rudeness?
What if I and some friends decide to make a citizens arrest of the officers at the scene and beat them dead in order to defend the man?
Thanks for chasing down some numbers, I appreciate that.
One problem that leaps out from the first one is this: “Federal prosecutors are targeting a rising number of law enforcement officers for alleged brutality, Justice Department statistics show.”
More police being prosecuted for brutality doesn’t necessarily mean more brutality is occuring, it could well indicate the opposite, that police culture has shifted to the point where most brutality cases get pursued and charges filed, where in years past they might not have been.
Where the second cite uses actual figures, it’s to demonstrate a single year as being an outlier:
“The FBI does release annual statistics for a category entitled “justifiable homicide by weapon, law enforcement,” defined as “the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty.” This figure remained around 400 per year from 2007 to 2011. The number of such killings so far in 2012 is estimated at 525 or more.”
and
"The same report noted a rise in the number of unarmed individuals shot by the police. “One-fifth of all suspects hit over the past six years were unarmed—in 2010, the rate was more than one-third.”
They were fired because they failed to demonstrate appropriate judgment in dealing with Kelly. For the record, I think they should have been convicted, but that’s neither here nor there. The point is that it wasn’t necessary for the police chief and/or union arbitrator (assuming one was involved) to find they had committed murder to fire them.
Well for the record you believe they killed him. I agree they could fire them for poor job performance and I agree with you they killed him.
Yes. I believe they killed him wrongfully and ought to be in prison. My only point was that the jury verdict and the officers’ firing are not inconsistent.
Of course I haven’t seen what the defense presented but juries are statistically going to have one person who lacks the capacity of reason and that is enough to throw a trial in favor of the guilty.
That would produce a hung jury (mistrial), not an acquittal. California criminal verdicts must be unanimous.
If this verdict indicates a lack of the capacity for reason by the jurors, it was a trait shared by all 12.
Sorry, I thought it was a hung jury. That’s really disappointing.
Well, not really. The limited evidence we have of how jury deliberations work suggests that two or three jurors dominate the discussion and ultimately wind up making up the minds of the others.
While it may be harsh, (and I’ve no personal experience with a jury deliberation to bring to bear), I have no problem characterizing the other jurors allowing two or three loudmouths to talk them into acquitting two murderers as “a lack of the capacity for reason by the jurors”. Or, I suppose, the jurors not giving a shit, which is actually worse.
It’s not so much whether they give a shit - jurors who make it through voir dire seem to take their jobs quite seriously, at least in capital cases - that all group interactions tend to be dominated by a minority. IT’s just human nature. You get hung juries when one of the two or three loudmouths fundamentally disagrees with the others; if the holdouts are “weaker”, they’ll be browbeaten into submission.
What I guess I’m suggesting, is that that browbeating is understandable in cases with ambiguity and reasonable arguments for both conviction and acquittal, but not understandable (or reasonable) in a case that seems as open-and-shut and unambiguous as this one. There must be a point at which a reasonable person can’t be talked out of his conclusion, when it’s backed by undisputed evidence.
In short: shame on the 9-10 who knuckled under, if that’s indeed how this deliberation played out.
I would consider that two or three people having heard the evidence and considering them not guilty to be reasonable doubt. That’s the point of having a jury and requiring unanimity - it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Sure, I’m just struggling to reconcile that to this particular case, especially in light of the acquittal, as opposed to a hung jury. I’ve having trouble imagining what the pro-acquittal argument in the jury room even would have been, let alone how it could have persuaded all 12 jurors. Maybe the prosector was terrible, and the defense attorneys were savants, I don’t know.
ETA: To be clear, every juror should vote their conscience, there’s no burden on those who think the accused is guilty to vote to acquit because a different juror intends to, and that’s evidence of a reasonable doubt.
Sometimes. But it’s also how white people got to kill black people in the Jim Crow South without consequences.
Whereas now we have a Latino cop who killed a white man with no consequences(other than losing his badge).
Ah progress. :rolleyes:
Edit: Not meant as an attack on you or attempt to make light of either Jim Crow or what happened.
I’ve not looked at this case in any depth, so I’m only speaking generally here. But my thought is that, if I were in a jury room with two or three people who have, in my opinion, examined the evidence thoroughly and come to the conclusion that it doesn’t prove guilt, then that gives me reason to doubt the guilt. As, if there is any legitimate way to view the evidence that doesn’t prove guilt, the defendant is not guilty.
If I genuinely felt they were saying he was not guilty for the wrong reasons - because he’s a cop, because of his race, whatever, that would change my view, but there’s a reason for having several people on a jury, not just one.
They still teach, in law school, that it is better to let ten guilty people go free than to imprison one innocent man. This could be one of those ten cases.
Remember, the cop wasn’t found “innocent.” The prosecutors simply failed to demonstrate his guilt clearly enough.
Any so-called improvements on the system, designed to stop this kind of thing from happening, would result in more injustices of another kind. It’s like Type I and Type II errors in statistics.