DrDeth, can you address this?
You sort of alluded to an answer when you quoted the defense attorney. What, specifically, did he point to that could justify what was shown on video in your opinion?
I have no opinions about this case at all, other than the fact that I trust the judgement of a jury who has been able to view all the evidence over the un-informed opinions of others.
Juries are amazing thing, they put up with a lot of shit for almost no return, and they deserve our respect.
“How can they?” Simple- they heard *all *the evidence, rather than just a short video.
No. The question is simply, what happened here, was it a crime, or wasn’t it? Criminal juries don’t rule on what is “just”.
No one is saying what happened is OK. The cops were fired, they face civil lawsuits- but the prosecution failed to convince a jury beyond all reasonable doubt- that those crimes had been committed.
No you don’t. This is a lynch mob, not a thread with questions. You want a rope, not information.
Not my reading of it. I simply quoted.
I was referring to the verdict itself, not the death of Thomas or the actions by the police.
Well see, that’s part of what I don’t understand: how can it be simultaneously true that the cops apparently behaved improperly, and are not guilty of (at least) manslaughter? If they didn’t behave according to proper procedure, and this resulted in a death that (presumably) could have been prevented by following procedure, then that seems to be the definition of manslaughter; but if they did follow proper procedure, then it seems as if everybody should indeed say that what happened was ‘OK’, and nobody should get fired or face civil action about it.
Thank you, once more, for telling me what I want; however, I would again like to suggest that you turn your keen facilities for detecting bias onto yourself before accusing others. Your ridiculous hyperbole isn’t really improving your argumentation, such as it is.
This smacks of deliberate avoidance of the question. I don’t care what your opinion is; I merely asked to lay a predicate. I want to know what the jury could possibly have been shown that justifies the conduct in the video.
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.
In order to be found guilty of a crime, it must be proven *beyond all reasonable doubt. * This is a very high burden of proof, much higher than a civil or procedural matter.
Thus is is very easy for it to be simultaneously true that the cops apparently behaved improperly (more evidence than not), and are not guilty of manslaughter (must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt).
Appropriate user name, tho.
You clearly failed to read post 108. Please do so.
Nor is anyone “justifying the conduct in the video”. The prosecution simply failed to show that such conduct was a crime- beyond all reasonable doubt.
That’s how the American Jury system works. That’s a Good Thing.
I read post 108 and referred to it in post 121. Are you taking the position that the conduct shown in the video is not a crime?
You haven’t read this thread at all have you?:rolleyes: Did you somehow miss the fact that the jury voted to acquit? :dubious:
*You *may wish to proclaim the defendants guilty based upon getting 1/100th of the available evidence. I am glad the jury got to hear all the evidence before rendering a verdict.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Yes, I read the thread. I am asking you to support your assertion that the jury’s verdict was correct. I am not asking you to offer evidence, just a plausible hypothesis.
I made no such assertion. It’s a matter of **fact **that the jury voted to acquit, thus I don’t need to assert anything, nor do I need to offer my opinion. Since they listened to all the evidence, and neither you nor I did, it must be assumed they made a informed decision. They saw that video- and days more evidence. That video was dissected frame by frame. They heard witnesses. Did you hear the witness testimony?
If you read all the evidence, then you can make a informed opinion, instead of clamoring for a lynching based upon a tiny portion of the evidence.
Try it someday. Argue based upon a informed opinion, rather than simply emotion.
That last is worth a warning DrDeth. It’s a gratuitous shot at the poster and not the post.
Further, I want everyone to calm it down a bit. Let’s keep it civil.
You’re clearly not reading my posts. I am asking you what additional evidence the jury might have heard which would justify the verdict. This is a really, really easy question to answer. You don’t have to refer to the trial transcript. You can make things up. For all I care, you can pretend the cops found a dozen pistols and knives secreted on Thomas’ person. All you have to do is come up with something plausible.
And stop trying to instruct me on the law. I already explained everything you think you’re explaining to me two pages ago.
I was actually trying to lighten the mood with a little joke. Obviously, in retrospect, it wasn’t funny and was misunderstood.
Half Man Half Wit my apologies for that.
While we’re on the subject, I misread a post that wasn’t directed at me as being directed at me. So I take this back.
You entered in a discussion in Great Debates. Saying you have no opinion and then not presenting a position beyond “juries be great” is not an argument.
The jury process is an amazing thing. The people on them are untrained and more importantly untested as to their capacity to reason. They effectively are elected into a position without qualification. Other than “politician” few jobs of such importance exist.
yes, that’s the question. All you’ve done is hurl insults. If you have a position regarding this case then presented it because this is a debate thread and not a “someone else’s opinion thread”. If you want to start a jury fanboy thread than have a go at it.
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.
That’s enough. It is possible to disagree with DrDeth without getting to emotionally charged. We’re all - hopefully - adults here and I expect you all to behave accordingly.
This. And a thosand times this. It’s not ‘scary’ but rather insane
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
The Moderator Clears His Throat
[/QUOTE]
Try a lozenge before posting. Works for me. 