The Arkansas Times spoke with one of the jurors.
Interesting quote from one of the jurors voting for conviction.
This is the point - the policeman is on trial for his actions. Whether the suspect had a gun, or drugs, the policeman had no way of knowing. Therefore, the presence of such is irrelevant. It did not influence the policeman’s actions because HE DID NOT KNOW THE GUN WAS IN THE VICTIM’S POCKET.
Introducing the evidence of the gun (or drugs) would be an attempt to sway the jury with details irrelevant to the question at hand - did the policeman act recklessly?
Further in the article it says the two holdouts also said by shooting a 15-year-old the policeman was innocent because “he was preventing future crimes…” (Juries can and will do almost anything.) Basically, he was a cop, the guy was a “bad guy” therefore he was justified in anything he did… judge, jury and executioner.
the article also peripherally mentions disputes as to speed of the car; it did not have the speed to climb a slope and sustained no damage going over a curb and rocks? And the victim was shot in the side of the head, as if he had turned to look back while reversing. The evidence was nowhere near consistent with “ramming speed” and deliberate running down.
Note the detail that he could not even be sure he was firing at the right people…
Also, the jurist in the interview said they were hung up on manslaughter vs. negligent homicide. Who says cops don’t get a break? Anyone else firing at a vehicle when they could have gotten out of the way would face murder charges.