For those of you not familiar, 2 jackoffs with fully automatic weapons and bullet proof vests rob a N.H. bank. When they encounter police resistance outside, they go on a shooting spree. These fucks fired indiscriminatly at anything that moved while trying to commandeer vehicles to make their escape. They ended up shooting 16 policemen and civilians before being killed.
So Steven Yagman sues the LAPD and the city of L.A. on behalf of the children of one of the robbers. He claims the cops deliberately kept an ambulance away, allowing one of the robbers to die. My first thought was that Yagman should be drug around back and shot. Then I thought the jury is gonna see this for what it is. Ha! What a moron I am. I read today what the dispostion of the case is.
They fucking settled. L.A. fucking caved in and settled. The actual trial endend in a hung-jury, with a 9-3 vote favoring the LAPD. http://www.dailynews.com/archives/2000/09/13/new06.asp Which makes no sense to me, 'cause when I was on a jury in a civil trial, we had a 9-3 valid verdict. Yagman stated he would keep trying the case till he got the verdict in his favor. Maybe one of you lawyers can explain that to me.
What pisses me off the most is how 3 brain dead morons could have found this shit story credible. This whole shoot-out was caught live on the tv news! It was fucking obvious that these asswipes were not about to be taken alive. THEY robbed the bank, THEY shot 16 people, THEY could have surrendered at anytime and survived, THEY tried to hijack cars for a getaway (which was why the ambulance was held back, plus they thought there might be one more gunman ). But 3 people thought the LAPD was still to blame.
How did they get on a jury? How did they make it to the courthouse? Hey, I accept that lawyers sometimes spew bullshit for their client, but doesn’t mean you have to buy it!!! My god, THESES PEOPLE CAN VOTE!!!
I know this is not the popular opinion around here because I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous posts addressing this subject here in the past but…they let OJ off didn’t they? Not only that people get off all the time who look obviously guilty. It isn’t like the police never use excessive force, because often they do. What about that rich guy in Texas, can’t remember his name right now but I read the book about those murders. He not only got off in the criminal trial but in the civil trial as well, just because his wife was a gold-digging 'ho-bag. Didn’t matter that there were two people dead, one of them a 12 year old girl, or that a young man was left paralyzed for life. These things happen. That’s why both sides get the opportunity to pick the jury.
Yeah, but it’s not like they had to listen to complicated testimony and decide who’s telling the truth about what went down. The whole entire event was caught on tape. Newscopters were there before the gunmen got out of the bank. Hell, the whole thing was broadcast live! I watched it live, in my livivng room.
But, I guess you’re right. The Rodney King beating was caught live on tape too. It just pisses me off.
We need smarter people in the jury pool.
Dopers, don’t throw away those jury summons’s!
When I worked for the state, we had to go to a report writing class. Most reports by police officers, counselors at group homes, prisons, etc. are to be written at a 6th grade writing level, as that is the reading level of average jurist.
That’s not really fair. I took a little class so I could layout and edit our quarterly newsletter. They suggested that everything should be written on an 8th grade reading level.
Sorry for the double post…juries bring their own predjudices and preconcieved notions along with them, regardless of the attempt each side makes to pick someone fair and impartial. I think I’d make a terrible jurist. I believe, especially when it could mean life or death for someone, that I’d be so damned impartial it would make me indecisive.
My mother did once serve on a jury where a man was killed. He was a popular athletic teacher at one of our local high schools. He was out jogging with a friend early one morning before sunrise. A motorist struck him with his car and killed him. They charged the driver with vehicular manslaughter or something like that. My mother was agast that the man ever went to trial. She said his companion admitted to telling his friend; “There’s a car coming you need to get over”, and the guy deliberately didn’t budge. She said the young man driving (think he was in his mid 20s) just didn’t see the man. It was dark, they were just over the crest of a hill and he was wearing a dark jogging suit.
I did fill out my jurist form recently but I do hope they don’t call me.
So your newsletter was written in the style of eighth grade, but the information given to a jury was written for a sixth grade reading level. So, I guess they assume that people on a jury would still be two years’ worth of education away from reading your newsletter. :eek: But we trust these people to make decisions for our country…
Are jurists making decisions for our country? I thought that was up to Congress and the Supreme Court. Those guys can read above a 6th grade level can’t they? Don’t the Supremes have to be lawyers and judges somewhere else first? I know the president doesn’t have to…sublimianable.
It’s not surprising that Cletus, the Slack-Jawed Yokel sits in the jury box when you consider that during jury selection, lawyers routinely stike out from the jury pool anyone who might have formed an opinion on the case by watching the news or reading a paper. Inevitably, you wind up with the least-educated and least intelligent folks deciding court cases.
I’m just going to ask a question to clarify the positions people are taking here. Note that I am not talking specifically about this case (yet):
Do you think it is appropriate for the police to let a suspect in their custody bleed to death?
I assume no one would answer “yes, always,” so if your answer is “yes, sometimes,” please explain under what circumstances this would be okay. Also note the crucial phrase “in their custody;” I am not talking about a critically injured suspect who is not in their custody and over whom they obviously have no control.
Although this is the Pit, I am not defending this lawyer (who I find indefensible, but not for the reasons I imagine you do) or (God forbid) those robbers. I’m just asking a question.
“Yes, sometimes”. The obvious circumstance is where getting the suspect treatment would expose the cops or the EMTs/paramedics to danger. I know nothing about the instant case, except for vague memories of TV coverage at the time, but I suppose in this case, the decision might have been made not to get the bleeding suspect treatment while bullets where still whizzing around.
SUA, you are quite correct. However, the links provided above do not indicate that the cops were in danger at the time they refused prompt medical attention to the suspect – though it doesn’t say they weren’t either. Under such circumstances, I find the fact that the cops settled the case to be highly suspicious. It is my experience that government agencies do not settle high-profile cases unless there is some degree of truth (or possible truth) to the allegations. They will settle low-profile cases for other reasons – like the cost of taking the matter to trial – but not high-profile ones.
I’m just saying that if the allegations were true and the cops let him bleed to death inexcusably – HUGE if – I do not personally think the fact that the guy was a total scumbag murderer would make the cops’ actions okay. And IF a juror believed the allegations were true, and the cops actions therefore not okay, then I don’t think that juror would automatically qualify as an “idiot.” As usual, I think the situation might be more complicated than a newspaper article might indicate.
Oh sure. Jurors definitely make decisions for our country. It’s just more in a grass-roots sort of way than SCOTUS or Congress. Their decisions tend to decide “community standards” which are used for all sorts of reasons. Their decisions tend to have big impacts on business, government, and private citizens.
For example, Phillip Morris would be a lot happier (and richer) right now if a jury didn’t decide to make huge jedgments, leading to a settlement with the states over the societal cost of tobacco. People’s perceptions of government were changed and reinforced when a jury found the government not liable for the Waco situation. And no case with constitutional implications case ever gets to SCOTUS, I don’t believe, without first going through a jury. So they have a lot of effect on how decisions are made in this country.
Spooge: Did you read the entire trial transcript? No. Then you do not have all the info the jury had. Yes, you “saw it on tape”, but it is possible, that AFTER the perps were down & out, even handcuffed, that the LAPD let them bleed. You did not see what happened after, now did you? I am certainly willing to beleive that the SS…er LAPD would deliberately let a perp bleed out, after he was harmless. And if they did , they would no doubt lie their asses off about it.
You know, folks, sometimes Juries do make mistakes, and some times really dumb ones, BUT- you may have seen evidence that was excluded, or they very likely saw & heard eveidence that was not on the 6 O’clock news. Unless you sat in that jury box with them, and saw & heard exactly what they did, no more & no less, then it is YOU who is the ignorant one for second-guessing their verdict.
Does it occur to anyone that the key to getting better-educated juries is not “exclude stupid people from juries”, which is undemocratic anyway, but rather “educate the populace better?” Just maybe?
Either you missed the point of the suit or you… missed the point of the suit.
Whether or not the guys who robbed the bank deserved to be shot was not the issue. The point of the lawsuit was that the second suspect was shot, was wounded, had been captured and handcuffed, and the police left him to die. It took him more than an hour to bleed to death and there was no reason at all not to get medical help.
Eyewitnesses attested to the availability of emergency crews; the police wouldn’t allow the suspect to be helped. The shootout was long over and the police were milling about the area with their weapons holstered and put away, body armor off, the whole nine yards. The situation was safe long before the guy died of his wounds.
If the police apprehend a suspect they are legally required to provide medical help if needed. THAT was the point to the case, not that the police were wrong to shoot him. If it’s your position that the police should be allowed to kill prisoners who shot at cops, well, I disagree. I feel very little sympathy for the guy, but the rules are the rules and the cops aren’t allowed to let prisoners die.
Everything that happened up to the point the guy was captured is irrelevant; that wasn’t the question that was put to the jury. All that matters is this; the guy was in police custody, they knew he needed help to live, and they consciously decided to let him bleed to death. I’m surprised the jury didn’t vote the OTHER way.
The live feed and tapes you saw on TV are completely irrelevant, too; they don’t show any of the actions in question.
I was just called for jury duty! First time! In an effort to be a good juror, can somebody define for me just waht “reasonable doubt” means?
Is it definable in plain english?