It used to be that southern juries routinely used to look the other way when whites lynched blacks. That was a disgrace and this is a disgrace. It does not excuse the crime, it compounds the crime.
That was 50 years ago. Again, no blame should attach to the jury here unless you know at least at much at they did. Which you certainly do not.
Well, at least they didn’t fine the poor white boys. Woman fined $1.9 million for illegal song downloads - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board
This country is beyond disgusting in its justice system. Don’t steal from the corporations or you will be ruined for ever, but kill a brown guy, or torture him? We need to do it to keep the country safe. It’s fucking evil.
What we do know already is that this incident and the blatant racism prevailing in that town was already brought-up by a SD poster from Shenandoah at the time the incident happened.
How’s that for some background?
Disgusting that anyone would even make an attempt to excuse what happened there.
ETA, I see he just posted again upthread.
Of course the same was said 50 years ago: “you don’t know as much as the jury”. And yet people then knew it was wrong and we now universally confirm it was wrong.
The prejudice of jurors and judges has lead and still leads to innumerable miscarriages of justices.
Yes, he did and here’s the first line of his post "hocow For what it’s worth, the jury are not to blame for the outcome of the trial. "
Juries can only make decisions based upon the evidence provided to them, the arguments made, and the judges instructions. Based upon hocows post,* the jury* made the only decision they could.
I am excusing the jury, not the outcome.
Well he seems to be contradicting himself going by what he wrote in the original thread:
– my bolding.
From said comments and in that environment, STM that the odds of that all-white jury being on the other side of racist is pretty high. Or did they all magically become color-blind when selected to jury duty?
Only if you assume that comments on the website of the local paper represent the views of the majority of the population, which is unlikely. Half the comments on any newspaper article relating to issues of race will be racist.
If the Prosecutor didn;t want an all white jury, then he should have made sure there were some others on the jury. It’s not the jury’s fault for that either. And, if the jury had been 100% Mexican, it still would have been “all white”. Do you think that the addition of a couple black dudes would have changed the evidence provided?
True, even if only a small % of the letters submitted are. Editors like the letters to rile readers up, get more letters, get dudes talking about the letters in the newspaper. Editors have also been known to edit a letter to make it sound worse than it really is, by “cutting for length”. Letters do not really reflect the views of a community.
I’m not contradicting myself. Read the comments on the links I gave. A good part of the population in my area is focused on the color of the victim’s skin and immigration status. However, there are still many that see the incident for what it is: the taking of one life by others. The ones who applaud the boys’ behavior and believe they did nothing wrong are ignorant to facts as well as basic human dignity. But, those who are calling the jury racist just because of the verdict are also ignorant. As DrDeth said, unless you were in the courtroom that day or read the transcripts you can’t know everything that was presented to the jury. Based on the live feeds provided by the news, as well as interviews with those inside the courtroom (including jurors), the verdict was proper. Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The only charges that had no doubt were simple assault and a few alcohol related charges. The jury can only work with what they are given.
As for the all-white jury, that is just a matter of statistics. Schuylkill county is 96% white. Again, I hate the fact that a man’s life was taken with barely a slap on the wrist. But it seems the jury made the right call based on what was presented in court. I don’t think anyone would encourage a jury to act on their own feelings rather than make an assessment of evidence presented at trial. Sometimes a proper judgment seems unsavory, but in general the system succeeds more than it fails. The system worked as intended.
Oh, and I’m a she. 
Chauncey Bailey, the reporter who was killed in this case, was black, and was doing a series of articles on Your Black Muslim Bakery for the Oakland Post. The bakery was already under investigation for other alleged crimes. The Oakland police raided the bakery and made an arrest the day after the murder. Devaughndre Broussard, a handyman who worked at the bakery, confessed to the murder but then said he was put up to it by Yusuf Bey IV, the leader of the organization. The police and DA continued the investigation and now Bey and Antoine Mackey (another bakery employee) have been charged with murder.
Anything else you’d like to get wrong?
You’re right, I was attributing other people’s posts to you.
OK, give an example of what information might have been presented in the court room that isn’t available in the “biased articles” (which apparently includes any article I might have read) that would explain why a completely reasonable (and not stupid) jury would believe this was simply a “the result of a fight escalated by both sides”, and therefore not even worthy of an aggravated assault charge.
The information I got from these biased articles is of an at least four against one fight that ended with the four side rather unscathed, and the one side dead. These articles also seemed to say that the one side was repeatedly kicked and punched even after being knocked unconscious and his skull was fractured. With this information, I don’t see how someone could believe this was just an “escalated fight”, without at the same time being stupid.
Beaten to the post by emcee. But even beyond what he’s saying, if you guys wanna play the “super-duper secret info” a la WMDs card, seems to me the State’s Gov would have ways to access any and all evidence presented in the trial. And here’s what he had to say based on that:
– highlights mine.
So, what now?
When talking about the four boys charged all together, yes there is evidence that it was racially motivated. For the two on trial, Donchak and Piekarsky, the evidence did not prove that either of those two were slinging ethnic slurs, nor who threw the fatal hit. Not to say they didn’t, but nothing at trial could prove that those two committed said acts.
Regarding the two others charged, Brian Scully was charged as a juvenile and Colin Walsh pled guilty to federal charges. At the time of the trial, Scully had not yet been tried in juvenile court and may have been trying to make himself look less culpable with his testimony. The defense questioned his motives on the stand. Some reports stated that Scully was the one who yelled ethnic slurs during the fight. Walsh on the other hand, was originally supposed to be sitting next to Donchak and Piekarsky at that trial. He pled out in exchange for testimony. Perhaps he was tryig to make good on his deal to receive a lesser sentence. Some reports stated that it was he who threw the fatal hit, not Piekarsky.
Therein lies the problem. There were many conflicting reports and a lacking in evidence to prove that these two boys (Piekarsky and Donchak) committed those specific acts. Several witnesses testified that they could not remember Piekarsky saying anything racial at all during the attack. Several witnesses also described the shoes worn by the one who gave that last kick. These shoes were never collected, so who’s to say who was wearing them. Also Ramirez’ head connected with ground after being struck in the face by Walsh. It was difficult to determine if that was the fatal blow, or if the kick to the head after he was already down was. A few said they saw Scully try to kick him but miss because he was too drunk. And when you’re drunk, you may not have perfect recollection of events. And so on and so on…
Too many “what ifs” and uncertainties. The only thing proven about the two on trial is that they were involved in a fight and they were drunk. If the cops had done their job properly, the outcome of the trial probably would have been different. That is why the police department is under investigation. They mishandled the case before the State Police could take over, and by then it was too late.
There is no doubt in my mind that nothing would have happened that night if Ramirez was a white man. No one in their right mind could honestly say that it wasn’t racially motivated. But one needs proof to convict. That’s all we’re saying. It could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I keep emphasizing that because it is so important. If there is any doubt of guilt, one should not be convicted. That how the system is set up, and that’s what happened. The jury had doubt and, rightfully, didn’t convict of more serious charges.
Rendell is looking to get re-elected, not for justice. The two may coincide.:dubious: In any case, he may well have access to info that the Jury didn’t hear. It’s not “super-secret” it’s it what evidence *was *presented to the jury, what testimony they heard and what the judges instructions to the jury were. Unless you know all those things, no blaming the jury.
Exactly- based upon the evidence present to them,** the jury had doubt and, rightfully, didn’t convict of more serious charges**
So what you’re saying is, if a group where to beat one of these murderers to death, as long as it couldn’t be determined who landed the killing blow, no rightful jury would convict them? That’s real interesting…
I’m not sure how that’s really relevant. If I beat up someone small, I call him a little twerp. If I beat up someone fat, I call him a lardball. Neither of these means that I have a hatred of short or fat people, it just means that people latch onto the most obvious insulting descriptor for someone when they’re kicking him in the belly.