Then it’s just plain nasty speaking ill of the dead, is all. Which, I admit, is a more plausible interpretation of the comment, as it’s general practice at this point, when someone is killed by police, for others to smear the deceased.
Other than being behind on child support, what is the “history” that suggests “there isn’t likely to have been too much of a father there for this children to miss?”
Ya know, my dad wasn’t much of a father either. Was in jail a few times, owed my mother years of back child support, and by some people’s definition he was a lout.
Still miss him, though. And I would pretty pissed off if some asshole shot him in the back for running.
I suspect the word “shiftless” might be involved.
I’ve been far from a perfect dad to my two kids, but I think they’d shed a tear should I be executed by a police. Can you understand that?
ETA: emailing my kids To tell them I love them.
Missed the edit window, but to anyone who wants to question someone’s fatherhood cred blindly: fuck you.
Best $400 I ever spent, to not become a parent, and so to remain a rational person.
What has any of this got to do with you or this thread because, you give the impression of someone looking to latch onto any piece of passing information - no matter how irrelevant - to support you pre-existing prejudices.
Somehow “bold” isn’t the adjective I’d put there.
Maybe the cops should be like the Comanches and adopt the kids of the people they kill. Shave their heads and dress them up in ballistic sunglasses and uniforms, and make them so happy and attached they never want to leave.
Perhaps that would be clearer if you read the thread. iiandyiii claimed he wasn’t going to believe anything bad about this guy unless he saw it on video, which is an obviously silly standard of evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
No I didn’t. I said I wouldn’t believe with the certainty I require to criticize and insult an unjustly killed man without video evidence (and might not criticize someone who was unjustly killed even with such video evidence).
I’m just surprised that you find it so easy to criticize a dead man who didn’t deserve to die. It seems very, very callous to me.
Does the judge not have the option of accepting a 11-1 majority verdict?
I don’t believe so.
“Twelve men, good and true”.
No. Verdicts in South Carolina must be unanimous. If the jury can’t reach a verdict, the judge must declare a mistrial.
“Most of 'em think he is guilty, let’s go on and hang the son of a bitch”?
We had a policeman tried for a similar situation in Little Rock, and they gave up after three mistrials.
Doesn’t a deadlocked jury mean a retrial is possible, though?
I mean, I’ve thought about nullification before, and one thing that made me okay with it is the retrial.
How long do they have to keep deliberating before a mistrial can be declared? Is it a set time period, or is it based on the judge’s assessment regarding the potential of the jury to move toward unanimity?
I’m not an expert on this question, but I don’t believe there’s any rule. In my courtroom experience, the judge will carefully probe a deadlocked jury, and he or she will continue to send them back for more deliberation as long as there is any hope at all that the deadlock could break. A mistrial is truly a last resort from a judge’s perspective. Both sides and the court system itself expend a lot of time and effort (and, often, money) putting on a jury trial, and you hate to see that have to be done all over again.