-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Remember that Cincinnati cop that shot unarmed motorist fleeing? (Mistrial)
- Thread starter MiketheBSG
- Start date
TheLetdown
Member
I was a juror in a federal trial that involved allegations against law enforcement.
Some of the key questions that you had to answer, under sworn oath, were about whether you were more/less inclined to believe/not believe someone's testimony because they were law enforcement or because they were a felon.
And you would not believe the outright statements that were made during deliberation. I was fucking furious because I took the whole thing extremely seriously. I never had a lot of trust in the "jury of your peers" system, but being called to this several-day, often emotional trial awoke this feeling of civic duty.
...It was a mistrial.
I followed the case after that through the news. Anyone want to take a guess at how it eventually turned out for the officers?
Some of the key questions that you had to answer, under sworn oath, were about whether you were more/less inclined to believe/not believe someone's testimony because they were law enforcement or because they were a felon.
And you would not believe the outright statements that were made during deliberation. I was fucking furious because I took the whole thing extremely seriously. I never had a lot of trust in the "jury of your peers" system, but being called to this several-day, often emotional trial awoke this feeling of civic duty.
...It was a mistrial.
I followed the case after that through the news. Anyone want to take a guess at how it eventually turned out for the officers?
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
I really don't know how you change things until juries are willing to convict police.
Lesson here is there are a LOT of people out there that just will not convict a cop no matter what. They just refuse, thats why theres all these cases of them getting off mixed with deadlocked juries. There are jurors that are just refusing no matter the evidence.
System is broken as fuck (in this specific regard) because its depending on the people.
System is broken as fuck (in this specific regard) because its depending on the people.
Yeah. Even happened with one juror getting a mistrial in that SC case. The officer was recorded shooting a man in the back and planting evidence for fucks sake! Getting 12 jurors to convict a police officer of killing someone is nearly impossible. Only an extremely tiny number get convicted, and of those even less face any real punishment. Some even get their jobs back. It's just evil.
Yes, it's not just a police force/union problem, it's a societal problem.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
I used to think body cameras were the answer, but we see more and more lately no matter how much video there is it doesn't matter.
old
Member
We need to change the criminal justice system when it comes to prosecuting cops. There is a significant segment of the populace who seemingly won't convict a cop of a crime under any circumstances. It's ends as either acquitted or hung jury. Special rules for cops then special courts too.
The biggest problem is the privileges cops get because of police unions. He was allowed to view the tape before making his statement. Normal people don't get that privilege. That allowed him to build his defense from the beginning.
The second problem is that the law pretty much allows a cop to do almost anything as long as "he fears for his life". As long as he maintains he 1) that he feared for his life; and 2) that he intended to shoot he can't be convicted of reckless behavior. What absolutely must change is that a jury or judge should be allowed greater room to doubt or judge whether a cop had reasonable cause to "fear for his life".
The biggest problem is the privileges cops get because of police unions. He was allowed to view the tape before making his statement. Normal people don't get that privilege. That allowed him to build his defense from the beginning.
The second problem is that the law pretty much allows a cop to do almost anything as long as "he fears for his life". As long as he maintains he 1) that he feared for his life; and 2) that he intended to shoot he can't be convicted of reckless behavior. What absolutely must change is that a jury or judge should be allowed greater room to doubt or judge whether a cop had reasonable cause to "fear for his life".
Chie Satonaka
Member
It's almost as if nobody wants change because the system works exactly as it's designed to.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Police have been a third rail for decades, so its not surprising to see a tremendous reluctance for juries to convict.