Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2  3 

 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2354
Karma: 16 (+18/-2)
Reply | Quote
How about now? Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Michael Slager, the white former South Carolina police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black man in the back as he fled a traffic stop, was sentenced Thursday to 20 years in prison.

In a rare case of a law enforcement officer being imprisoned for an on-duty shooting, U.S. District Judge David Norton of the South Carolina District sentenced Slager after ruling that he committed second-degree murder when he shot 50-year-old Walter Scott in April 2015.

The judge made a pretty powerful statement,” Harris said. “The sentence tells us that this is taken seriously, and maybe some people won’t think it’s justice, but looked at in the universe of police shootings, with officers so rarely charged, it is significant.”



That's what a federal judge did. Here's what a jury did:

quote:

Earlier this year, Slager, 36, pleaded guilty in federal court to violating Scott’s civil rights by unjustly shooting him five times. As part of the plea agreement, prosecutors dropped state murder charges. Slager’s murder trial in state court ended in a mistrial last December after a deadlocked jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.



Yes, the jury couldn't find a police officer guilty even after viewing video of him gunning down an unarmed man who was running away from him. It took a judge to call it what it was under the law, second degree murder.

We gain nothing by having a jury system over a system that employs judges or a panel of professional jurors consisting of experts in forensic science etc. It's just that we've been taught as Americans that employing a jury of average joes is a better way to find justice in court.

If the general public wasn't so biased and prejudiced that sort of system might work well but unfortunately that isn't reality.

[sign in to see URL]
12/10/2017, 12:48 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4133
Karma: 13 (+19/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: How about now? Still believe in our jury system?


Federal judges arent always what they should be!

Trump is appointing one (Brett Talley) who has almost no legal experience of any sort and has never presented a case.

In the US judges are either elected - make too many unpopular decisions and you are out - they dont have to be legally wrong decisions just unpopular ones
Or they are political appointees - you have to wonder what sort of judges Trump will appoint - well we know about Brett Talley but what about the others

Brett Talley aged 36 three years as a lawyer, has spent most of his adult life as a political speechwriter and a writer of horror stories and has never presented a case in court - what sort of decisions is he going to make

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
12/10/2017, 1:04 am Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 2275
Karma: 15 (+23/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: How about now? Still believe in our jury system?


[sign in to see URL]

Daniel Shaver, 26, was unarmed. He was sobbing, begging the police officers not to shoot him. He was crawling on the floor toward officers, as a cop on the scene told him to do. But as he inched forward, he appeared to extend his hand backwards — and an officer, 27-year-old Philip Brailsford, opened fire, killing Shaver.

Gruesome video:

On Thursday, Brailsford was acquitted of a murder charge over the 2016 shooting. Police then released video of the encounter.

Last edited by Yobbo, 12/10/2017, 1:19 am
12/10/2017, 1:18 am Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 4557
Karma: 27 (+42/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: How about now? Still believe in our jury system?


It was on the news this am with video, I thought I'd throw up as I watched that man crawling on his hands and knees begging and sobbing. This is who we have become, really??? I don't know where I am anymore, third world, alien planet. I am so ready to get out of "Hotel California" and if I could I would.
12/10/2017, 3:37 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2354
Karma: 16 (+18/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: How about now? Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

mais oui wrote:

Federal judges arent always what they should be!

Trump is appointing one (Brett Talley) who has almost no legal experience of any sort and has never presented a case.

In the US judges are either elected - make too many unpopular decisions and you are out - they dont have to be legally wrong decisions just unpopular ones
Or they are political appointees - you have to wonder what sort of judges Trump will appoint - well we know about Brett Talley but what about the others

Brett Talley aged 36 three years as a lawyer, has spent most of his adult life as a political speechwriter and a writer of horror stories and has never presented a case in court - what sort of decisions is he going to make



There isn't any easy way to escape bias and prejudice when it comes to judging criminal and civil cases. Using judges is certainly not a way to do that but neither is using a jury system. The problem is that juries far too often deliver bad verdicts and there is no way to correct that problem by firing them. They do their dirty work and then their job is over.

At least with judges when they show themselves to be incompetent they can be replaced.

12/10/2017, 7:05 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2354
Karma: 16 (+18/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: How about now? Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

It was on the news this am with video, I thought I'd throw up as I watched that man crawling on his hands and knees begging and sobbing. This is who we have become, really??? I don't know where I am anymore, third world, alien planet. I am so ready to get out of "Hotel California" and if I could I would.



It truly was a sickening video but it shows that the police will shoot and kill anyone of any race, not just black men.

It also shows that an incompetent jury filled with bias favoring police officers will not convict them even when they needlessly shoot someone.

It also demonstrates that the police are trained to shoot people with little to no provocation. You don't need to be armed. You just need to disobey one of their orders to be shot. It's almost like they are robots programmed to shoot people without any use of their own brainpower to make rational judgments.

What should the police have done in this case? Very simple. Told the man to raise his arms in the air and turn around with his back to them and to keep his arms up. Then they could have simply walked up to him and handcuffed him. Instead they went through that bullshit about him crawling towards them. Why? Apparently because they were aholes.

The murderous police officer should have been found guilty of second degree murder by a jury.
12/10/2017, 7:31 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4133
Karma: 13 (+19/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: How about now? Still believe in our jury system?


 
quote:

but it shows that the police will shoot and kill anyone of any race, not just black men.



I thought the victim here (Walter Scott) was black.

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
12/10/2017, 7:50 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2354
Karma: 16 (+18/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: How about now? Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

mais oui wrote:

 
quote:

but it shows that the police will shoot and kill anyone of any race, not just black men.



I thought the victim here (Walter Scott) was black.



You're right but I was referring to another case that Yob and katie brought up. A young white man was shot and killed by a white police officer after he made a harmless move without having a gun in his possession. The police were close enough to him to tell that he didn't have a gun. And they could have simply had him turn around with his arms in the air. They didn't need to make him crawl toward them. That was a load of bullshit.

But another jury let the cop off the hook anyway.
12/10/2017, 8:15 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3948
Karma: 2 (+14/-12)
Reply | Quote
Re: How about now? Still believe in our jury system?


I suggest you take a Police offered fight or flight class. When you MUST stand your ground, you have no aspects of a potential problem person but what is presented in the minute to two minute encounter, they make ANY deliberate moves that were told to not do they have just become 'Threat'. There is but one to two seconds in most instances where a decision MUST be made shoot, or die. Armchair quarterbacking a video from a body cam does the scene NO JUSTICE. And to claim you know better by it is Not to the conditions at hand at time of incident.
12/16/2017, 10:28 am Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2354
Karma: 16 (+18/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: How about now? Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

cooter50 wrote:

I suggest you take a Police offered fight or flight class. When you MUST stand your ground, you have no aspects of a potential problem person but what is presented in the minute to two minute encounter, they make ANY deliberate moves that were told to not do they have just become 'Threat'. There is but one to two seconds in most instances where a decision MUST be made shoot, or die. Armchair quarterbacking a video from a body cam does the scene NO JUSTICE. And to claim you know better by it is Not to the conditions at hand at time of incident.



A threat needs to be real. Just someone moving doesn't qualify as a threat even when they have been told not to move.

I don't believe in double standards. Can you imagine what would happen to a woman if she shot her abusive husband when he was unarmed several times killing him and claimed that she saw him move his hand suspiciously and thought he had a gun? If you were on a jury would you vote to acquit her based on that claim of hers?

She'd most likely be locked up in prison, probably for first degree murder. And that would be true even though she would have good reason to fear him harming her with or without a gun. She would be quite aware of his potential for harming her.

I see no reason why cops should be routinely allowed to shoot and kill unarmed people and get by with it by simply claiming they moved suddenly and suspiciously. I would at least require that the person they shot had a gun before accepting any claim of self-defense.

12/17/2017, 8:13 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)