Jury Finds Two Officers Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Not Guilty
from the proving-these-two-cops-can-beat-more-than-transients dept
The verdict has come back on the trial of two officers charged in the beating death of schizophrenic homeless man Kelly Thomas. Not guilty on all charges. The Orange County jury heard three weeks of testimony and returned this verdict in less than a day.
The incident, which began with Officer Ramos putting on gloves and announcing to Thomas that his "fists" were getting ready to "fuck him up," and ended with Thomas in an irreversible coma, was caught on surveillance tape and synched to Ramos' body mic recording. The tortured screams and gasps of the 135-lb. Thomas were unable to convince the jury find one of the cops guilty of lesser charges (Officer Cicinelli -- charged with involuntary manslaughter and use of excessive force). Even Cicinelli's own words -- "I ran out of options and just started bashing the hell out of [Thomas'] face [with the butt end of his taser]" -- failed to persuade the jury that the force used was excessive.
But as the Orange County Register presciently noted a couple of weeks ago, juries in Orange County tend to be "law and order" juries.
Orange County juries historically have given police officers carte blanche to use deadly force even against unarmed citizens and to lie in official reports that cover up police corruption.The defense argued that Thomas died of causes unrelated to the physical force applied by six responding officers. They also argued that any force that might have been "excessive" was demanded by Thomas' supposedly violent resistance. But that seems a little unlikely when you take into account the defense's medical expert, who maintained Thomas died of a "weakened heart" brought on by "years of meth abuse." How does a 135-lb. man with a "weak heart" (who "could have died sitting in a closet" according to the medical expert) put up enough of a struggle that officers (six of them) fear for their safety? It doesn't add up, especially when you consider the fact that Officer Ramos, who initiated the attack and spent most of the incident on top of Kelly Thomas, outweighed the homeless man by at least 100 pounds. Add to that the weight of other officers who responded to calls for backup. Suddenly, this guy with a heart so weak he could have died "at any time" looks almost superhuman.
If there's anything that seriously undercuts the arguments that these officers responded with appropriate force to a threatening situation, it's the comparison of post-altercation photos of Kelly Thomas [warning: photo is extremely gruesome] and Officer Ramos, who sustained the following injury during the "dangerous" struggle.
The jury's verdict sends a message to Orange County law enforcement: you can threaten a person with a beating, follow that threat up with a six-officer beatdown -- including "beat[ing] the hell" out of them with the butt of your Taser -- all while being caught on tape and walk out of the courtroom free men. Kelly Thomas' father rightfully calls this a "miscarriage of justice."
For what it's worth, the federal government seems to find this verdict questionable.
"With the conclusion of the state court trial, investigators will examine the evidence and testimony to determine whether further investigation is warranted at the federal level," FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller in Los Angeles said in a statement.
While it's somewhat encouraging to see that the FBI thinks something is amiss here, there's really no reason for the federal government to step in and find some other way to punish these two cops. The only thing that should be looked for is evidence of misconduct that occurred during the trial which would stipulate throwing the verdict out and retrying the case. Anything else would be the government sending the unwelcome message (one it has sent previously, following the trial of George Zimmerman) that if the administration doesn't like a verdict a jury has reached, it will subvert the judicial system and render one of its own.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: beating, excessive force, kelly thomas, law enforcement, officer ramos, police brutality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Uhm... wow
What the hell is wrong with the people in Orange County?
Oh, right. It's OC. Nevermind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhm... wow
It's jury intimidation by providing proof of what happens when police take a dislike to a person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhm... wow
Juries are too often made up of people who cannot get out of jury duty. Sad but true. Too many people who could intelligently serve on a jury do not or cannot.
I have only ever been called to jury duty twice. First occasion, it never got to the point where they wanted me to come in. Second time (years later) a settlement occurred on the morning of trial. It seems that the man to go on trial (for I forgot what minor offense) had the previous night (right before morning start of trial) had shot another man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uhm... wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uhm... wow
having served on a couple, and gotten dismissed for a couple more, i can say the whole process is problematic from every angle: ANYONE with two brain cells to rub together can easily figure out how to worm out of jury duty with little effort...
(personally, i think jury service is a SMALL, TINY price to pay for having a (so-called) small dee democracy, that i was/am proud to do when called...)
also, UNLESS you are a fire-breathing dragon of a jury member who can rally all the other jurists to go the 'jury nullification' route, you are hard-pressed to avoid the legal conclusion you are funneled into by the judge and persecutors...
i don't care HOW much you want 'justice' in any case, your hands are bound when it comes to the 'legal' proscriptions that are put on your deciding the case...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uhm... wow
Move to any major city in Southern California. I can guarantee you'll be called once. Won't be able to get past the Voir Dire process (if you are an engineer or scientist,) but at least you'll get to sit in the Jury box and look goofy until they dismiss you (plenty of experience here with that.)
I've been called a number of times in my life (at least 19 times.) Only time I got to participate was when they couldn't get rid of me as an alternate (out of preemptive challenges) or when they didn't make any challenges because they were in the process of settling the case (so twice, but never went to deliberations in either.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhm... wow
Your solution would work, but it has the fairly major drawback of requiring me to live in Southern California. I really don't like being in SoCal. I find it depressing.
But, since I'm an engineer and much of my background is working in hard science research labs, I probably don't have a snowballs chance of actually sitting on a jury regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhm... wow
Maybe your state is smart and they realize you don't have a snowballs chance of actually sitting on a jury? Mine keeps calling despite the fact that I rarely get to do so (and I wish they would automatically remove you from their rolls, at least for a longer period of time, if you get called in a certain number of times and are always dismissed.) At least with California, its one-day, one-trial, so if you get dismissed, you don't have to sit around for the rest of the week waiting.
Your solution would work, but it has the fairly major drawback of requiring me to live in Southern California.
There are many days that I wish I could avoid living here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uhm... wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhm... wow
I am pretty sure that is why they don't like empaneling engineers/scientists. I certainly wouldn't have a problem sitting and listening to everything before making a judgement as to what I thought the facts of the case were, but I would try to go out of my way, once I determined my opinion to explain it and defend it (though I would be willing to be swayed if someone else came along with a better argument.)
They want people who make quick gut decisions and agreements, not people who want to examine the problem and come up with logical solutions.
However, just once I'd love to complete the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uhm... wow
> cannot get out of jury duty. Sad but true.
> Too many people who could intelligently
> serve on a jury do not or cannot.
This jury had at least one doctor and one lawyer on it.
I'd think the lawyer, at a minimum, would know how to get out of jury duty if he wanted to. And it's not like stupid people are known for being able to get through med school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uhm... wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uhm... wow
A lawyer -- actually, a federal prosecutor -- once told me, "A lawyer on the jury leads to a quick victory or defeat. Two lawyers on the jury leads to a mistrial."
Whether or not that is true, I don't know, but considering this lawyer had about 35 years of experience as a federal prosecutor, I am willing to believe it. She explained that most jurors will defer to the lawyer's opinion, just because of their experience with the law, and will end up siding with them quickly to get the process over (because hell, a lawyer should know the law.) I am not entirely why two lawyers would lead to a mistrial, but I suspect it had something to do with playing the devil's advocate or the chance that at least one of them would be a defense lawyer.
Now whether or not that occurred in this case, I have no idea, since I wasn't there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
And THIS is the kind of "policing" you get when cheer violent video games. Yes, know you won't look at the obvious point in common: violence, or think that your playing Grand Theft Auto could in any way be similar, but it's just the old "no snowflake thinks it's responsible for the avalanche". These attack dogs have been trained in foreign wars and are now turned on people in the US. All violence is bad, even pretend violence, wears away at the always narrow line between civilization and savagery. Civilized people have to oppose violence consistently and continually, not make exceptions for even pretending. Violence in any form can never be good.
I foudn this weekend some of my young pals noticeably geezering-up and at last beginning to understand why I rail. Won't be long before you kids too look aghast at the younger generation running literally wild -- such as the "knockout game" -- and start thinking how they're going to regard you as targets for their fun. You'd just better hope that we can stop the savages before reach the tipping point. The very least you can do -- the VERY least -- is to quit glorifying violent video games here: let it a dirty little vice you keep secret. If you can't stop society getting worse, at least don't urge on the savages...
The Rich are not amiable hedonists as you "libertarian" kids are: The Rich are actively IMmoral, schooled in how to steal from the poor, and actually delight in causing suffering. They make sport of the poor in a "game" to be EVIL as possible short of causing a revolt.
06:51:04[h-602-4]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
Once again your inconsistency is showing Blue. Earlier today you cheered for the French taxicab drivers who used violence against a Uber vehicle.
So basically your message is that violence is bad, unless it's against something you dislike. You are a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
Yes, I know. I gave up on trying to engage Blue in any sort of meaningful conversation awhile ago.
I usually only reply to point out [his/her/it's] inconsistencies and hypocrisies, so that they are "on record", per se.
Although occasionally, I just can't seem to resist needling Blue a bit, mainly because [he/she/it] annoys me to no end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
It's a legend in it's own "mind"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When Ramos informed Kelly that "[his] fists" were "getting ready to fuck [Kelly] up", does that not show premeditation? Aside from that, how can Kelly be called the aggressor after being faced with such inflammatory language?
Besides, surely the goal of the police force should be to subdue the suspect, not to turn his face into something resembling a side of raw beef.
Although I know it would most likely be illegal to answer the question, I would like to know how the jurors justified letting these guys off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> illegal to answer the question, I would
> like to know how the jurors justified
> letting these guys off.
Wouldn't be illegal at all. After the trial is over, the jurors are free to talk to anyone they like about the case, including their deliberations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Having said that, humanity is/should be universal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the old, "First they came for the communists, but I said nothing because I was not a communist..." scenario. It's not their problem, so they don't and won't care till it is their problem, in which case it's too late and you're on your own because it's nobody else's problem.
The fact is, police brutality to Kelly Thomas could mean brutality to Pragmatic somewhere down the line as this behavior is tolerated to the point where it becomes normal and acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After all, some people are irredeemable, aren't they?
After all, these people aren't exactly useful or wanted, are they?
After all, noone's gonna care if they get beaten up, are they?
Better to just stay safe and not get involved. They could be DANGEROUS, for Gawd's sake!
Thank god the police were on the scene to stop the assault on a homeless man... oh, right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: JR PRice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orange County's interruption of "law and order"
What these police officers did was clearly not lawful or orderly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Orange County's interruption of "law and order"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Orange County's interruption of "law and order"
Realistically, it doesn't.
Personally, I'm an idealist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Orange County's interruption of "law and order"
But we don't really have much of a constitution left in the US now do we, so the LEO's win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thats why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thats why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thats why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thats why
So your offering the alternative that he should not fight back and just die to the beating Kelly did?!?!
You should have things shoved into your anus if you don't like it already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thats why
At no point does a policeman suddenly decide they respect the amount of counter-force being applied by someone they consider a perp. There is no "worthy opponent" to bow to in that scenario. You just get carted away in a body bag.
If you are arrested, try to cooperate as best you can, stay calm and be polite. Make sure you know your rights. Then you'll be alive to complain about it later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thats why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thats why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thats why
Would you rather be beaten to death, or have a slim chance of surviving?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thats why
This is sickening and I suggest all cops try the STOP RESISTING WHILE WE BEAT YOU TO DEATH CHALLENGE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thats why
One one hand, if you resist, you give the officers cause to use force. But if you DON'T resist when they take it too far, you end up dead.
I find it hard to believe that the sorry excuses for "officers" NEEDED to beat this man to death - six against one, with the "one" on the ground under more than one officer, and they STILL needed more force? That doesn't pass the smell test on so many levels, that it suggests the jury MUST be either retarded or fear retribution by this gang.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thats why
Of course, they didn't. It's just that this group of cops really love beating the crap out of people.
I've seen this exact thing happen first hand. Six cops sending some guy to the hospital. When I spotted the commotion, the guy wasn't moving at all -- but the vicious beating continued literally until the ambulance arrived, which was about 15 minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thats why
This is why, as I said here a while ago, I think there's room to argue for the right of anyone to resist any arrest - whether lawful or otherwise.
I understand why the law classifies "resisting arrest" and the like as crimes. That classification has negative (and hopefully unintended) consequences, however, and I'm not sure those costs don't outweigh the benefits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Federal jurisdiction is appropriate
The federal government clearly has jurisdiction to prosecute the cops.
It would not be a retrial for the same offense barred by double jeopardy, because the double jeopardy clause only bars reprosecution by the same sovereign.
The federal government may prosecute state officials guilty of civil rights violations under the theory that the abuse was under color of law.
In the Zimmermann case, the federal nexus was lacking because there was no action by state officials.
The federal government criminally prosecuted the cops who was acquitted of the Rodney King beating.
There should not be fewer but rather more federal prosecutions of state officials for abusing the civil rights of citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal jurisdiction is appropriate
IANAL, but I believe, based on previous training I had on the subject, that you are correct. One of a few times when the Federal Government can step in with State matters is when there is a case of depriving someone's civil rights under the color of the law. I believe the reason for the Federal law (a href=http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php>18 USC 242 [justice.gov]) was specifically to deal with violations of civil rights cops would kill someone for no reason other than the color of their skin, and then wouldn't be convicted of murder by a jury based solely on the race of the victim (as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
In the Zimmermann case, the federal nexus was lacking because there was no action by state officials.
I believe that is correct. However, if Zimmermann had an official position within the community (Federal, State, and/or Local,) regardless to whether he was a police officer or not, he would have met the nexus. So long as he was acting (or pretending to act) in an official capacity, which, by all accounts, he wasn't. He was a self-appointed neighborhood watch coordinator, which is not an official position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Federal jurisdiction is appropriate
> to act) in an official capacity
No, falsely pretending to be a cop or city official does not confer federal jurisdiction over the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Federal jurisdiction is appropriate
I didn't mean that (and the justice.gov website I pointed to pretty much says the same thing that I said.) What I meant was that a cop or city official pretending to act in an official capacity, would meet the nexus. If I, as a government official (if I was one,) knew that I didn't have the authority, but used my position as a government authority to deprive you of your civil rights, I'd be pretending to act in an official capacity. A person off the street pretending to be a cop would not be acting under the color of the law, and would be in serious trouble for impersonating a government official in most jurisdictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Federal jurisdiction is appropriate
It has been successfully applied to prosecute state officials or private individuals acting in concert with such where an individual was deprived of rights secured by the United States Constitution.
Use of excessive and sadistic force is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment regardless of the culpability or prior status of the victim.
Beating a suspect who has already become incapacitated is likely such a Fourth Amendment violation.
If a local cop also attempts to cover up his own crime, such an act may be independently prosecuted under the federal obstruction of justice statute -- namely 1001 and 1519.
I am personally uncomfortable with the reach of some federal obstruction statutes, but cops falsifying or covering up records, are clearly those who ought to be prosecuted under federal law.
The federal government is also bound by the jury trial guarantee so there is no problem with federal prosecution after acquittal by a state jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal jurisdiction is appropriate
> offense barred by double jeopardy, because
> the double jeopardy clause only bars\
> reprosecution by the same sovereign.
Yes, that's how the Supreme Court ruled long ago, but it completely undermines the intent of the double jeopardy clause. The Founders clearly intended for citiznes to not have to worry about being prosecuted twice for the same conduct.
Playing legal word games about 'different soveriegns' and federal vs. state charges is just an end-run around the 5th Amendment, designed to give the government a second bite at the apple (you being the apple) if they don't like the first jury's decision or they feel publicly embarassed by losing the case against you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you serious?
You can't be serious. These cops outright murdered an innocent, unarmed person and the writers here think the federal government has no reason to step in and dish out punishment?
This is something the Fed NEEDS to intervene in. Juries are hand-picked, the lawyers know exactly who they're choosing to get the verdict they want. This verdict was orchestrated and justice was not only not served but trampled on and bloodied.
How many more innocent people being murdered by LEOs will it take before you think the Feds should intervene?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you serious?
If every time there was a miscarriage of justice (particularly when a jury has decided a verdict) the Federal courts swoop in like Deus ex machina; this subverts the judicial system and nullifies "a jury of one's peers".
Constitutional principles must be maintained and upheld, or we will lose the balance of power and be left with tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you serious?
One of the explicit powers of a jury is "jury nullification", yet many judges forbid juries from even discussing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you serious?
A law enforcement officer beating or mistreating a citizen or for that matter a noncitizen is acting under color of law and is subject to liability under both federal civil and criminal law.
The fact that the law enforcement officer has been acquitted in state court does not and should not preclude federal liability even for the same act.
The reason is that federal and state governments are separate sovereigns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you serious?
You may have missed the meaning here. Writer means "they have no legal basis to step in and overrule the verdict".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you serious?
But, Kelly was not an innocent guy. Their defense team showed much more damning evidence about what Kelly was really like. For years, he terrorized people of Fullerton. He was arrested dozens of times. Cited for a hundred plus things. When he couldn't go inside of downtown businesses, he would pull his pants down and take a dump on their doorstep. He brutally attacked his grandfather with a fireplace poker. He choked his mother,( she then got a restraining order against him(. He was not innocent, but he didn't need to die. His parents should of had him in a mental institution paid for by the state. But no, they ignored him, and all of Fullerton had to be terrorized daily by him. Scaring people. Scaring children. Causing scenes at public parks with kids. It was bad. These cops should be in jail, but he sure wasn't innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unreal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To much force!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6yaeD-E_MY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proper context is everything
This puts the proper context to the events, and explains the jury's decision. There may be other charges when/if the feds do something about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police brutality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: police brutality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ran from police
was a big, burly guy
was not killed
Kelly Thomas was none of those things. Yet the cops who beat Rodney King were forced to face a federal trial (in a much less cop-friendly district) after their acquittal in state court. By that rationale, it would seen the feds would have even more reason to repeat that kind of double-prosecution here.
Except for one thing. The victim does not appear to qualify under any of the categories of federally-protected minority status (e.g., race, religion, sexual-orientation, ... ).
I've got to wonder - all else being equal- when the victim is Caucasian rather than Negro, are the Feds a lot less likely to get involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Federal Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal Jurisdiction
> should step in. This is no different than
> a lynching being nullified by an all-white
> jury.
So why bother with a trial at all, then, if only one verdict is acceptable?
I don't think these cops were in the right, but it seems equally ridiculous to say, "You're entitled to a jury trial but only a guilty verdict will be allowed."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They murdered this young man and we the people of this Union want to see JUSTICE SERVED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"..Two Officers Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Not Guilty"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://fox4kc.com/2014/01/13/group-cries-foul-after-they-say-police-beat-deaf-man-over-resistan ce/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
must have thought he was STILL a cop ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/14/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBREA0D1D820140114
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: must have thought he was STILL a cop ...
Morale of the story: if you're not a murderer and value your life, avoid Florida.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe unemployment is so low in the USA that these are the fittest applicants they could get for the job...
In the UK a copper is expected to be able to chase down a villain (as in running, on foot). But then they don't have the option of shooting him and walking free like the US cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> I think it's just that out-of-condition
> cops are so common that they can be considered
> normal.
No, it's the police unions that are the cause. The police unions (especially in Southern California) are very powerful and any attempt by the department to impose post-academy physical fitness standards with any teeth to them is rejected by the unions. None of their members want to get fired for being fat, so the union goes to work and protects them from it.
It's easy to see the unions' effect on this. Compare the general physical fitness level of cops in union-run departments to law enforcement officers where there are no unions. Federal agents are prohibited by law from unionizing and collective bargaining. How many fat, out of shape Secret Service agents do you see around the president? Not too many, right? That's because there's no union stopping the Secret Service from imposing strict physical fitness requirements on its agents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Being an alternate at one point in a case, I came out disgusted with how it was being handled by the other jurors who where to eager to side with the prosecution, even though the inconsistency of what was being said or facts that where being flung around.. But this kinda shows off how bad it is....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Them injuries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Called it
A lot of commenters here are expressing their shock that the jury would acquit, and are trying to offer excuses such as bribery, intimidation, or stupidity. But if check out the audio/video recordings, you can see and hear that the suspect goes absolutely berserk and refuses to cooperate until he's in a coma at the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Called it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double jeopardy
Yes, that's how the Supreme Court ruled long ago, but it completely undermines the intent of the double jeopardy clause. The Founders clearly intended
for citiznes to not have to worry about being prosecuted twice for the same conduct.
Playing legal word games about 'different soveriegns' and federal vs. state charges is just an end-run around the 5th Amendment, designed to give the government
a second bite at the apple (you being the apple) if they don't like the first jury's decision or they feel publicly embarassed by losing the case against
you.
But if so, southern juries could have acquitted all state officers guilty of murdering Blacks with the effect that no Black man would enjoy any protection of life and liberty and neither would the federal government have any power to prosecute the guilty state officials.
A double jeopardy bar to reprosecution by the federal government would allow a southern state to nullify all federal criminal statutes protecting civil rights even in cases of manifest and clear violations of the Constitution.
If a southern state wanted, it could impose a symbolic fine for deprivation of civil rights, and thereby displace the federal government's power to act in defense of citizens' civil rights across the board.
I think this is wrong, not least because Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress to enforce The Bill of Rights against the states by enacting prophylactic legislation.
The Congress that ratified the civil war amendments also enacted the civil rights statutes imposing criminal punishment for depriving Blacks of civil rights.
It's also a question of which constitute the same offense.
Even if the federal government could not prosecute corrupt police officers for murder, use of excessive force and murder are distinct offenses.
And wholly apart from the reach of the double jeopardy clause, obstruction of justice is a distinct offense for which the federal government may prosecute even where the underlying conduct is not directly within federal power to forbid.
Under 1519, also known as The Sarbanes Oxley Act, the federal government can prosecute people for certain obstructive acts as long that the defendant did it with the intend to or in contemplation of a federal investigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just typically "Right, all in favor of voting guilty to get out of here quicker?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Cop Bad Cop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CORRUPTED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]