It’s not enough. If it were really the case the jury would not have been split on their decision. Its like being in a room with a dead body, just because there’s a dead body and you happen to be in the room with it you can’t assume that you were the responsible for the death. Since there’s no body cam footage or anything else to corroborate that the police allegedly were responsible for the injuries then it comes down to whose word you’re going to take. So yes, there’s not enough and it sucks but that’s the reality of the situation
Concrete evidence of something- But evidence of murder, negligent homicide, or accidental death? And which of the officers was the perpetrator, which was a witness, and which was an accomplice?
There are a lot of cases that end in acquittal or mistrial because while the jury can agree that something happened, the prosecution can’t prove how beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury looks at the evidence and decides that it proves manslaughter, but not enough premeditation to be murder- Then which of those the defendant was charged with means the difference between guilty and not.
So an officer driving a police van with a suspect in custody within it is basically the same thing as some two random people in a room. One of them dies, who could be responsible? Not blamed. Not at fault. Responsible.
I mean, it’s not like the officer was being paid to protect anyone, right?
If there’s not 100% certainty if it was self inflicted or it was the police (as it was in the case) and it comes down to incomplete evidence and the police’s testimony it’s not a slam dunk.
And let me add that I’m definitely sure these guys are guilty. I’m just not convinced there’s enough to get a conviction.
Honestly, if I were on one of these juries, I hope I’d have the balls and heart to convict these guys, but knowing they’d seen my face for weeks or months throughout the trial, and that they have zero accountability for violent reprisals, I’d certainly be nervous…
Jury decisions shouldn’t be taken for granted as objective measurements of the available facts. For example, they can decide whatever they want; they aren’t obligated to the evidence; they could have in their possession concrete evidence that a murder (or some other crime) has taken place, know who did it, and if they wanted, they could return a not guilty verdict…e.g. in the Rodney King incident. Hence, juries are as much reflections of ideology as anything else.
I agree, and there is precedent for this happening. Going off very little evidence vs only going by the hard facts and there are clear disadvantages to both. It just depends on how good the prosecution or defense is.
Capital punishment for no crime.
Bad America, bad!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.