So it seems Black Lives don't matter after all

[Misanthrope]

Even though I've been critical of the extreme methods and rhetoric from BLM I'm gonna have to eat my own shit a bit after this:

 

 

Congratulations US: you've officially proven your Justice System is broken. If no other trial or no conviction happens, probably beyond repair. You just let 1 guy validate all of the BLM bullshit: the protests, the attacks on random citizens, the killing of officers in retaliation. Fucking all of it is instantly validated if you can't convict this officer.

 

Feel free to disagree as much as you want: I want to hear how you think this could possibly be a justified killing that doesn't even merits Manslaughter charges.

 

EDIT: This is on a reply but I feel I should clarify it on the OP too:

 

Quote

I am not saying that I think their actions are or will be valid, ...

 

I am saying that they will feel vindicated and justified in their actions.

 

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

No it doesn't.

this is one incident and it's because of one juror.

[Misanthrope]

2 hours ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

No it doesn't.

this is one incident and it's because of one juror.

Do you honestly think it will be just one incident and one juror? I'd like to believe the ball would just stop dead on it's tracks here. But we've seen this same stories far too many times. There was always some kind of excuse or justification, always something. Kyle here is right to point out this is so blatantly obvious and the Juror's reasoning it's so fucking flawed this could have far reaching consequences.

 

Because we know it won't be just one incident and after we've seen Trump supporters or the Alt right raise, you can be damn sure it won't be just one juror in the future. I do hope that I am dead fucking wrong and that you're right though, sincerely.

[Trik'Stari]

It's a mistrial, because of juror deadlock.

 

Meaning they are, or can, try him again. This is how the justice system works. This is not a bug, glitch, or other error, it's the system working as it was designed to work.

 

One juror, could not bring his or her self to find the defendant guilty, so we get a mistrial and try again. It doesn't mean that cop gets off completely, it means simply they are doing it over again.

 

Is that juror wrong? I would say so, because what that cop did is completely fucking unacceptable in any society, but that juror has to have their reasons.

 

If they're a racist, I would call that a failing in juror selection.

 

Don't blow things out of proportion.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

It's a mistrial, because of juror deadlock.

 

Meaning they are, or can, try him again. This is how the justice system works. This is not a bug, glitch, or other error, it's the system working as it was designed to work.

 

One juror, could not bring his or her self to find the defendant guilty, so we get a mistrial and try again. It doesn't mean that cop gets off completely, it means simply they are doing it over again.

 

Is that juror wrong? I would say so, because what that cop did is completely fucking unacceptable in any society, but that juror has to have their reasons.

 

If they're a racist, I would call that a failing in juror selection.

 

Don't blow things out of proportion.

The concern is that far too many Americans would share this Juror's mentality thus basically invalidating any possible re-trial. There's other points as well (Why he was not dismissed as a juror for his obvious pro-police mentality, why there were barely any people of color represented in the jury, etc.) We'll see but by the way, one dissenting opinion shouldn't deadlock a jury that never made any sense to me.

[Trik'Stari]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

The concern is that far too many Americans would share this Juror's mentality thus basically invalidating any possible re-trial. We'll see but by the way, one dissenting opinion shouldn't deadlock a jury that never made any sense to me.

Your logic is somewhat flawed.

 

We, as a society, require a unanimous verdict for a very good reason. Because the possibility of an innocent person being jailed, is unacceptable. One dissenting opinion should not mean that the defendant goes free, but a simple majority should also not mean that an innocent person goes to jail.

 

Which is why this happened. The defendant isn't being found not guilty, nor is an innocent person going to jail.

 

As for re-trial, all I can say is "choose a better jury next time". I'd like to know what this jurors reasoning is, I really would, because I could argue with that, but I don't think we'll ever know because of jury sequestration (probably better that way).

 

I mean, there is one thing we haven't seen in this case. An argument by the defense that the "victim was reaching for something in his waistband as he ran away". which is what I would have expected.

 

Another thing, It could merely be a result of "I don't think this charge is equal to the crime committed". That's what happened with Zimmerman. The charge did not fit the crime. (racially motivated, premeditated murder, which wasn't proven. Manslaughter, or second degree murder? That's another story)

 

Not saying that's what happened here, at least in my opinion, but it's definitely a possibility.

[Trik'Stari]

Remember, it's easy for us to sit back in out chairs, drunk, free of any moral responsibility, to pass judgement on this person.

 

That juror has another humans life in his hand, and I would expect him to respect that power. Perhaps he simply thinks a lesser charge is more appropriate, perhaps he isn't convinced of malicious intent, perhaps he is a racist, we will never know.

 

We can only judge, based on what we know, but with a complete and total lack of moral responsibility, making our decision both completely irrelevant, as well as about a million times easier to come to.

[Misanthrope]

19 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Your logic is somewhat flawed.

 

We, as a society, require a unanimous verdict for a very good reason. Because the possibility of an innocent person being jailed, is unacceptable.

Not if it's not a reasonably substantiated dissent. Which this one wasn't: He just didn't want to convict a cop and could offer no good reason why that was so even on the face of overwhelming evidence. The Cop lied under oath to his fucking face and yet he could not convict him?

 

What I can concede is that a mistrial opens the possibility for a new trial but as I said, I have a strong suspicion that at least 1 out of every 12 american citizens honestly believe Cops can't do no wrong. 

 

Quote

Another thing, It could merely be a result of "I don't think this charge is equal to the crime committed". 

Wrong: watch the video, Manslaughter, which is a much lesser charge was on the table and he refused even that, he wanted a complete walk.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

at least 1 out of every 12 american citizens honestly believe white Cops can't do no wrong. 

FTFY

[Trik'Stari]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Not if it's not a reasonably substantiated dissent. Which this one wasn't: He just didn't want to convict a cop and could offer no good reason why that was so even on the face of overwhelming evidence. The Cop lied under oath to his fucking face and yet he could not convict him?

 

What I can concede is that a mistrial opens the possibility for a new trial but as I said, I have a strong suspicion that at least 1 out of every 12 american citizens honestly believe Cops can't do no wrong. 

Well, I do have a few questions.

 

1. Do we actually know, for certain, why said juror dissented?

2. Why did the victim have an arrest warrant out for him? (what crime had he supposedly committed?)

3. What kind of record did the victim have, if any?

4. Did that cop know about said record?

 

I ask these things because I honestly do not know.

 

As for the lying...... How many lies has Hillary Clinton told over the years? And yet people still support her traitorous ass for president. Although, my favorite congressman Trey Gowdy would respond "false exculpatory statements are used for what? To prove knowledge of guilt".

 

Addendum: If it can be proven that he lied under oath, he can and SHOULD be tried for that, as well as this.

5 minutes ago, Energycore said:

FTFY

Also that.

 

There is plenty of racial motivation here, coming from the side claiming racism. As it was with the Zimmerman case, which is exactly why Zimmerman got off when he shouldn't have.

[Energycore]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

As for the lying...... How many lies has Hillary Clinton told over the years?

Lying to the media =! lying under oath in court.

 

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

Lying to the media =! lying under oath in court.

 

Legally it's not equal, morally it's worse. But that's neither here nor there. She lied before congress as well.

 

Also, the media has zero legal obligation to tell the truth on ANYTHING. They are not forbidden by law, from simply making shit up. Which they frequently do (all of them, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc.)

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Well, I do have a few questions.

 

1. Do we actually know, for certain, why said juror dissented?

2. Why did the victim have an arrest warrant out for him? (what crime had he supposedly committed?)

3. What kind of record did the victim have, if any?

4. Did that cop know about said record?

 

I ask these things because I honestly do not know.

That's a good point. I don't feel like diving into myself too much but we can be reasonably certain, given the motherfucking video and 100% contradicting Cop's testimony or the lack of any real defense other than "We da Pau Lice!"

Quote

As for the lying...... How many lies has Hillary Clinton told over the years?

I feel that if we caught a video of Hillary literally raping a little kid at one of Podesda's pizza parties people would be a bit more unforgiving. Though at this point I can't even be certain of that (Pedophilia normalization is a thing lately).

 

You're making me remember why I choose this fucking nickname dude.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

That's a good point. I don't feel like diving into myself too much but we can be reasonably certain, given the motherfucking video and 100% contradicting Cop's testimony or the lack of any real defense other than "We da Pau Lice!"

I feel that if we caught a video of Hillary literally raping a little kid at one of Podesta's pizza parties people would be a bit more unforgiving. Though at this point I can't even be certain of that (Pedophilia normalization is a thing lately).

 

You're making me remember why I choose this fucking nickname dude.

Indeed.

 

My point is, we don't know all the facts, the juror might simply disagree with the charge and nothing more, etc. We shouldn't be so quick to condemn this as an example of "white privilege" (which I would point out, does not exist as far as the letter of the law goes. However black/minority privilege, and female privilege, DO exist and are actually law).

 

That kind of ideological demagoguing is exactly why people like George Zimmerman get off, because someone sees the opportunity to utilize a scandal for their own ends, and it backfires and we get a miscarriage of justice.

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Do you honestly think it will be just one incident and one juror? I'd like to believe the ball would just stop dead on it's tracks here. But we've seen this same stories far too many times. There was always some kind of excuse or justification, always something. Kyle here is right to point out this is so blatantly obvious and the Juror's reasoning it's so fucking flawed this could have far reaching consequences.

 

Because we know it won't be just one incident and after we've seen Trump supporters or the Alt right raise, you can be damn sure it won't be just one juror in the future. I do hope that I am dead fucking wrong and that you're right though, sincerely.

LOL every Time we've seen violence it's been from leftists. You saw this at trump rallies with trump supporters being beaten up. Blm even targets whites. They scream ""HE WITE! GET HIM". Not to mention all the anti white bullshit in society from affirmative action to the progressive stack to saying white men should kill themselves and on and on and on.  Do you even know the statistics of police shootings or the crime statistics? How about the rape black men do on white women vs the non existent rape of black women by white men? Or the assaults of whites by blacks vs whites on blacks? How about that for racial violence. How about politicians saying how it's so good that Europe is becoming less white and that soon ethnic Germans will be outnumbered. Is that not racist? Of course not because whites are Always the oppressors. Whites are evil cave monkey subhumans and blacks are literal gods that absorb sun light through melanin into knowledge(Literal words of a blm leader in Toronto and unsurprisingly an affirmative action student/hire that screams racism as to why she got paid 300k to leave her position at some university position).

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

LOL every Time we've seen violence it's been from leftists. 

I'd argue about it but that's kind of off topic. Disregard my previous Trump supporter remarks in fact I'll go ahead and cross them off.

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

26 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

There is plenty of racial motivation here, coming from the side claiming racism. As it was with the Zimmerman case, which is exactly why Zimmerman got off when he shouldn't have.

Zimmerman was being beaten into the ground with his head against asphalt. He could have died or been seriously injured. It wasn't wrong of him to shoot at that point, at that point it was self defense. Maybe he shouldn't have followed trayvon and maybe he lied about him looking into peoples houses but he didn't murder anyone or commit manslaughter. 

[Mooshi]

One officer =/= all of the police in the US

[Misanthrope]

5 hours ago, Mooshi said:

One officer =/= all of the police in the US

 

(preface: I know the mistrial means he might be prosecuted again so this is still conjecture, don't freak out)

 

So how many before you're actually concerned about officers being above the law with a literal licence to kill? Two? Four? 100? 1000?

 

Sometimes we decide we shouldn't take chances and henceforth we make all cases illegal out of principle. Because if this was any other case you probably wouldn't say "One sociopath =/= not all of society" and argue that even if you don't prosecute serial murderers the chances of you being killed by one are still extremely small so let's overlook good old Ed Gein being hypothetically still at large since most women probably wouldn't have their snatch skin fashioned into a lamp by a fucking demented sociopath....right?

[Okjoek]

Well that's pretty messed up, but it is a mistrial so I think that means it gets retried by a new jury and if this evidence Kyle talks about is all on tape then justice should catch up with them.

 

One thing I'm curious is why was that guy running from the cop to begin with? Because I'm pretty sure that's something you're never supposed to do is run away from the police.

 

 

[RocketFarmer]

So let's get this straight, the single action of one juror is an indictment against 300 US citizens?

 

Criminal jury verdicts aren't popularly contests.

 

The prosecution is part of the jury selection process.  They also must present a case that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for an unanimous group of people.  They failed, this time.  It's probable that they won't next time if your assumptions that the case is solid is true.

 

The success or failure of conviction has nothing to do with race, although it's statistically more likely to be convicted if you don't have the money for a good attorney.  In this case, the defendent's attorneys must have done well or the prosecution failed outright. Probably even a case of both.  The costs of a retrial weigh a lot more on the defendant than the prosecution. 

 

As for the defendent, his life is already over.  Once you've been convicted by the media and/or public opinion, regardless of guilt or innocence, you're done.  Job-wise, socially, psychologically, etc.  That in and of itself is a life long sentence.  You're also assuming the cop enjoyed killing someone.  I've seen no evidence of this, and the killing will be hanging over them (families included) for some time.  We all can move on.

 

I am a bit concerned at how willing some are to give up their civil liberties for a particular outcome based on a fervor of political action.  I am all for prosecution of bad cops, and hopefully successful convictions.  I am also concerned about how people are being politically manipulated via the BLM movement to act in ways that don't really advance their interests.  It's bound to harm the disproportionate number of black people, young black men in particular, faced with prosecution if convictions are based on political or social pressure rather than a deliberate process that protects the rights of the accused. 

[TidaLWaveZ]

This incident represents 0.006% of all homicides in a given year in America. Maybe you should join BLM, it seems like you have something in common; you both choose to ignore statistics in favor of small scale incidents.

 

 

 

 

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

This incident represents 0.006% of all homicides in a given year in America. Maybe you should join BLM, it seems like you have something in common; you both choose to ignore statistics in favor of small scale incidents.

 

 

 

 

But you do agree it's a homicide, and there's a good chance the cop will get a full walk cause he is a cop. 

[TidaLWaveZ]

37 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

But you do agree it's a homicide, and there's a good chance the cop will get a full walk cause he is a cop. 

The justice system is definitely flawed to the extent that you can basically pay or have connections to get a lesser sentence or get off.

 

I agree with everything you're standing for, except that this incident validates BLM's actions/outlook.

 

BLM favors the few incidents every year where a white cop unjustly kills a black man and they purport these incidents as if they're America's biggest problem.

 

[Misanthrope]

2 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

The justice system is definitely flawed to the extent that you can basically pay or have connections to get a lesser sentence or get off.

 

I agree with everything you're standing for, except that this incident validates BLM's actions/outlook.

 

BLM favors the few incidents every year where a white cop unjustly kills a black man and they purport these incidents as if they're America's biggest problem.

 

Alright I'll clarify: I am not saying that I think their actions are or will be valid, their actions are fucking collectivist, black supremacist bullshit.

 

I am saying that they will feel vindicated and justified in their actions. I am saying that whoever started the fire is not that relevant when you decide to throw fucking gasoline on it and make it an inferno. Whoever started the fire committed a fucking crime no doubt but this is aggravating in the extreme.

 

It's very hard to convince people to have faith in the justice system and the institutions if shit like this could happen with this cop getting cleared fully. We have extremists on both sides screaming "Kill All White people" on one side and "White Genocide" on the other fucking side and for moderate people that would wish we could expose radicals on both sides for what they are, it feels like an impossible task when we get news like this.