Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[tbhausen]

This thread is unreal, injecting the most contentious gun topic to lighten it up.

Nah, that’s AR vs. AK.

 

[KellyinAvon]

View attachment 136832

Threadjack question: Does Lou Raguse also go by, "The Big Ragu"?

Serious question: Will the above quote be cited as a textbook example of jury intimidation?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Nah, that’s AR vs. AK.

Arkansas vs Alaska? Oh, never mind.

 

[Hawkeye]

Not we have an interesting discussion. Who would you consider his “peers.”

Police officers, maybe? Were there any LEO's on the jury?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Police officers, maybe? Were there any LEO's on the jury?

LEOs, in most places are exempted from jury duty. But let’s say there were. Where would those LEOs come from? A LEO that somehow didn’t know about a local police action shooting, and hadn’t formed an opinion.
Further, if a “peer,” is going to be considered someone in the same occupation, why (realistically) wouldnt that peer be more sympathetic, than they should, thinking that “hey I might face this charge too one day?”

 

[Chewie]

Nah, that’s AR vs. AK.

Nope, glock vs 1911.

 

[Chewie]

LEOs, in most places are exempted from jury duty. But let’s say there were. Where would those LEOs come from? A LEO that somehow didn’t know about a local police action shooting, and hadn’t formed an opinion.
Further, if a “peer,” is going to be considered someone in the same occupation, why (realistically) wouldnt that peer be more sympathetic, than they should, thinking that “hey I might face this charge too one day?”

I think the question is, couldn't a LEO on the jury possibly have brought in a different perspective on what happened that the average citizen hadn't considered?
Should the jury be all LEO's? I would say no, 1 maybe 2.
Yes, there would be the probability of the sympathy aspect as well.
A peer could be someone in the same profession, doesn't have to be.

 

[Hawkeye]

LEOs, in most places are exempted from jury duty. But let’s say there were. Where would those LEOs come from? A LEO that somehow didn’t know about a local police action shooting, and hadn’t formed an opinion.
Further, if a “peer,” is going to be considered someone in the same occupation, why (realistically) wouldnt that peer be more sympathetic, than they should, thinking that “hey I might face this charge too one day?”

I realize that LEO's are generally exempted from criminal trial juries. But consider the UCMJ and courts martial. There the somewhat equivalent of a jury consists of serving officers and enlisted. Just a thought and totally not the case in civilian criminal trial processes, but one must wonder whether it might work better for cops charged out of their on-duty actions.

 

[buckwacker]

LEOs, in most places are exempted from jury duty. But let’s say there were. Where would those LEOs come from? A LEO that somehow didn’t know about a local police action shooting, and hadn’t formed an opinion.
Further, if a “peer,” is going to be considered someone in the same occupation, why (realistically) wouldnt that peer be more sympathetic, than they should, thinking that “hey I might face this charge too one day?”

So couldn't the same logic be equally applied by someone arguing there should be no black folks on the jury?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So couldn't the same logic be equally applied by someone arguing there should be no black folks on the jury?

Yeah, not really. You're speaking of instances where the Officer is being tried for a crime they committed related to being a police officer. There is no crime committed, on the part of the offender, related to simply being Black. Meaning you're not expecting a standard behavior based on someone's skin color.

 

[buckwacker]

Yeah, not really. You're speaking of instances where the Officer is being tried for a crime they committed related to being a police officer. There is no crime committed, on the part of the offender, related to simply being Black. Meaning you're not expecting a standard behavior based on someone's skin color.

Nice sidestep. I think you know what I'm getting at and chose to deflect. When the ministry of propaganda (formerly known as the press), social media, corrupt politicians, etc, etc, have made this Floyd situation into a racial issue, your logic dictates that black folks likely couldn't be objective, because "that could happen to me one day".

 

[Kutnupe14]

Nice sidestep. I think you know what I'm getting at and chose to deflect. When the ministry of propaganda (formerly known as the press), social media, corrupt politicians, etc, etc, have made this Floyd situation into a racial issue, your logic dictates that black folks likely couldn't be objective, because "that could happen to me one day".

How is that deflection? I explained it fairly well. You either don't like the answer, or can't understand it. Further, you were clear at all. Yes, I know some things, but I haven't figured out how to read minds. If you had been more upfront with your question, we might have avoided this. So, if I'm getting your question right, you want to know if it would be justifiable to exclude Black people from a jury because the defendant is a White police officer who is accused of committing a crime against a black person?

 

[jamil]

LEOs, in most places are exempted from jury duty. But let’s say there were. Where would those LEOs come from? A LEO that somehow didn’t know about a local police action shooting, and hadn’t formed an opinion.
Further, if a “peer,” is going to be considered someone in the same occupation, why (realistically) wouldnt that peer be more sympathetic, than they should, thinking that “hey I might face this charge too one day?”

Since I started the tack towards a discussion about cops being on the jury, I wasn't saying that the court should send out jury duty notices to all the local police precincts. I just said that I think the jury would have been a more informed unit if it had maybe a couple cops on the jury. But I also explained that the reasoning for that isn't to say that it's useful to pick peers based on line of work. But, in this case, when the alleged crime happened while executing the duties of one's job, that's what made it relevant.

If other people have taken my point farther than I intended it, I dunno, maybe you're not making a strawman of it. But I never said the jury had to be made up only of people who were exactly like the accused. And about finding someone who didn't know about the shooting, I don't think any of the jurors seated didn't know about it. I think it's nearly impossible for anyone living in the Minneapolis metro area not to know about it regardless of their occupation. I dunno. Maybe some homeless people didn't know. But I bet most did. They had to notice that people were burning **** down and were at least a little curious about why.

 

[jamil]

I think the question is, couldn't a LEO on the jury possibly have brought in a different perspective on what happened that the average citizen hadn't considered?
Should the jury be all LEO's? I would say no, 1 maybe 2.
Yes, there would be the probability of the sympathy aspect as well.
A peer could be someone in the same profession, doesn't have to be.

A cop on the jury might have been sympathetic, or even critical. Both would bring perspective.

 

[jamil]

About jury makeup. It's good if everyone acknowledged this is an academic discussion, not practical. The academic part, is, would it be beneficial to the jury if it would have had a cop or two on the jury. I think it would have made a more informed jury. But would it have been practical? Not the current way jury pools are formed and jury panels are selected. If there was a cop in the jury pool, both the prosecution and defense might have been interested in at least questioning him/her as a potential juror, but I kinda think that as a matter of practicality, neither would want to take a chance on it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

About jury makeup. It's good if everyone acknowledged this is an academic discussion, not practical. The academic part, is, would it be beneficial to the jury if it would have had a cop or two on the jury. I think it would have made a more informed jury. But would it have been practical? Not the current way jury pools are formed and jury panels are selected. If there was a cop in the jury pool, both the prosecution and defense might have been interested in at least questioning him/her as a potential juror, but I kinda think that as a matter of practicality, neither would want to take a chance on it.

Do you actively seek out the officers if they're not drawn from a pool? And if one of the attorney's attempt to excuse, what then?

 

[buckwacker]

How is that deflection? I explained it fairly well. You either don't like the answer, or can't understand it. Further, you were clear at all. Yes, I know some things, but I haven't figured out how to read minds. If you had been more upfront with your question, we might have avoided this. So, if I'm getting your question right, you want to know if it would be justifiable to exclude Black people from a jury because the defendant is a White police officer who is accused of committing a crime against a black person?

Ok my bad, I sort of shifted away from the jury of peers idea to jury bias in general, because that's really the root of the issue. I was saying that if you're saying a cop shouldn't sit on a jury because he might be able to put himself in the defendants shoes and that taints his judgement, than it would be equally true, using that logic, that a black person shouldn't sit on a jury because they might be able to put themselves in the victims shoes, tainting their judgement, especially considering all the race baiting propaganda flying around about policing and black folks.

 

[Ingomike]

Could you guys start a thread on jury composition please and leave this to news of the case.

WTFWIT, this is INGO... LOL

 

[jamil]

Do you actively seek out the officers if they're not drawn from a pool? And if one of the attorney's attempt to excuse, what then?

Again, it's an academic discussion about the value of having a cop or two on the jury. I don't know how it works everywhere else, but whenever I get a jury duty notice, it's for something like 3 months or whatever. Occasionally during that time I might get a notice that I have to call on a certain date to see if I need to report to the courthouse. I've had to be on jury notice 3 or 4 times in the years I've lived in Floyd County. Zero times have I ever had to report to the courthouse. I think all trials here must get canceled.

So at least here the whole system would have to change. I mean, they'd actually have to hold a trial every now and again to seat ANY juror, let alone have a cop on one. And then who knows when a cop would be useful. It's not a practical discussion.

 

[jamil]

Could you guys start a thread on jury composition please and leave this to news of the case.

WTFWIT, this is INGO... LOL

When there isn't news to talk about threads drift. There are all kinds of shiny objects to go chase. When there's relevant news I'm sure INGO is capable of diverting to the new shiny object.