Quote from: cdbearsfan on September 30, 2022, 07:49:12 PMStrong "you can't talk about football unless you've played the game" vibes from that post.She's a white cop, he's Black. She battered him while he was posing no threat and now he's dead, like so many other Black people at the hands of the police. You don't need to have studied law to work out what's gone on.Any vibes unintended. As I'm sure are any of yours.My point is the 24 jurors who've heard all the evidence in the case are in the best position to assess it. Any additional baggage added is yours.
Strong "you can't talk about football unless you've played the game" vibes from that post.She's a white cop, he's Black. She battered him while he was posing no threat and now he's dead, like so many other Black people at the hands of the police. You don't need to have studied law to work out what's gone on.
Quote from: cdbearsfan on September 29, 2022, 12:31:19 PMNonsense. The evidence is overwhelming. She battered an unarmed Black man while he was lying on the ground. If we dismiss this because we assume the jury can't possibly make a mistake then we dismiss all the other times that Black people have been assaulted and/or died at the hands of police and not received justice. I'd rather not.I don't think anyone's assuming juries can't make mistakes. When they got it wrong it's normally as a result of evidence that's flawed or withheld.The point still stands that the 12 people on the jury, who actually hear all the evidence, are in a better position to assess it than you, me or anyone else that hasn't.in my experience I'd say they get it right most of the time. In about 80% of cases they do exactly what I'd expect on, acquit or convict. I might be disappointed at the latter but not surprised. In about 15% they acquit where I'd expected them not to. Normally they're deeply suspicious and unhappy with the defendant but there was something that made them unsure. Often it's something that was lost on me. 5%, they convict when they really shouldn't, either because I think there should be a doubt or (worst case) I've actually thought the defendant innocent. It's those that have caused me serious loss of sleep over the years, wondering what I did wrong or what more I could've done.But it's never occurred to me that a bunch of people of people who were never in court, never heard the evidence, and never received a direction from the judge on the law, would be in a better position to decide someone's guilt or innocence.
Nonsense. The evidence is overwhelming. She battered an unarmed Black man while he was lying on the ground. If we dismiss this because we assume the jury can't possibly make a mistake then we dismiss all the other times that Black people have been assaulted and/or died at the hands of police and not received justice. I'd rather not.
Surely the fact that Hopadop reckons they get 1 in every 5 verdicts wrong means that we shouldn't just blindly accept the decision.
Quote from: Hopadop on September 30, 2022, 08:19:13 PMQuote from: cdbearsfan on September 30, 2022, 07:49:12 PMStrong "you can't talk about football unless you've played the game" vibes from that post.She's a white cop, he's Black. She battered him while he was posing no threat and now he's dead, like so many other Black people at the hands of the police. You don't need to have studied law to work out what's gone on.Any vibes unintended. As I'm sure are any of yours.My point is the 24 jurors who've heard all the evidence in the case are in the best position to assess it. Any additional baggage added is yours.But you can apply the same argument to any infamous miscarriage of justice from Brum 6 to OJ. I'm happy to defer to your greater knowledge and take your word that juries get it right most of the time. It seems pretty much impossible that they've got it right this time, though, given that they've just allowed someone who battered an unarmed man who posed no threat and has subsequently died to walk free.
Quote from: Hopadop on September 30, 2022, 07:24:01 PMQuote from: cdbearsfan on September 29, 2022, 12:31:19 PMNonsense. The evidence is overwhelming. She battered an unarmed Black man while he was lying on the ground. If we dismiss this because we assume the jury can't possibly make a mistake then we dismiss all the other times that Black people have been assaulted and/or died at the hands of police and not received justice. I'd rather not.I don't think anyone's assuming juries can't make mistakes. When they got it wrong it's normally as a result of evidence that's flawed or withheld.The point still stands that the 12 people on the jury, who actually hear all the evidence, are in a better position to assess it than you, me or anyone else that hasn't.in my experience I'd say they get it right most of the time. In about 80% of cases they do exactly what I'd expect on, acquit or convict. I might be disappointed at the latter but not surprised. In about 15% they acquit where I'd expected them not to. Normally they're deeply suspicious and unhappy with the defendant but there was something that made them unsure. Often it's something that was lost on me. 5%, they convict when they really shouldn't, either because I think there should be a doubt or (worst case) I've actually thought the defendant innocent. It's those that have caused me serious loss of sleep over the years, wondering what I did wrong or what more I could've done.But it's never occurred to me that a bunch of people of people who were never in court, never heard the evidence, and never received a direction from the judge on the law, would be in a better position to decide someone's guilt or innocence.Without leaning too heavily on the numbers that 15% seems very high and probably explains why so many people feel like this is the wrong verdict. I understand that it may be that something in the defence created sympathy for her but, without experiencing the trial, a defence of "he was big, angry and very scary so I felt I had no choice but to beat him whilst he lay dying on the floor" doesn't feel like that should've bene the case.
Hopadop you disappoint me. It is the clearest case of the truism that is as old as time. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, every law of probability says it is a duck. She hit a dying man, not once but three times, in the head with a truncheon. The verdict was shameful.
30 years ago today Dalian did this.https://twitter.com/AvfcArchive/status/1576865014840893440?t=dbMy2HWFR6Xp-8LBycTfqw&s=19