Newshoggers Comments
I'd like to be on two juries in this case: one, her trial for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest and, two her civil suit against the sheriff's department.
That appears to me to be worth about $100 million. You know, just to be clear about the message I would send to those cops and that city.
Amen Pug.
Unfortunately, Mrs. Meyer was found guilty of all charges by a jury of her peers.
Police brutality exists because imbeciles are on juries. Imbeciles believe in law and order. To them it means you must respect all authority, which means the police are always right. Even though Mrs. Meyer had called 911 for help after being attacked, she is the criminal because the police say she is the criminal. And the jury believes that because that is what their pastors teach them about authority in their churches.
These sorts of people end up on juries because when sane people are called to jury duty, they make excuses and try to get out of it.
If you are unwilling to take part in jury duty, then do not be surprised when imbeciles pass judgment on the innocent.
As someone who has served on several juries, including a Grand Jury, I must take exception to Mr. Bennett's comments. I've certainly served with my share of fellow jurors who confused independant inquiry with rubberstamping, but by and large the end result isn't their fault.
The key here is that juries see and hear what is presented to them...no more, no less. Especially while on the Grand Jury, for over 80% of the cases, all we had to go on was a verbal reading of the arrest report by the assistant District Attorney. In the absense of testimony contrary to the arresting officer, that almost always met the minimum legal standard that we needed to indict.
And I did serve on a petit jury that acquitted a young man accused of assault, mainly on the grounds that there were dozens of witnesses to the assault, but the only one of them who would testify that the accused actually did it was the victim. We were certain that SOMETHING happened to that young lady that night, but it seemed more than a bit much to presume that just because she said it was the accused, that it had to be him...especially when several dozen of her closest friends admitted they were there but didn't see the assault. Juries aren't always completely stupid.
I'd love to see what evidence was presented at both her criminal trial, and what will be presented during the civil trial. If you follow appeals cases, you'd likely be amazed at how different the same case can appear when two different versions of the facts are presented, one before the appeal and one after.
Commenting by HaloScan
