Quote:
Originally Posted by SackAttack
Everybody, let's sing the "Jon is full of shit" song!
You're either being deliberately disingenuous or you have serous reading comprehension deficits.
The first trial ended in mistrial when the jury couldn't reach a unanimous verdict.
Every rial since, including the one you so helpfully linked to, the officers involved elected to have a bench trial. The judge hearts the evidence and renders a verdict.
As soon as the first bench trial ended in acquittal, the other officers lined up to have belch trials instead. They knew the score.
No jury was given the chance to convict after the first officer escaped conviction only because the jury couldn't reach a unanimous verdict.
|
You mean the jury that was ONE SINGLE vote away from clearing the cop? The jury makeup was 8 black/4 white and I'll repeat, was a SINGLE VOTE away from clearing him.
Beyond that, the cop on trial was supposed to be the EASY one. He was supposed to be the domino that set everything else up. Grab the easiest conviction first and then he flips on everyone else to help with his sentencing.
The EASY one was a single vote away from a full blown acquittal.
Please stop with the disingenuous act here, ok? The reality is they didn't have the goods on these guys. They didn't have it from the start. Beyond that, the prosecution acted HORRIBLY in these cases. They withheld information from the cops attorneys.
I'm not some racist who thinks the entire BLM movement is horrible. (I have issues with it for various reasons, but I agree with a lot of what it talks about, especially with police accountability and cameras) My comments above don't mean I think it's cool that a bunch of cops got away with murder. The more I read about the case and the more I read about the charges the more I realized how this wasn't the slam dunk everyone thought it would be.
I think there is a very high chance that all of these officers would have been cleared no matter what type of jury was used.