• officers innocent in death of Kelly Thomas
    26 replies, posted
[QUOTE]An Orange County jury Monday found two former Fullerton police officers accused of killing a schizophrenic homeless man, Kelly Thomas, not guilty. Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli were charged with striking Kelly Thomas with a baton and a stun gun in a beating that left him comatose. He died five days later. [url]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-live-verdict-in-kelly-thomas-police-murder-case-20140113,0,5661959.story#ixzz2qKxh7ScU[/url][/QUOTE] In my opinion this is pretty bs.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;43529172]In my opinion this is pretty bs.[/QUOTE] I'm curious as to why.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43529187]I'm curious as to why.[/QUOTE] They beat a restrained man for nearly 15 minutes, damaging his head so badly that his brain cavity collapsed in on itself.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;43529205]They beat a restrained man for nearly 15 minutes, damaging his head so badly that his brain cavity collapsed in on itself.[/QUOTE] Coroner ruled that brain death from asphyxiation from the officers pulling on his chest.Thankfully these are now [I]former[/I] officers and 3 city council members and the chief have stepped down. EDIT They were acquitted, not found "not guilty" big differences in legal the legal system
None of us were there, and none of us were presented with the evidence during the trial, so none of us are really justified in calling judgement for or against anyone. That said... how they were not guilty of [i]involuntary manslaughter[/i] is beyond me: [QUOTE]192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice [...] (b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. [...] 196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either-- 1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or, 2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or, 3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.[/QUOTE] According to the surveillance tapes and audio recordings, the guy wasn't putting up "actual resistance". Unless there is some magic bullshit that the police department pulled out of its ass, I'm guessing some jury members got a little extra jury duty compensation.
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=19c_1336478755[/url] - Watch that before you decide how you feel
Every video I see it seems american police need half the county to arrest one guy
[QUOTE=areolop;43529256]Coroner ruled that brain death from asphyxiation from the officers pulling on his chest.Thankfully these are now [I]former[/I] officers and 3 city council members and the chief have stepped down. EDIT [B]They were acquitted, not found "not guilty" big differences in legal the legal system[/B][/QUOTE] They're legally identical.
[QUOTE=RosettaStoned;43529393][url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=19c_1336478755[/url] - Watch that before you decide how you feel[/QUOTE] That was one of the hardest things to watch in my life, and I've seen decapitation videos. The fact that this was done by supposed enforcers of justice is horrifying. Everyone hears about abuses of power, but to see it happen, to hear a man's dying cries for his father. This is horrendous.
[QUOTE=areolop;43529256]EDIT They were acquitted, not found "not guilty" big differences in legal the legal system[/QUOTE] Uh, no? The article clearly states multiple times that the jury found them not guilty. Can you find a source that says otherwise?
[QUOTE=Snowmew;43529987]Uh, no? The article clearly states multiple times that the jury found them not guilty. Can you find a source that says otherwise?[/QUOTE] What he means is that even though they were acquitted (let off) after committing the crime, that doesn't mean that they aren't guilty as far as this incident goes. Legalese thrives on the little things like this.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;43530127]What he means is that even though they were acquitted (let off) after committing the crime, that doesn't mean that they aren't guilty as far as this incident goes. Legalese thrives on the little things like this.[/QUOTE] They were literally found not guilty. There is a difference between not proven and not guilty; in this case, the jury found them not guilty. There are no other ways to be acquitted if the case comes to a jury decision.
Gotta love that blue shield.
such fucking bullshit
[QUOTE=Snowmew;43530224]They were literally found not guilty. There is a difference between not proven and not guilty; in this case, the jury found them not guilty. There are no other ways to be acquitted if the case comes to a jury decision.[/QUOTE] Does the US even have a 'not proven' verdict? The only country that does that, as far as I know, is Scotland (not that's its a bad idea).
As far as I can tell they said he was beaten while trying to be restrained, and I believe this since there was video of it that was shown in court. Trying to cuff a guy that doesn't want to be cuffed is god damn fucking hard to do, and most PD's say if someone's under arrest then you can use the force necessary to place them under arrest. If he's resisting then he's gonna be met with some physical force right back They're also arguing that while the officers were on top of him, compressing his chest, it caused complications from his diseased heart and drug use. Tragic? Sure. Murder? Well the Jury said No
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43532321]As far as I can tell they said he was beaten while trying to be restrained, and I believe this since there was video of it that was shown in court. Trying to cuff a guy that doesn't want to be cuffed is god damn fucking hard to do, and most PD's say if someone's under arrest then you can use the force necessary to place them under arrest. If he's resisting then he's gonna be met with some physical force right back They're also arguing that while the officers were on top of him, compressing his chest, it caused complications from his diseased heart and drug use. Tragic? Sure. Murder? Well the Jury said No[/QUOTE] Manslaugter? Definitely. Bribed Jury? you betcha...
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43532321]As far as I can tell they said he was beaten while trying to be restrained, and I believe this since there was video of it that was shown in court. Trying to cuff a guy that doesn't want to be cuffed is god damn fucking hard to do, and most PD's say if someone's under arrest then you can use the force necessary to place them under arrest. If he's resisting then he's gonna be met with some physical force right back They're also arguing that while the officers were on top of him, compressing his chest, it caused complications from his diseased heart and drug use. Tragic? Sure. Murder? Well the Jury said No[/QUOTE] It may be difficult to restrain someone that does not want to be. But they had at least 5 or more people ON TOP of him. Putting all that weight onto him, WHILE beating him. There are more ways to restrain a person, than to beat him relentlessly into submission. To which they basically caused his death. Ridiculous, I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43532321]As far as I can tell they said he was beaten while trying to be restrained, and I believe this since there was video of it that was shown in court. Trying to cuff a guy that doesn't want to be cuffed is god damn fucking hard to do, and most PD's say if someone's under arrest then you can use the force necessary to place them under arrest. If he's resisting then he's gonna be met with some physical force right back They're also arguing that while the officers were on top of him, compressing his chest, it caused complications from his diseased heart and drug use. Tragic? Sure. Murder? Well the Jury said No[/QUOTE] People tend to resist instinctually if they're being smothered and beaten in the face with a flashlight.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;43531738]Does the US even have a 'not proven' verdict? The only country that does that, as far as I know, is Scotland (not that's its a bad idea).[/QUOTE] If they can't prove it than you're not guilty. Thats a good system.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;43530224]They were literally found not guilty. There is a difference between not proven and not guilty; in this case, the jury found them not guilty. There are no other ways to be acquitted if the case comes to a jury decision.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/us/california-homeless-beating-verdict[/url] [quote] A jury has acquitted two former Fullerton, California, police officers on trial in the beating death of Kelly Thomas, a mentally ill and homeless man.[/quote] Now, while they are still "not guilty" when you get an acquitted instead of that verdict it normally means you are forgiven by the legal system (and are probably guilty)
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43533649]If they can't prove it than you're not guilty. Thats a good system.[/QUOTE] Scotland has Guilty, Not Proven, Not Guilty. Not Proven and not Guilty have the same outcome - you are acquitted of the charges against you, but 'Not Proven' is used where the jury has reason from the given evidence to believe that the defendant has committed the crimes they are charged with, but not beyond doubt. The only difference is that the defendant isn't covered by the Scottish version of the 'Double Jeopardy' law (though any conviction isn't in England and Wales anymore, if new and compelling evidence is found). There are downsides and benefits to it, though one benefit I like it that seems to increase the report and trial rate of rapes - where victims are put off by the idea that a verdict of 'not guilty' makes them seem like liars, even if the reason the case fell through was lack of enough solid evidence. A not proven verdict makes them feel corroborated, even if the evidence wasn't enough to convict their attack (though I also support making both the defendant and the victim anonymous in cases of serious crimes like rape or murder, with the defendant's name only being made public if they are actually convicted).
[QUOTE=areolop;43534469] Now, while they are still "not guilty" when you get an acquitted instead of that verdict it normally means you are forgiven by the legal system (and are probably guilty)[/QUOTE] And how is this any different than a "not guilty." I don't mean in their definition, I mean what does being acquitted do that not guilty doesn't, or vice versa?
[QUOTE=areolop;43534469][url]http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/us/california-homeless-beating-verdict[/url] Now, while they are still "not guilty" when you get an acquitted instead of that verdict it normally means you are forgiven by the legal system (and are probably guilty)[/QUOTE] Acquitted means you are no longer charged with a crime, regardless of how that happens (via 'Not Guilty' verdict, the court case falls through due to delays. Are you thinking of people being released from prison/jail due to being pardoned or exonerated? They have the same outcome, but pardoned means you are being forgiven for committing a crime, whereas being exonerated means it has been proven you never committed it in the first place.
[quote] a beating that left him comatose.[/quote] um, seems a bit excess to me when you have to break the guy's skull
I can understand the overwhelming feeling of frustration and pure fucking rage they were probably experiencing when this guy just wasn't complying or doing such a simple action (giving name, lying down flat and putting arms behind his back, etc) no matter how much he acted as if he was sorry or was going to (then just didn't). Not that I think that completely absolves them of all guilt - just that I don't think they were intending to actually kill him or were being 'completely' indifferent to his life. Just caught up in the moment.
Fuck the jurors.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.