3 ms·

This article seems to miss some crucial details. How does a jury go from the given description of a man armed with only a Taser being not only shot to disable b

by tinco 11y ago

This article seems to miss some crucial details. How does a jury go from the given description of a man armed with only a Taser being not only shot to disable but absolutely destroyed and vote unanimously in the police's favor? Was the question asked to the jury more specific, did the Guardian leave something out or was the jury really racist as the Guardian implies (by listing their races)?

jemfinch 11y ago
> being not only shot to disable but absolutely destroyed There is no such thing as "shoot to disable" with firearms. Firearms are lethal weapons. They should only be used when deadly force is justified, and cannot reliably be used to "disable" someone apart from killing them.
- Retric 11y ago
  You can "shoot to disable" though it can often result in death. Which can be useful if your trying to keep someone alive to interrogate. However, US police are flat out trained to kill. Note: Disable does not mean they are unarmed / unconscious, it generally means they can't move quickly and even if they could still be quite dangerous.
  - pygy_ 11y ago
    Case in point, Salah Abdelslam, the Paris terror 'suspect' who was arrested last week in Brussels, was shot in the leg as he was charging the police, then arrested.
  - hughperkins 11y ago
    Its because compensation for killing someone is on average less than for disabling someone.
RodericDay 11y ago
The article provides some key details you don't mention here: > It was a civil trial, so the standard was not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, just the “preponderance of evidence”. No one was facing prison, but if the city and officers were found liable, there could be a large financial settlement and it could affect the careers of the policemen. The trial was covered by several local media outlets. On Thursday 10 March, after an afternoon and morning of deliberations, the eight jurors – five white, one Asian woman and two Asian men – unanimously ruled in favour of the police on all counts. Namely: - It was a civil trial, - preponderance of evidence was required, - the penalty would come back to hurt the tax-base, - the jurors were insulated from the racial component.
joesmo 11y ago
How can you not get one Hispanic juror on your jury in San Francisco? This to me, is mind blowing. I'm not saying the jury was racist necessarily, just ignorant. Some people go against all reason and trust cops despite common sense that says not to. It's hard to fathom, but I think that's where a lot of these problems come from. One minute, you have a senior in high school who bullies, beats up other students, and can't be trusted with anything and the a few months later, this same person carries around a gun and a badge and society basically absolves him of wrongdoing. Until those attitudes change, the police will continue to get away with blatant murders like this one. Even if every police person in the US stops being racist at once, there will still be murders until our society starts to hold the police and courts responsible for their actions. You do not get to over 2 million people in jail (mostly non-white) without society approving such a mass crime against humanity.
- refurb 11y ago
  Because most people try their best to not serve on a jury? I served on a jury in SF not long ago. ~80% of people called were dismissed due to hardship, which I assume would impact lower income folks more. The remaining ~18% tried their best during questioning to make sure they were kicked off the jury. We ended up with a jury that was mostly professionals or retired folks.
  - Redoubts 11y ago
    It's truly sad. Last time I sat through voir dire, about 10 people tried to get out of jury duty by claiming they felt the system was too racist for them to give it a fair hearing. Aside from being rather unconvincing, it seems wrong that people who ostensibly care about minorities being railroaded would not want to be on a jury. But maybe I'm just angry I had to sit through two days of lame excuses.

by tinco 11y ago

jemfinch 11y ago

> being not only shot to disable but absolutely destroyed There is no such thing as "shoot to disable" with firearms. Firearms are lethal weapons. They should only be used when deadly force is justified, and cannot reliably be used to "disable" someone apart from killing them.

Retric 11y ago
You can "shoot to disable" though it can often result in death. Which can be useful if your trying to keep someone alive to interrogate. However, US police are flat out trained to kill. Note: Disable does not mean they are unarmed / unconscious, it generally means they can't move quickly and even if they could still be quite dangerous.
- pygy_ 11y ago
  Case in point, Salah Abdelslam, the Paris terror 'suspect' who was arrested last week in Brussels, was shot in the leg as he was charging the police, then arrested.
- hughperkins 11y ago
  Its because compensation for killing someone is on average less than for disabling someone.

RodericDay 11y ago

The article provides some key details you don't mention here: > It was a civil trial, so the standard was not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, just the “preponderance of evidence”. No one was facing prison, but if the city and officers were found liable, there could be a large financial settlement and it could affect the careers of the policemen. The trial was covered by several local media outlets. On Thursday 10 March, after an afternoon and morning of deliberations, the eight jurors – five white, one Asian woman and two Asian men – unanimously ruled in favour of the police on all counts. Namely: - It was a civil trial, - preponderance of evidence was required, - the penalty would come back to hurt the tax-base, - the jurors were insulated from the racial component.

joesmo 11y ago

How can you not get one Hispanic juror on your jury in San Francisco? This to me, is mind blowing. I'm not saying the jury was racist necessarily, just ignorant. Some people go against all reason and trust cops despite common sense that says not to. It's hard to fathom, but I think that's where a lot of these problems come from. One minute, you have a senior in high school who bullies, beats up other students, and can't be trusted with anything and the a few months later, this same person carries around a gun and a badge and society basically absolves him of wrongdoing. Until those attitudes change, the police will continue to get away with blatant murders like this one. Even if every police person in the US stops being racist at once, there will still be murders until our society starts to hold the police and courts responsible for their actions. You do not get to over 2 million people in jail (mostly non-white) without society approving such a mass crime against humanity.

refurb 11y ago
Because most people try their best to not serve on a jury? I served on a jury in SF not long ago. ~80% of people called were dismissed due to hardship, which I assume would impact lower income folks more. The remaining ~18% tried their best during questioning to make sure they were kicked off the jury. We ended up with a jury that was mostly professionals or retired folks.
- Redoubts 11y ago
  It's truly sad. Last time I sat through voir dire, about 10 people tried to get out of jury duty by claiming they felt the system was too racist for them to give it a fair hearing. Aside from being rather unconvincing, it seems wrong that people who ostensibly care about minorities being railroaded would not want to be on a jury. But maybe I'm just angry I had to sit through two days of lame excuses.