3 ms·
> I don't think any jury in the land would convict someone of killing such an agent that refused to identify themselves I think you give juries too much credit
by pc86 3y ago
> I don't think any jury in the land would convict someone of killing such an agent that refused to identify themselves
I think you give juries too much credit, and maybe voir dire in general.
The prosecution would simply hammer on the fact that they "murdered a cop" and how they don't dispute the fact they killed them, they have the murder weapon, etc. They'd bring up crying relatives of the deceased. They'd bring up the defendant's prior criminal history if one exists, or find old social media posts critical of LE or the government. And they'd go right up to the line of perjury without crossing it, asking half a dozen people from the same department about "department policy" around identifying yourself.
Not to mention they'd almost certainly ask for a change of venue to a more LE-friendly area of the country. So you end up with some young kid from an urban area on the coast on trial for killing a cop in rural Colorado or Nevada or something. It's unlikely that goes well for them, especially if they don't have the funds for a bulldog defense attorney.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoYeah, juries tend towards the stupid side because competent people likely have lives that would be seriously impacted by a major trial. As far as I'm concerned plainclothes officers should not be allowed to make arrests outside exigent circumstances. The target is likely to feel they are under criminal attack and very well might respond with lethal force.
- wing-_-nuts 3y agoI have no problem with a plain clothed officer making an arrest if they CLEARLY identify themselves as officers when making the arrest. Those agents didn't. They refused questions of whether or not they were law enforcement and were literally loading people into unmarked vans. I am quite frankly shocked that there wasn't violence in response to that.
- pc86 3y agoI wouldn't consider myself a gun nut by any stretch, but how is the appropriate response to people who won't identify themselves trying to load you into the back of an unmarked van not violent-quickly-approaching-lethal force? Anyone with knowledge in the area will tell you that if you're the subject of an attempting kidnapping (or carjacking or anything in that ballpark) your number one goal is to not get taken to another location. Whatever you have to do, don't get taken somewhere else because it's definitely going to be something more favorable to the assailant. I too am shocked that this didn't end in violence and serious injury or worse.
- kyleee 3y agoI mean the folks this happened to in Portland were probably not well trained at all and have some sense of self preservation. They had to know quickly they’d be killed if they produced a weapon
- pc86 3y agoI was on a jury a few months ago for the first time and it seemed like a reasonable cross-section of society. I don't know if I'll go so far as to say smart people are more likely to have professional-level jobs than dumb people, but professional-level jobs are not going to fire you for going to jury duty for a couple days with quite a bit of notice (I got my notice ~2 months before my time in the jury pool). While it didn't seem any "stupider" than society as a whole, it was also very clear when folks gave the prosecutor or state-called witnesses more weight than the defendant or the defense witnesses. And most trials aren't major. There were 5 or 6 trials at the courthouse that week, and only one was estimated to take more than 3 days. Ours took a full day but I still got home before my wife.