What will the jury declare?

Mike Tyson's problem was that his occupation (professional boxer) makes use of brute force, so why should the jury not believe him capable of using brute force in his private life?

 

Or a punctillious landlord. Well, never mind. Whomever did that should be warned. OJ promised not to rest until the person responsible for such a despicable crime is brought to justice and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law *....




*Will he ever confess?

 

Of course. And he did assure us that he would never kill the mother of his children.

 

Wrong again. But, like most PO's, you make assumptions based on your own prejudices. I left on my own accord with a reasonable good record. I received very high ratings on job knowledge, report writing, etc. Was I a good cop? Didn’t really have the temperament. I was mature enough to figure that out on my own accord and not have someone spell it out for me. I never did like working with convicts though. I personally was disgusted with the politics and favoritism. I have never worked in a job before or since that was based more on who you know and not what you know.

Just personal observation. As a Marshal of the Court (one of the many assignments), I saw that quite a few cops (not all – some) were not much better than who they arrested. I think they would have been better served by taking some classes in civility and public relations. Juries can see right through the arrogant ones and discount them from the get go (at least that is what a few jury foreman told me).

There is also another saying “If you can’t or won’t do the job, quit”. No one owes you a living in any job. If you can’t do the job within the restrictions imposed on it, then you have no business in the occupation. You can be effective and follow that law if you understand your place in society and the fact that what you refer to as technicality is usually the constitution. This is why I have always advocated is a bi-yearly test in constitutional law (put it on the same requirement on fitness)

I already answered the first part. I think you don’t believe me because you think all cops think like you. Your wrong – move on. As to never protecting these people, I think that is admirable. Good quality – I am glad that you can see through the “brotherhood” and to the big picture.

As far as my comment on the Riders of Oakland and the two in Palo Alto who got a traffic ticket in lieu of a felony violation – they will be seen again. It is the 95/5 rule. – 5% of the officers commit 95% of the violations (I got that from a friend who is an IA officer). Guaranteed, they will be in the media again – I would bet my bonus on it.

Do you eat donuts? Even if you did, taking it as a personal attack is pretty shallow. You have however branded me a liar without a shred of evidence on several occasions. If that is not a personal attack, I don’t know what is. Ya know what I mean?

 

Well, sorry, I don't believe you. Call it cop's instinct.

You're demonstrating exactly why I don't believe you were ever a cop. With the insanity of frivolous lawsuits, a police officer can do his job 100% within the law, and still get sued. It happened to my best friend on the job, he got sued for making a domestic violence arrest. Yeah, you know, the only crime where we're MANDATED to arrest. The girlfriend recanted her story, testified for the batterer at trial, and he was found not guilty. He then filed a lawsuit for false arrest, 1983 violations, etc. The Federal Magistrate granted a summary judgement on my friend's behalf, but not before he was put through 2 1/2 years of hell...depositions, biased newspaper articles, etc.

So, you can save the speech about doing the job "within the restrictions imposed on it". The other side is playing with a stacked deck.

I didn't "brand" you a liar. That would be an accusation of sustained untruthfulness. I simply don't believe that you were ever a police officer. If you want to prove me wrong, PM me with the department contact info, and if you're right, I'll make a public apology.

Oh, and one of the few benefits of being a moderator is that I get to decide what constitutes a personal attack. Know what I mean?

 

DAMN IT!!!!!

Well, I guess it had to end sometime......

 

Are you implying football (O.J.) is a passive sport?

 

Don't lose heart, Bruce. I believe Jackson is a pedophile and the psychology of a pedophile (as you well know) is that the compulsion gets stronger as time progresses.

Jackson will abuse again and a credible witness will come forth! Jackson's days of freedom are numbered. He now thinks he is invincible and that will be his downfall!

 

I hope that this restores your faith in California juries.

I didn't really follow the trial very closely. But if some disaster had put me on that jury (I used to live near Santa Maria), based only on what I know now I'd have considered a 'not guilty' vote, at least on the major counts.

I do think that Jackson probably did molest the kid. But unfortunately lots of things happen that can't be proven in courtrooms. Juries can't just convict on gut instinct and suspicion.

In this trial the accuser just didn't seem credible to me. Without the child and his mom, it would have been all about the circumstances. They were extremely bizarre to be sure, but I wouldn't want to convict a guy simply for being weird.

It would turn on the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, I think. There clearly were reasonable doubts about the kid and his mom. I didn't follow all the physical and circumstantial evidence, but it would have had to carry a great deal of weight, whatever it was.

So I don't think that I want to convict the jury. Though I suspect that a child molester probably did walk, I also think that justice might have been served. It's paradoxical, but it happens.

 

Not exactly, but (a) the Juice had been retired for some years and (b) he might not have fared so well had he been a big bruiser of a middle linebacker.

 

With "faith" being a relative term, yes.

I must admit I didn't follow this trial as closely as I have with other celebrity trials, so I'm not prepared to villify the jury. If the state didn't make their case, then the jury had no other choice.

The sad thing is that Jackson will molest again. He's sick, and now that he's not going to get treatment, along with being emboldened by yet another victory in court, well, I feel bad for his next victims.

 

I do hope you're right, Jimmy. It's probably wishful thinking on my part, but when I first heard the verdict, I tried to think that perhaps this might scare him into not molesting again. We can only hope.

 

So do I. The jury listened for what, 8 months? And they returned a verdict in less than 4 hours! That's not even enough time to read the instructions from the judge. They were looking for an excuse to set O.J. free, and they had several to pick from. But none of it was exculpatory enough to create reasonable doubt. Their swiftness in getting out of that deliberation room bared their motives.

I think the Jackson jury did the right thing. They carefully weighed the charges and the evidence and came to a reasoned conclusion. Did they get it right? Depends on one's definition of "right." I've suspected all along that the government didn't have a strong enough case against Jackson. That's what the jury concluded. In that sense, I think they got it right. Did Jackson molest that kid? Maybe. But the judge ruled in favor of the government in just about every key element (including introducing past "victims"), and they still couldn't put on a strong enough case. But unlike the O.J. jury, this one seemed to at least take their roles seriously and attempt to come to a rational decision.

 

Yep.

 

I did nothing to keep up to date with this trial. I only got a few snippetts over the radio during my daily commute. Even before the trial I had formed the opinion that this guy was way out there, beyond the third standard deviation. I did not form an opinion as to whether he had molested any children. With all that being said, I think that perhaps the people who could rightly be the most angry are the taxpayers of California who have now paid for three multi-million dollar trials that have all ended in acquitals. I would think that there should be one or two people looking for new jobs after such a poor performance. I don't expect a DA to win all their cases in court but when you make the conscious decision to take a big name, big money celebrity to trial and when you know it's going to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, you have GOT to know that your career is on the line.
Jack

 

I want to know who the four people are who voted "Not Guilty" AFTER the verdict was announced. Talk about hedging your bets!

 

I was one who voted 'not guilty' before the verdict.

From following the trial in the foreign press, the prosecution did not seem to mount a convincing case.

The OJ decision was both a shock and a shocker!

 

After the verdict? My time machine must not have been working.

 

While I typically try to stay out of these discussions, isn't this a bit much? Are you really threatening to ban him because he called police officers "donut eaters?"




Tom Nixon

 

Where did I say that?