Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

seatown2nyc t1_j61momf wrote

Reply to comment by StellarTitz in Jury acquits Pawtucket police officer in shooting of teen driver by skippyspk

Jurors have to swear an oath to follow the law as it's explained to them by the judge, and the laws are made to protect cops. It's as simple as that unfortunately

188

HelloPeopleOfEarth t1_j61ozqk wrote

Not to mention there is a percentage of people that just always side with the police. American exceptionalism has trained people to think police/military are angels doing gods work.

181

StellarTitz t1_j61vulp wrote

By the sound of the evidence, it was obvious the cop lied about his life being in danger.

80

seatown2nyc t1_j61yiq2 wrote

That's where the "police are heroes" bs comes into play. A regular person who claims to have feared for their life objectively unreasonably will get laughed out of court and straight to prison, but when a cop does it people think "well they do have a dangerous job..."

76

hurdurBoop t1_j62662c wrote

and they don't, relatively. cop deaths don't even make the top ten, they're behind freaking kitchen employees.

not to mention at least half those deaths are traffic accidents, not tHiN bLuE LiNE bs.

67

jonathanrdt t1_j63qk60 wrote

If you say you will not follow a judge’s instruction or take the word of an officer, you will never be selected for a jury.

5

HelloPeopleOfEarth t1_j63rm77 wrote

I used to work for a Detroit based bank doing security escorts for bank employees that had to testify in bank robberies, check fraud, or whatever they were victims/witness of crimes at the bank branches. Even though it was Detroit, a basically all black city, the jurors in the defendants trials were never "a jury of peers". It was always old white people from the suburbs because the cases were tried in a county court. A prosecutor or a defense attorney can really stack a jury the way they want to during selection. Also, poor people don't get paid days off from their low paying jobs, so they tend to do whatever they can to be dismissed, where as well to do people have all the time in the world. Those well to do people can be very out of touch and think cops are always the "good guys".

9

Dolthra t1_j63ztlg wrote

>Also, poor people don't get paid days off from their low paying jobs, so they tend to do whatever they can to be dismissed, where as well to do people have all the time in the world.

Reminder that it's designed to be that way- you technically do get paid for jury duty. It's supposed to compensate for lost time. Those in power have neglected to make it reflect the amount of work you're losing, and it's like $3 a day. That's not an accident, it's to ensure only those who would side with those in power will sit on juries.

6

HelloPeopleOfEarth t1_j6474ah wrote

Absolutely. Jury duty should compensate 100% of missed pay and elections should be a paid holiday, employees allowed the time to vote. Shouldn't be long lines. People should be allowed to pass out water etc. But one party in particular wants voting to be difficult for the working poor, knowing they overwhelmingly vote progressive.

3

Amiiboid t1_j647bpu wrote

> , and it's like $3 a day.

While it’s nowhere near sufficient, it is also nowhere near that low. Varies by county but generally at least $30 for the first day and more thereafter.

1

jstenoien t1_j65qpp3 wrote

https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/jury/juror-compensation/

$12/day IF you're picked. You bet your ass I made sure to get out of it ASAP when I was selected.

3

Amiiboid t1_j65zplz wrote

That’s where you are. It’s more in MI, which is what the post upstream of this was mentioning. It’s apparently $15 in Rhode Island. As I said, it’s absolutely still not sufficient. But $3 as an estimate is way off.

1

commandrix t1_j61rcj5 wrote

Unfortunately so. Even allowing for one or two jurists who know that "jury nullification" is a thing, the law doesn't necessarily allow for a lot of flexibility. (For those who don't know, "jury nullification" was supposed to be a sort of a check on the judicial system that allowed a jury to say "not guilty" when they thought the law was being unfairly applied.)

14

sb_747 t1_j65jpvy wrote

> For those who don’t know, “jury nullification” was supposed to be a sort of a check on the judicial system that allowed a jury to say “not guilty” when they thought the law was being unfairly applied.

That’s not true.

It’s a bug not a feature.

And this is arguably a case of jury nullification. Guy committed murder but gets off because someone in the jury likes cops despite them being guilty.

It’s like the filibuster, regards of noble and heroic it may seem it’s actually used 99% of the time to fuck over the public and help abuse the system not help it.

−1

OldHotness t1_j660c3v wrote

Juries have the option to stick it to the judge/prosecutor/whomever through qht they commonly call "jury nullification". Seems to be uber rare when it comes to shit cops and their policing.

2

XLV-V2 t1_j6427vv wrote

Jury nullification is a thing. They don't have to follow the law to a T. It's all based on judgement call. So you can see where the jury sits on this specific case.

1

JohnChimpo7 t1_j63ogem wrote

He actually wasn’t tried as a cop, whatever laws you’re referring to were irrelevant

−5