Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am interested in the makeup of the jury more than anything since that video is an open and shut case. He literally chased her down and then dragged her to his motel room to rape her; witnesses backed her story up because they saw this happening and she was screaming for help. I know that the jury was selected from the local population and Flint Michigan is majority black, only 2% or so of the population is non-Hispanic white. I would like to assume that a all-black or all-white jury can be fair but in situations like this, if a all-white jury was selected in a case between a black person and a white person then there would be riots over it if the verdict found the black person guilty. I see no reason why an all-black jury in a case between a white person and a black shouldn’t be equally scrutinized if that happened.
I am just pondering here as I don’t know the make up of the jury, I just know that the video is clear as day and something was going on for him to be acquitted. Perhaps the jury was diverse and his money / fame did it? Something smells worse than the lead polluted water in Flint i know that...
One of the first times I had to serve on a jury was for a young girl and an older boy who was being charged with statutory rape. He was 16, and she was 13 or 14.
Went through the trial and it was back to the room for deliberations. We took a vote before doing anything to see where everyone stood. Immediately, the older males (grandpa and dad age) were convinced the boy was guilty. The females were mixed. I voted "not guilty" to start off, because I didn't want to render a "guilty" verdict right off without going over some things, first.
It was a looooong deliberation, because the older males (grandpa types) refused to budge from "guilty" and it turns out it was all based on the fact that it was how the girl looked. Of course when she showed up in court, she was wearing a nice but simple outfit, and they had done her hair to make her look even younger than she was.
And that's all it took to convince the older males that the boy was a guilty predator.
My point is that absolutely juries can and are swayed by how defendant's look both lawyer and defendant themselves, (remember the Menendez brothers?), how the prosecutors look, how the accuser looks, etc.
I'm also making the point that I know females. I am a female. I know that a lot of females are very hateful towards other females for a variety of reasons - I really don't understand it - but, they are.
Not all juries make good decisions, as we've seen many times in the past. Just because a jury said he wasn't guilty doesn't mean he wasn't guilty.
The fact is, as I said earlier, when you see a person running out of a room without a stitch of clothing on them, yelling for help, they are not consenting to anything. It doesn't matter if she was drunk, "willingly" got in a car, or didn't even tell the cops she was assaulted when they came on the scene - a bare naked person running out of a room screaming for help is. not. consenting. There is no way to twist that.
I agree with all you've said, particularly the bolded.
I am interested in the makeup of the jury more than anything since that video is an open and shut case. He literally chased her down and then dragged her to his motel room to rape her; witnesses backed her story up because they saw this happening and she was screaming for help. I know that the jury was selected from the local population and Flint Michigan is majority black, only 2% or so of the population is non-Hispanic white. I would like to assume that a all-black or all-white jury can be fair but in situations like this, if a all-white jury was selected in a case between a black person and a white person then there would be riots over it if the verdict found the black person guilty. I see no reason why an all-black jury in a case between a white person and a black shouldn’t be equally scrutinized if that happened.
I am just pondering here as I don’t know the make up of the jury, I just know that the video is clear as day and something was going on for him to be acquitted. Perhaps the jury was diverse and his money / fame did it? Something smells worse than the lead polluted water in Flint i know that...
I agree. If what you say is true about the demographics of where the jury was pulled from, then that's probably the answer.
I agree. If what you say is true about the demographics of where the jury was pulled from, then that's probably the answer.
I was way off on the demographics actually, Flint is 35% or so non-hispanic white and roughly 60% black. That doesn't mean it was a balanced jury though, the lawyers for Cleaves would be trying to stack the jury in in his favor as much as possible and we don't have anything about the jury other than that it was "9 women and 3 men".
I was way off on the demographics actually, Flint is 35% or so non-hispanic white and roughly 60% black. That doesn't mean it was a balanced jury though, the lawyers for Cleaves would be trying to stack the jury in in his favor as much as possible and we don't have anything about the jury other than that it was "9 women and 3 men".
There was probably a strong pro-black bias in this jury and a strong black sports celebrity bias in the case and jury.
What was the jury thinking? That's very damning evidence. I don't understand how they could acquit him.
What was the jury thinking? They were thinking that Cleaves is an athlete, a great American hero and as such incapable of committing crimes. I am just surprised that the woman wasn't forced to give Cleaves public apology for not enjoying the sex.
That video just fed the stereotype of black males and idiots will use it to justify their hate. Our athletes are pampered and adored, it is small wonder that so many feel that they can get away with anything.
The video shows kidnapping. In addition to what is seen in the video a witness testified that the woman was crying and pleading for help.
Or it shows the forcible restraint of an unstable person (perhaps only temporarily unstable). The forcible restraint and removal to an enclosed area is not inherently kidnapping.
Is this true? I hadn't read that, but this would certainly add another wrinkle to the chain of events.
It's right there on the video when he's dragging her, unwillingly, back to the room.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
