Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-06-2010, 05:52 PM
 
563 posts, read 518,141 times
Reputation: 217

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic View Post
That's an interesting point, but unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, or someone who is interested in debating the application of criminal law.

What I do know is that rioters or looters don't adhere to any logic besides chaos, and destruction.
Not asking about the applications, but just as someone who may live near or in the area.....or put yourself on a jury whether it is this or something similar. If the defendant were guilty and the trend for people in the area is to loot stores and vandalize things, would you vote the defendant guilty even if he is not for the sake of stopping the violence or preventing it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2010, 08:21 PM
 
Location: THE USA
3,257 posts, read 6,118,750 times
Reputation: 1998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Storm View Post
If the defendant were guilty and the trend for people in the area is to loot stores and vandalize things, would you vote the defendant guilty even if he is not for the sake of stopping the violence or preventing it?
No, I would always vote my conscience on a jury trial. Even if I was the lone hold-out. I am not one to be swayed by fear or peer pressure. Everyone should vote what they REALLY think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2010, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Metro Phoenix
11,048 posts, read 16,814,482 times
Reputation: 12949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2 View Post
No, I would always vote my conscience on a jury trial. Even if I was the lone hold-out. I am not one to be swayed by fear or peer pressure. Everyone should vote what they REALLY think.
If I was the lone dissenter, I'd certainly be willing to listen to all the arguments that anyone else on the jury used to justify their opinion and give them serious gravity. My dad was on a murder trial, and said that it was one of the most difficult things he's done, up to and including fighting a war. I don't envy anyone who's in such a position. The case he was on was one where a girl murdered a guy who picked her up, and even though she admitted it, they trotted out her background and he really felt bad for her... there were a couple women on the jury with him who wanted to let her walk, basically because a) her childhood sucked and b) the guy she killed was a sleazeball. They ultimately were able to reconcile these facts with what they were tasked with (i.e., whether or not she murdered the man for his car and money), found her guilty, and suggested life in prison due to her total lack of remorse.

I don't envy the jurors in the case at all. I, personally, have handed down a personal verdict of "guilty" for Mehserle based on what I've seen and what I know of the case. If everyone else was saying "not guilty," I'd have to listen to their rationale and give it serious weight, even if I ultimately didn't side with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 03:42 AM
 
563 posts, read 518,141 times
Reputation: 217
Thank you. Those are very honest answers. I would just hate to see a jury deliver a verdict based on what some people may or may not do to a city if they don't get their way. Serving on a jury is probably one of the most important duties one can do outside of serving in the military.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Mission Viejo, CA / San Rafael, CA
2,352 posts, read 5,245,069 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Storm View Post
Not asking about the applications, but just as someone who may live near or in the area.....or put yourself on a jury whether it is this or something similar. If the defendant were guilty and the trend for people in the area is to loot stores and vandalize things, would you vote the defendant guilty even if he is not for the sake of stopping the violence or preventing it?
I'm not here to debate the morality of "The Greater Good". Wars have been fought for such ideas, and in the end it's all gray anyway. Unless you're the religious type, no one really cares.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 01:09 PM
 
Location: THE USA
3,257 posts, read 6,118,750 times
Reputation: 1998
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k View Post
I don't envy the jurors in the case at all. I, personally, have handed down a personal verdict of "guilty" for Mehserle based on what I've seen and what I know of the case. If everyone else was saying "not guilty," I'd have to listen to their rationale and give it serious weight, even if I ultimately didn't side with them.

I think it is involuntary manslaughter. I personally believe he made a mistake. But is guilty because he really shouldn't have been at work if he was distracted regarding the babies birth AND he should have better ability to remain calm and not get confused with the taser/gun.

My friend tried a case regarding a taser and cop who got confused and the officer was found not guilty.
This isn't the first time it happened, but since this is a black vs. white issue according to the activist, the DA is pursuing it.

Madera Tribune (http://www.maderatribune.com/news/newsview.asp?c=56821 - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 03:30 PM
 
563 posts, read 518,141 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic View Post
I'm not here to debate the morality of "The Greater Good". Wars have been fought for such ideas, and in the end it's all gray anyway. Unless you're the religious type, no one really cares.
I think you are reading wayyyyy too much into what I am asking. Religion has nothing to do with this. Simple question, should a jury vote a certain way, even if it is the wrong verdict so the people do not riot?

Kind of a simple question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Mission Viejo, CA / San Rafael, CA
2,352 posts, read 5,245,069 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Storm View Post
I think you are reading wayyyyy too much into what I am asking. Religion has nothing to do with this. Simple question, should a jury vote a certain way, even if it is the wrong verdict so the people do not riot?

Kind of a simple question.
You're debating wrong and right. You think it's absolute, which means you are either misunderstanding your own question, or you simply don't know that morality is about perspective. That viewpoint is often looked upon as "immature" in academic circles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 04:32 PM
 
563 posts, read 518,141 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic View Post
You're debating wrong and right. You think it's absolute, which means you are either misunderstanding your own question, or you simply don't know that morality is about perspective. That viewpoint is often looked upon as "immature" in academic circles.
Let me simplify the question for you. Lets take this case. The facts are what they are. For a moment, lets assume the defendant is Not Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In everyones mind the state does not prove their case and everyone agrees he is Not Guilty.

But, everyone knows if they deliver that verdict, there could be looting and violence based on past trends.

So we know 2 things, everyone thinks he is not guilty and there has been violence in the past.

Do you change your verdict based on that and that alone?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Mission Viejo, CA / San Rafael, CA
2,352 posts, read 5,245,069 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Storm View Post
Let me simplify the question for you. Lets take this case. The facts are what they are. For a moment, lets assume the defendant is Not Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In everyones mind the state does not prove their case and everyone agrees he is Not Guilty.

But, everyone knows if they deliver that verdict, there could be looting and violence based on past trends.

So we know 2 things, everyone thinks he is not guilty and there has been violence in the past.

Do you change your verdict based on that and that alone?
Sorry Tommy, you're constructing a false dichotomy. That type of argument has no value to me. Sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top