Culpeper shooting

[twoskinsonemanns]

and therein lies the problem - We cannot decide guilt or innocence based on morals.

I can

If he was truly tried by a jury of his "peers" - law enforcement officers - he would have never been found guilty, imho.

Although I don't believe your implication that a peer must share the same occupation is correct I'm sure you are 100% right about the verdict if the jury were made up of cops.

 

[skidmark]

...

If he was truly tried by a jury of his "peers" - law enforcement officers - he would have never been found guilty, imho.

Do we really need a history lesson on the meaning of "a jury of one's peers"? (Both originally and as it has come to mean)

Or if there is even a right to a jury "of one's peers"? (There is not! Go read Amendment VI. It's pretty clear.)

http://www.policestar.com/kimery/JuryOfYourPeers.htm

We often hear that the defendant is guaranteed a jury of his peers. The Magna Carta guaranteed a jury of one's peers. In Britain, a peer is a member of the nobility.

We tend to think of our peers as those of similar social standing.

It does not mean a jury composed of those exactly like the defendant, in spite what the cited article states.

stay safe.

 

[ProShooter]

Do we really need a history lesson on the meaning of "a jury of one's peers"? (Both originally and as it has come to mean)

Or if there is even a right to a jury "of one's peers"? (There is not! Go read Amendment VI. It's pretty clear.)

http://www.policestar.com/kimery/JuryOfYourPeers.htm



It does not mean a jury composed of those exactly like the defendant, in spite what the cited article states.

stay safe.

Whatever phrasing you'd like to use - I believe that if 12 law enforcement officers heard the evidence, they could imagine themselves acting similarly and within the scope of their training, and he'd be found not guility.....and not due to any "thin blue line" theory.

 

[MAC702]

Well, they sure as hell wouldn't have "held him to a higher standard."

 

[Grapeshot]

Jury of "peers" means different things to different people apparently, nobility not withstanding.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1079

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/jury-of-one's-peers-term.html

"The 6[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The phrase "jury of one's peers" is not included in the Amendment, however, the courts interpret peer to mean equal, i.e., the jury pool must include a cross section of the population of the community in terms of gender, race, and national origin. The jury selection process must not exclude or intentionally narrow any particular group of people."
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/do-you-have-a-right-to-a-jury-of-your-peers

 

[marshaul]

and therein lies the problem - We cannot decide guilt or innocence based on morals. It should be based upon law. If you don't like the law, effect change to fix the law.

This attitude is utterly inimical to a free society based on a common law. Each man must be (and indeed is) free to judge the justice (i.e. morality) of each law at the time of application.

Otherwise just scrap the jury system and let judges rubber stamp every execution-by-cop-without-due-process.

Or maybe we can implement what you'd clearly like, wherein cops get to give each other the free pass. It's not like that would engender any massive conflicts of interest or anything.

 

[ProShooter]

Otherwise just scrap the jury system and let judges rubber stamp every execution-by-cop-without-due-process.

This was hardly a case of execution-by-cop

Or maybe we can implement what you'd clearly like, wherein cops get to give each other the free pass. .

No one wants a free pass. Show me a dirty cop, and I'll help tie the noose. Law enforcement is unique. I don't believe that someone can judge the actions of LE in situations like this unless they've done the job. That's my opinion, and its worth every bit of what you paid for it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

This was hardly a case of execution-by-cop



No one wants a free pass. Show me a dirty cop, and I'll help tie the noose. Law enforcement is unique. I don't believe that someone can judge the actions of LE in situations like this unless they've done the job. That's my opinion, and its worth every bit of what you paid for it.

UM no thanks. I think the public has the absolute right to judge this job, after all its their funds being stolen for it.


That's a pretty big list and a lot of rope you really want to go there?

 

[OC for ME]

This was hardly a case of execution-by-cop

No one wants a free pass. Show me a dirty cop, and I'll help tie the noose. Law enforcement is unique. I don't believe that someone can judge the actions of LE in situations like this unless they've done the job. That's my opinion, and its worth every bit of what you paid for it.

Since the jury got it wrong then Harmon is/was not a "dirty" cop. Though, dirty is the wrong term. How about law breaking cop? Many citizens, none that I know of, enjoy QI. I do not enjoy exemptions in the laws for cop misbehavior. Case in point, the California cop who ran down and killed a cyclist due to he being distracted while using his cruiser's laptop computer. No criminal charges for distracted driving cuz, no criminal charges for vehicular homicide, in CA cops are exempt if they are distracted while conducting official business and then injure or kill a citizen. Free passes are built into the law. Free p[asses are buttressed by case law.

 

[peter nap]

UM no thanks. I think the public has the absolute right to judge this job, after all its their funds being stolen for it.


That's a pretty big list and a lot of rope you really want to go there?

He's been there gunner. He has the Tshirt.

 

[MAC702]

...I don't believe that someone can judge the actions of LE in situations like this unless they've done the job. That's my opinion, and its worth every bit of what you paid for it.

That is some of the most elitist BS I've ever heard, and a root of the overall problem.

If true, then how can cops judge us? They don't do our job...

 

[Grapeshot]

Was Forum Rule #6 deleted?........nope it is still in effect.

 

[ProShooter]

That is some of the most elitist BS I've ever heard, and a root of the overall problem.

If true, then how can cops judge us? They don't do our job...

Its not elitist at all. We're talking about a line of work unlike most.

Its difficult to find a similar example, but let's use a doctor. During open heart surgery, a doctor chooses procedure A instead of procedure B or C....based on his training, experience and the situation at hand. The patient dies. Who would best understand the circumstances and reasons for doing what he did better than another doctor?

I think that anyone with a LE background, who was in that officer's shoes can agree that although tragic, his actions were not out of line with what he was presented with and what his training and experience told him to do. Trust me, I don't like cops who break the rules anymore than anyone else....but after hearing all of the info, I don't think that this officer was out of line in his thought process at the moment.

 

[ProShooter]

I do not enjoy exemptions in the laws for cop misbehavior. Case in point, the California cop who ran down and killed a cyclist due to he being distracted while using his cruiser's laptop computer. No criminal charges for distracted driving cuz, no criminal charges for vehicular homicide, in CA cops are exempt if they are distracted while conducting official business and then injure or kill a citizen. Free passes are built into the law. Free p[asses are buttressed by case law.

I haven't heard of that situation, but I don't like the sound of it either. If cops are exempt from that while using their on board computer, then that is a terrible law and should be changed.

 

[solus]

Its not elitist at all. We're talking about a line of work unlike most.

Its difficult to find a similar example, but let's use a doctor. During open heart surgery, a doctor chooses procedure A instead of procedure B or C....based on his training, experience and the situation at hand. The patient dies. Who would best understand the circumstances and reasons for doing what he did better than another doctor?

I think that anyone with a LE background, who was in that officer's shoes can agree that although tragic, his actions were not out of line with what he was presented with and what his training and experience told him to do. Trust me, I don't like cops who break the rules anymore than anyone else....but after hearing all of the info, I don't think that this officer was out of line in his thought process at the moment.

so your premise is the totally biased fox watching the hen house is the only viable entity capable of discerning who is guilty? so the aeroline pilot who crashed their aerocraft in the French alps killing all souls aboard can only be judged by his peers...specifically other aeroline pilots? following your incredible line of thinking, bernie madoff could only be judged by his millionaire peers for his ponzi schemes or the Nurnberg trials therefore were not valid because, while heralded as military tribunals, civilians served as judges over the proceedings not Nazis' soldiers or other military adjudicators?

I am sure the these peer groups would certainly find the individuals of each of the references above situations, while tragic: with lost souls, or financially devastated individuals who lost their life savings, or those who lost entire families due to the activities of the camps, that their actions were not out of line!!

so Pro, when, heaven forbid, I use my firearm in SD, i want the judge, prosecutor ,and everyone on the jury (grand and seated) to have exactly the same experience under their belt as they try me for whatever crime someone believes i have committed cuz to your theory, they are the only ones who have walked in my shoes!!

ipse

http://www.businessinsider.com/poli...harged-in-killing-of-napster-executive-2014-8

 

[Grapeshot]

so your premise is the totally biased fox watching the hen house is the only viable entity capable of discerning who is guilty? so the aeroline pilot who crashed their aerocraft in the French alps killing all souls aboard can only be judged by his peers...specifically other aeroline pilots? following your incredible line of thinking, bernie madoff could only be judged by his millionaire peers for his ponzi schemes or the Nurnberg trials therefore were not valid because, while heralded as military tribunals, civilians served as judges over the proceedings not Nazis' soldiers or other military adjudicators?

I am sure the these peer groups would certainly find the individuals of each of the references above situations, while tragic: with lost souls, or financially devastated individuals who lost their life savings, or those who lost entire families due to the activities of the camps, that their actions were not out of line!!

so Pro, when, heaven forbid, I use my firearm in SD, i want the judge, prosecutor ,and everyone on the jury (grand and seated) to have exactly the same experience under their belt as they try me for whatever crime someone believes i have committed cuz to your theory, they are the only ones who have walked in my shoes!!

ipse

http://www.businessinsider.com/poli...harged-in-killing-of-napster-executive-2014-8

Me thinks "peer" doesn't mean at all what you think - has been discussed and defined earlier in this thread - see posts 2375 & 2378.

 

[Grapeshot]

I'm left handed. I don't want any right handed jurors judging me. They just don't understand what I have to go through each day. I also have blue eyes; jury pool is getting smaller.

Go to the shallow end :lol:

 

[solus]

Me thinks "peer" doesn't mean at all what you think - has been discussed and defined earlier in this thread - see posts 2375 & 2378.

sorry grape, et al., but Pro specifically mentioned:
1. doctors who cause a loss of life... quote Who would best understand the circumstances and reasons for doing what he did better than another doctor? unquote

2. police officer who cause a loss of life... quote anyone with a LE background, who was in that officer's shoes can agree that although tragic, his actions were not out of line with what he was presented with and what his training and experience told him to do. unquote

quote: a person who belongs to the same age group or social group as someone else unquote http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer

therefore, it appears, Pro is still of the opinion the ONLY people who can affect a viable decision on guilt are those individuals who are within their sphere of peers! all I was pointing out other hyperbole instances I am sure as Gutshot's post was intended.

ipse

 

[ProShooter]

so the aeroline pilot who crashed their aerocraft in the French alps killing all souls aboard can only be judged by his peers...specifically other aeroline pilots?

That's not a comparable example. That was a suicidal person who just happened to be flying a plane at the time that he decided to kill himself. Now, if you were talking about something, like making a decision regarding landing with no wheels, then that would be comparable.

so Pro, when, heaven forbid, I use my firearm in SD, i want the judge, prosecutor ,and everyone on the jury (grand and seated) to have exactly the same experience under their belt as they try me for whatever crime someone believes i have committed cuz to your theory, they are the only ones who have walked in my shoes!!

YES! Great example. If you had to use your gun in self-defense, don't you want your actions judged by 12 people who also had to use a gun in self-defense? Aren't they most likely to understand the reasonableness of deadly force?

 

[solus]

That's not a comparable example. That was a suicidal person who just happened to be flying a plane at the time that he decided to kill himself. Now, if you were talking about something, like making a decision regarding landing with no wheels, then that would be comparable.

sorry pro, based on your own post's comments, you apparently are not actually qualified and therefore, not capable to dismiss my example about the aeroline pilot's mental health as only another pilot would of course have the appropriate understanding to judge the mental aspects of other pilots!

ipse