On 28 Feb 2000, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
> The verdict in this trial was not by "our government", but by a jury of
> average Americans who were presented with all the evidence. The decision
> was unanimous, and the jury was racially mixed.
The evidence of which was presented by 'our government'. The jurors were
selected by 'our government'. Both the Prosecution and Defence are
'officers of the court' over and above their duties to their clients.
Further, 'our government' selected those jurors from voting and tax
records most likely. There could have been 'background checks' over and
beyond that in the courtroom jury selection process in order to pre-load
the jury.
Then there is the aspec that by moving the venue they in fact removed any
real 'personal' motivation for the jurors. Had the jury stayed in the
place the crime was commited the people who have to live with those cops
everyday would have had a better say in the kind of neighborhood they have
to live in. Instead they have to live with the results of total strangers
from a completely different geography.
> Which is more likely: that 12 people pulled off the street were all
> facists, or that the media, with all of their biases, presented you,
So much for 'pulled off the street' or more importantly 'a jury of their
peers'...
> Sunder, with an inaccurate depiction of the story? Who do you think had
> more facts about this case, the jury, or you? Who heard all sides of the
> issue, the jury, or you?
Why do you believe the depiction that was presented to the jurors was
accurate and unbiased? What makes you believe all sides were heard? Who
spoke for the dead man entering his home in the evening. Being approached
by 4 men in street clothes. Most likely yelling and screaming as they
pulled their weapons and discharged same. Stopping and talking to these
'officers' should have been the last thing Diallo did. Even the police
understand this, refer to their suggestions to female motorist when
stopped by under-cover police. Only an idiot would suppose that those same
sorts of cautions self-defence should apply to a black man in the
vestibule of his apartment late at night being approached by armed men
claiming to be police officers.
You speak as if this took 10 minutes to expire with plenty of time for
witty reparte', more likely less than 10 seconds.
> How can you be so arrogant to think that you, relying on biased and
> selected information, have a better understanding of this case than
> people who spent hours and days devoted to an intense presentation of
> the evidence?
Arrogance isn't the cause, a base realization of the political realities
of life and the thin blue line.
> The number of bullets is not the issue. As has been discussed here
> before, any firefight involving multiple police officers is going to
> produce a lot of gunfire. Once that first bullet is fired, the decision
> is made to use lethal force. At that point there is no reason to hold
> back, not if the officers want to survive. The only relevant issue is
> whether the first bullet should have been fired. That depends on the
> circumstances, and is the main issue the jury would have been faced with.
The number of bullets does matter and is in fact critical to the
determination of fault in this situation.
Police should under no condition institute a 'hail of bullets'. Not their
job except in old wild west movies.
4 armed trained undercover police officers knowingly stalking a dangerous
suspect. A black man living in a crime infested neighborhood entering his
home late at night.
If you believe this justifies firing 41 bullets off (just imagine the
potential for stray rounds and wounds there). There is in fact no way to
justify firing 41 rounds. A well trained group of 4 officers shouldn't
have fired off more than 3-4 rounds max. There should have been only one
shooter. In addition the danger of the suspect to the populace versus the
impact of 41 rounds flying around a urban neighborhood is apparent to any
but a police abuse apologist.
The reason you hold back in all cases is because you could be wrong.
The police are the employee's, not the rulers.
____________________________________________________________________
The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?
O[rphan] D[rift>]
Cyber Positive
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
