Walter Scott's Killer May Go Free

Michael Slager, the white policeman who shot a black man named Walter Scott after a traffic stop in South Carolina last year, might go free after his trial because there is one person on the jury who seriously think that shooting a man who is not armed and is running away from, not toward, an officer, somehow puts the officer in danger. It appears that we have a juror who either thinks that cops should have open season to shoot whoever they wish, with no accountability, or we have a juror who does not feel that the victim's life had any value because the victim was black. Either way, this juror is a waste of space and oxygen. The judge has ordered the jury to deliberate until Monday, if need be. Court will reconvene then.

This police officer justifies all those who refer to policemen as "pigs". The racist attitude of the juror who feels that he cannot, in good conscience, convict a police officer who simply shoots and kills an unarmed man who is not even facing him, is creating an even bigger problem for America. What this juror is really telling us is that he thinks murder for racist reasons is okey-dokey, as long as no one who looks like him (the juror) is the victim.

 

Michael Slager, the racist pig, depicted above. If he goes free, I think pictures of his enablers and his family should be shared on social media, along with their names. Murder is not okay.

Dylann Storm Roof To Represent Himself

Remember Dylann Storm Roof, the psychotic little racist who murdered nine people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina? His trial was scheduled to start on November 7, but he was sent for a psychiatric evaluation, instead. As it turns out, he is sane enough to go to court and stand trial, so jury selection began yesterday. Young Mr. Roof is facing thirty-three charges, some federal, some state, ranging from hate crimes to murder.

In court yesterday, Mr. Roof told the judge that he would like to discharge his attorneys and represent himself. While appearing in court pro se may be acceptable in uncomplicated civil matters, it is not recommended for criminal trials wherein one faces the death penalty, which Mr. Roof faces. The verdict seems almost a foregone conclusion; he has all but confessed. Is it possible that young Mr. Roof already knows he will probably not like the outcome of his trial, and is already angling for another trial, later on?

Precedence In Case Law To Allow Strangulation?

I was just informed by a rather persistent troll that because of a recent Kansas court case, one in which yours truly was a witness, there is now a precedent to strangle our relatives, friends, and neighbors. My troll is very, very upset because the defendant demanded his right to a trial, presented his case, and won. The charges were false, as nearly as I could tell, from what I witnessed of the incident. A desire to see an innocent man sent to prison is certainly disturbing, but such tends to be the manner of Christianity in the Midwest. The troll has even proposed hosting a party for such violence, offering that it is now legal. Hopefully, this was not a threat.

Precedence in court cases refers to cases in which existing law is interpreted either in a new way, or cases to which the court determines that existing law applies in situations where it traditionally has not applied in the past. This allows new or expanded interpretations of existing law, and sometimes different resulting actions or court orders. The prevailing decision will set a "precedent". All of this is based upon actual law. The laws, themselves, do not change. Crime does not become legal this way.

A decision by a judge or by a jury that a defendant is not guilty of criminal charges does not set a precedent for that crime to become legal. This is where my troll lacks understanding. In a criminal case, the argument is not about whether or not the crime is legal, but about whether or not the defendant actually committed the crime. A verdict of not guilty only serves to absolve the defendant of any false charges, it does not change the law.

The defendant in this case finds it unusual that certain people who had flown under the banner of "friends", mostly employees at the sorry-assed excuse for a local public school in his town, have not congratulated him because he won his case. Even more nauseating are teachers who continue to tell children, including those in close association with the defendant's children, that he is guilty, in spite of the decision by the court was that he is not guilty. These teachers practically climbed over each other to badmouth the defendant before trial, yet upon acquittal, refuse to apologize or tell all to whom they have unjustly gossiped that they were wrong. The superintendent was unaware of the court's decision until recently. Shouldn't these Christian teachers, who never miss an opportunity to force their religion on others, admit they made a mistake and try to amend all the damage they have done? Or does Jesus only initiate assholes to join his petty and ridicules churches?

Folks In Topeka Upset By Due Process

Troy Allen Robinson is on trial in Shawnee County, Kansas for the stabbing of Oma Shannon Bennett in December of 2012. Recently, it was discovered that his defense attorney had a conflict of interest inasmuch as this case is concerned, and needed to bow out. Robinson now has a new defense attorney. Robinson's next court date is November 8, for a status hearing. All things considered, even the conflict of interest and the appointment of a new attorney, this is rather quick for a trial in which the defendant is charged with first degree murder.

Oma Shannon Bennett

It seems that there is a lot of angst among those who support instant gratification in terms of emotionally responsive justice for this murder victim. That is understandable, from a "feelings" related viewpoint, yet; actual justice cannot be administered in a quick manner simply to gratify the feelings of an angry mob. From the scant bit of information available about this case, there are two apparent problems; first, the evidence which led to the arrest, and second, the amount of preparation involved, connected to this case, prior to court dates in the past.

Local media in Kansas has not reported very much about the evidence that led to Robinson's arrest for murder. By all appearances, it seems that the police in Riley County arrested Robinson because of some statements he made to a third party, specifically, his mother, about having been involved in a crime. While this can probably be introduced during a motions hearing in a pinch, as circumstantial evidence, it is only hearsay. Without more solid evidence, an arrest warrant should not even have been granted. If that is truly all the prosecution has, and it should be hoped that it isn't, there is not much by which to actually connect the defendant to the crime. A guilty verdict under these circumstances could easily lead to a vacated decision or an appeal. It is important that justice be practiced according to the law, not mob mentality.

The second problem which does not appear completely understood by the courtroom crybabies is the need for all legal professionals involved in trying or hearing a case to be impartial. A conflict of interest in a criminal case, on the part of the judge, defense attorney, or the prosecuting attorney can lead to an improper verdict, either guilty or not guilty, and pervert justice. If either attorney, upon review of the facts pertinent to the case, discovers a conflict, the only professional thing to do is ask to be recused. After a new attorney is appointed, that attorney should be granted ample time to prepare the case or prepare the appropriate responses. Everyone is entitled to justice, not only those who can afford the most expensive private lawyers.

Has a motive been established for this murder?

 

 

The Marysville Advocate, The Nice Newspaper

There was a jury trial that lasted all day in Marysville, yesterday. The defendant, Keith Henry, was found not guilty on all charges. Since a jury trial is rather unusual in Marshall County, how come the Marysville Advocate has not given this much notice? There are always headlines in the Advocate when a defendant loses; why not when Justice speaks by exonerating someone who is not guilty? In fact, why isn't there ever much coverage of anything controversial in the Marysville Advocate? From the Keystone Pipeline to one of the school districts on the verge of losing financial solvency, (USD 380) there are certainly enough "good" topics involving Marshall County and Northeast Kansas about which to begin a constructive conversation. Instead, the Marysville Advocate only publishes articles about subjects that are "nice", and won't stir up much of a reaction from it's readers.

Yaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwn! Are Nice and Good the same thing? 

The staff at the Marysville Advocate should be ashamed of their willingness to smear an innocent person and let the truth go unheralded when that person is exonerated by a jury of his peers. Reporting when the county prosecutor gets her posterior parts handed to her on a platter actually makes better reading than the redundant guilty verdicts, and would serve to force the prosecutor to be more honest and professional and less likely to play on the internet all day.

Congratulations, Keith!

George Zimmerman Is Scared Of Vigilante Justice

George Zimmerman has been found not guilty of the second degree murder of Trayvon Martin in Florida, and now he is worried about vigilante justice. Why didn't he worry about vigilante justice before he confronted Martin? The media has covered a lot of material today about the verdict in the trial, and about possible riots, and racism, but there remains one question does not appear to have been properly answered by Zimmerman, or by anyone else. That question is, why didn't Zimmerman just leave Martin alone and stop following him when the police dispatcher told him to stop? George Zimmerman is not a police officer, and often enough, civilians who interfere with police officers, or even look like they might be thinking about interfering with police officers but have not actually done so, get arrested and/or shot, so why did Zimmerman think he was special the night of the shooting? That question was not properly revisited during the trial, and if Zimmerman had simply done what law enforcement asked him to do, Martin would still be alive.

Now that Zimmerman has been found not guilty, he should be getting back to work, which is probably a good thing, because there is plenty of ground for a wrongful death suit to be filed, against the gated community where Martin was staying with his father, the neighborhood watch that chose Zimmerman in the first place, and George Zimmerman, himself. The guidelines for proof are not as stringent in civil court as they are in criminal court, and there is a good chance that a defendant may be found responsible for wrongful death in civil court. That would mean that a good paying job would be essential, especially of the defendant is Zimmerman. Hopefully, vigilante justice will not play as heavy of a role in the future as it apparently did on the night a seventeen year old accidently looked like someone a neighborhood watch dude might not like.

Meanwhile, here is another matter that Florida should reopen: