• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI to Examine Kelly Thomas Trial Evidence After Officers' Acquittals

Summerwind

Hot Flash Mama
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
11,010
Reaction score
5,149
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Hours after two former police officers were acquitted of all charges in the 2011 beating death of a homeless man at a Fullerton, Calif., transit station, the FBI announced Monday it would examine evidence in the trial to see if further investigation is needed.(snip)
"In 2011, the FBI opened an investigation to determine if Mr. Thomas' civil rights were violated during the altercation with Fullerton police officers. With the conclusion of the state court trial, investigators will examine the evidence and testimony to determine if further investigation is warranted at the federal level," FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said in a statement to NBC4.
FBI to Examine Kelly Thomas Trial Evidence After Officers' Acquittals | NBC Southern California

Y'know, I got to thinkin'. Why wasn't there a change of venue? I mean, if I'm on the jury and I'm a Fullerton citizen, I'd be hard pressed to find cops or their ex-associates guilty of much as I would fear repercussions. i

Anyway, I'll be interested to see what the FBI comes up with. At least it's not entirely over quite yet.
 
I find the jury system to be rubbish in the first place.

"Hey! Let`s let a bunch of strangers who have no clue what law and order is about and who are filled with personal bias decide over the fate of a person."

We have a pannel system consisting of several judges.
 
I find the jury system to be rubbish in the first place. "Hey! Let`s let a bunch of strangers who have no clue what law and order is about and who are filled with personal bias decide over the fate of a person." We have a pannel system consisting of several judges.
Depending on how judges are installed, election or appointment or other, that would seem a bit smarter. Though, again depending on the selection criteria for judges corruption between police and judges isn't exactly unheard of.
 
Depending on how judges are installed, election or appointment or other, that would seem a bit smarter. Though, again depending on the selection criteria for judges corruption between police and judges isn't exactly unheard of.

It is unheard of here. There is probably hardly a place in the world that has less corruption than Nort Western Europe. The only thing that partialy comes up are false convictions, but only partialy since I only know of 1 occurance in the past 20 years.
 
FBI to Examine Kelly Thomas Trial Evidence After Officers' Acquittals | NBC Southern California

Y'know, I got to thinkin'. Why wasn't there a change of venue? I mean, if I'm on the jury and I'm a Fullerton citizen, I'd be hard pressed to find cops or their ex-associates guilty of much as I would fear repercussions. i

Anyway, I'll be interested to see what the FBI comes up with. At least it's not entirely over quite yet.


Why would the defense want to do that?

I could see many people afraid to go against those officers.
 
FBI to Examine Kelly Thomas Trial Evidence After Officers' Acquittals | NBC Southern California

Y'know, I got to thinkin'. Why wasn't there a change of venue? I mean, if I'm on the jury and I'm a Fullerton citizen, I'd be hard pressed to find cops or their ex-associates guilty of much as I would fear repercussions. i

Anyway, I'll be interested to see what the FBI comes up with. At least it's not entirely over quite yet.



Mornin' SW.
hat.gif
I am glad you got this up. No sooner was the verdict read off about these Cops being found not guilty. The FBI jumped Right on it and says it will investigate.

I listened to the Cops attorneys. They kept saying there was other evidence besides the video and that the video made it the incident look more horrible than it was. Problem with that lame excuse was all the people at the Bus terminal that took pics with their phones. Which many of them weren't allowed to even be witnesses.

Also the other problem with that.....was Thomas' face. The wound were done by blows to the face. Which has nothing to do with restraining anyone.
 
investigators will examine the evidence and testimony to determine if further investigation is warranted at the federal level,
:doh iLOL
Wow! an investigation to see if further investigation is warranted. Do folks not understand what is being said?

They can investigate all they want. The only thing they could possibly charge any of the cops with is a violation of Kelly's Civil liberties.
And that would be a hell of a stretch to make.
 
I find the jury system to be rubbish in the first place.

"Hey! Let`s let a bunch of strangers who have no clue what law and order is about and who are filled with personal bias decide over the fate of a person."

We have a pannel system consisting of several judges.

I wouldn't trade our justice system for yours.
 
I find the jury system to be rubbish in the first place.

"Hey! Let`s let a bunch of strangers who have no clue what law and order is about and who are filled with personal bias decide over the fate of a person."

We have a pannel system consisting of several judges.

Spoken by someone who has absolutely no clue how the jury process works.m

Ignorance is truly bliss.
 
It is unheard of here. There is probably hardly a place in the world that has less corruption than Nort Western Europe. The only thing that partialy comes up are false convictions, but only partialy since I only know of 1 occurance in the past 20 years.

Yea, Germany has such a wonderful history of supporting civil rights and always doing what is right for people.
 
Spoken by someone who has absolutely no clue how the jury process works.m

Ignorance is truly bliss.

Then explain what is so absolutly perfect about letting a bunch of know-nothings decide who is guilty or not?

Explain what a jury in a blue state like California may think of someone accused of white collar crime, or what a jury in Mississipi may think of a black defendant?

Yea, Germany has such a wonderful history of supporting civil rights and always doing what is right for people.

Yeah indeed, up to 1945 we had our faults. But we regret them and made our guilt part of our identety.

Now this picture here:

Bigot.jpg


Was made during the 1960s.

Now tell me how your country treats the legacy of that time below the mason dixon line?
 
Then explain what is so absolutly perfect about letting a bunch of know-nothings decide who is guilty or not?

Explain what a jury in a blue state like California may think of someone accused of white collar crime, or what a jury in Mississipi may think of a black defendant?



Yeah indeed, up to 1945 we had our faults. But we regret them and made our guilt part of our identety.

Now this picture here:

Bigot.jpg


Was made during the 1960s.

Now tell me how your country treats the legacy of that time below the mason dixon line?

Never used the word perfect.

Spend some time educating yourself regarding the jury system and get back to me.

Yea, you had your faults alright.

It's called genocide.
 
I bet alot of criminals in your country who got away with crimes would agree.

I think we see here why a jury system is so important. You all have judges that'll make the call based on public demand and outcry. Might as well have trial by popular election.
 
Never used the word perfect.

Nope, but you were clearly posing as if you had somewhat of a highground, but.........

Spend some time educating yourself regarding the jury system and get back to me.

....... you clearly dont, since you are unwilling to defend you position.

Yea, you had your faults alright.

It's called genocide.

And we feel sorry for it and regret it.

Now what did you do when african americans were murdered for protesting for civil rights and how do you feel about it today even if you didnt live back then?
 
I think we see here why a jury system is so important. You all have judges that'll make the call based on public demand and outcry. Might as well have trial by popular election.

A jury is more likely to follow public demand, public outcry, political conformism and bias since it`s a unch of citizens who do not have to live their professional life being aware of the objectiveism that is mandetory in a justice system.
 
Never used the word perfect.

Funny that he implies you did when it's him that seems to believe his judges to be near perfect.
 
Nope, but you were clearly posing as if you had somewhat of a highground, but.........



....... you clearly dont, since you are unwilling to defend you position.



And we feel sorry for it and regret it.

Now what did you do when african americans were murdered for protesting for civil rights and how do you feel about it today even if you didnt live back then?

Nowhere near 6,000,000.

It is not my job to educate the ignorant.
 
Nowhere near 6,000,000.

You are deliberatly talking arround the point to miss the issue in question which is: What did you learn out of your history?

It is not my job to educate the ignorant.

What a pathetic excuse. What is the point of entering a debate if one is unwilling to defend ones position.
 
A jury is more likely to follow public demand, public outcry, political conformism and bias since it`s a unch of citizens who do not have to live their professional life being aware of the objectiveism that is mandetory in a justice system.

Really? You need to make up your mind. On one hand, you're saying jurors are more likely to walk criminals but now you're saying they're more likely to convict. Can't have it both ways. If your system of justice is such that you know the outcome before there ever is a trial then you might was well not bother with a trial.
 
Really? You need to make up your mind. On one hand, you're saying jurors are more likely to walk criminals but now you're saying they're more likely to convict. Can't have it both ways. If your system of justice is such that you know the outcome before there ever is a trial then you might was well not bother with a trial.

I can have it both ways by simply sumerising: A jury is more likely to make unobjective, unjust and unreasonable decisions.

Like I said before, it`s a bunch of amatures.

ps: If you reply to this post I will request a mod to splitt the thread.
 
You are deliberatly talking arround the point to miss the issue in question which is: What did you learn out of your history?



What a pathetic excuse. What is the point of entering a debate if one is unwilling to defend ones position.

There is no need for me to defend anything since you are clueless about the US legal system.

Same reason there is no point in discussing physics with a toddler.

No point in wasting time with ignorant folks who refuse to educate themselves.

I suppose that I should also attend college and acquire a degree for you also, right?

Not going to happen.
 
I can have it both ways by simply sumerising: A jury is more likely to make unobjective, unjust and unreasonable decisions.

Like I said before, it`s a bunch of amatures.

ps: If you reply to this post I will request a mod to splitt the thread.

More unfettered ignorance.
 
Imperfect as it is, I still believe in the jury system. The problem with a panel of judges is that having the same jury pool trial after trial leads itself to bribery.

The one panel of judges we have called the supreme court are bribed by political parties.
 
There is no need for me to defend anything since you are clueless about the US legal system.

Oh I do know that a jury consists of strangers randomly picked from the public.

You simply refuse to show how that is in any way right.

Same reason there is no point in discussing physics with a toddler.

Pathetic comparision since a todler does not even have the capacity of learning anything.

No point in wasting time with ignorant folks who refuse to educate themselves.

I speak 2 languages and will be going to uni soon after finishing some jobs to have some starting money.

And what could you teach me? How to pick cotton? Do mud wrestling? Dance to country music?

I suppose that I should also attend college and acquire a degree for you also, right?

There are colleges that accept people like you? I doubt it.

Not going to happen.

Na. You simply dont have anything to defend your point.
 
Back
Top Bottom