Batman wrote on Sep 30
th, 2002 at 9:45pm:
Even though we would like to look upon our jury system as being the best (and it very well may be), the truth is most juries are manned by idiots who couldn't find thier asses with both hands if they had directions.
Here is quintessential bm-- disdain for all who do not think, act, or are employed like him.
Since by law juries consist of a random cross-section of the populace (one's peers) what 'batman' is really saying is that we are ALL idiots, and that he holds the very people who employ him in lowest regard. His utter contempt for the Constitutionally-mandated jury system means he also is an oath-breaking malcontent, as he attacks here the very system he has sworn to protect and defend. Is it any wonder I have long disimissed his acerbic, foul, unprofessional attacks on me?
Quote:If anyone thinks a jury, even with a judge's instructions, could comprehend the fact that it is legal for a law enforcement officer to deceive a subject in an interrogation, then they're dumb enough to qualify to be on a jury!
So what you're saying is, the law cannot be interpreted intelligently by the lay person. If that's the case, how can a 'lay defendant' interpret it? After all, unless one of your fellow prosecutors or leos are on trial, wouldn't they too be too stupid-- i.e., 'incompetent') to stand trial?
Fortunately, as a law enforcement officer, you have NO SAY in how a jury arrives at its verdict. The proper and essential role of a jury is to apply the common sense and conscience of the community to the question of whether government is running roughshod over the rights of the individual -- a decision which no fewer than three articles of the Bill of Rights assure us shall never be left up to the sole discretion of some government-salaried judge and CERTAINLY not by you.
You complain we're all idiots bm... The sad fact is that current
voir dire procedures and jury oaths verge on jury-stacking, by screening out those who might represent the conscience of the community by refusing to enforce bad or misapplied laws -- just as the Salem witchcraft trials and later prosecutions under the infamous Fugitive Slave Act were finally ended by randomly selected juries that simply refused to enforce those bad laws. (For those of you who don't know what 'voire dire' means, it's the lengthy process in which judges and prosecutors stack our modern juries to make sure no one who disagrees with the government is allowed to be seated.)
Here is something I have no doubt you have never, ever read 'batman':
"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or ... for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."-- U.S. vs. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1006
Or how about this, have you ever read this?
[the jury] has an unreviewable and irreversible power ... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge ... The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge. Most often commended are the 18th century acquittal of Peter Zenger of seditious libel, on the plea of Andrew Hamilton, and the 19th century acquittals in prosecutions under the fugitive slave law."-- U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1139
<snip OJ rant>
Quote:So the reason we don't record all interrogations is simply that juries for the most part are made up of idiots. Like it or not, that is the way it is. Attornies on both sides know this, Law Enforcement Officers know this, and judges know this. It seems the only ones who don't know this are the Bozo's on this site who believe we should be taping every interview and interrogation.
A good criminal defense attorney, upon reading your above spittle-ridden diatribe, would subpoena IP Logs, identify you, and then forever after-- whenever you testified from now until you were fired from your job, submit same for the jury's consideration.