The problem with thinking that there is some sort of justice in monetary awards is that it is the taxpayers paying that $3 million. The police pay nothing. We continue to pay the police handsomely for this and other unreasonable abuses of authority. And families of murder victims never have “closure.”
You expect the transparency out of the police departments? NYC area people should remember Steve Anderson, the detective who turned in fellow officers for planting drugs on (mostly AA) people during their stop-and-frisk encounters in order to justify the practice and meet unofficial quotas, and Adrian Schoolcraft, the officer who secretly recorded internal conversations. Both have had their lives destroyed for daring to speak up and continue to be vilified.
Please, someone find me five white equivalents to Abner Louima, then we can discuss equal treatment.
So taxpayers pay into a risk pool that pays out when officers screw up, but somehow we are supposed to believe that means that “No taxpayer money will be used…”.
The point is that they do have insurance to cover this type of situation. Like the presumably do for other risks. As does pretty much any entity/organization. And yes, premiums are paid with taxpayer funds. What is the alternative?
Ramsey County is Saint Paul, not Minneapolis which is in Hennepin County. People in Saint Paul don’t appreciate being labeled “part of Minneapolis.” There’s a reason they’re called the Twin Cities.
It don’t think you can assume the jury was “very liberal” just because the county votes overwhelmingly Democratic. There certainly are many liberal Democrats here but there are also many centrist and even conservative Democrats, especially on so-called “law and order” issues. Including a lot of “blue lives matter” folks who generally seem to assume the police can do no wrong and that people complaining about excessive use of deadly force either had it coming or are just making it up. Besides, even if a majority of the county is “very liberal” (which I doubt), a jury of 12 is just too small a sample to assume its views represent those of the populace as a whole. Finally, in my experience even many people who would call themselves “very liberal” and strenuously deny that they are racists carry their own implicit racial biases.
That said, I’m not sure whether or how much implicit racial bias played a role in the jury’s deliberations. The standard for convicting a police officer is just incredibly high in Minnesota. And the jury may have been confused as to what “beyond reasonable doubt” means in the context of a criminal trial. One juror told the media afterwards that because they didn’t have indisputable visual evidence that Philando Castile had not “pulled out” his gun as the officer claimed on the witness stand, they couldn’t convict because they still had “reasonable doubt” on that point. Apparently this juror was saying there was no video showing them what went on inside the car before the shooting: the police dashcam video showed only what went on outside the car, and Diamond Reynolds’ video began after the shooting and according to the juror was partially obscured by the car’s armrest. But if you need indisputable video evidence—like the NFL standard for overturning a call by an official—in order to convict, then it would be almost impossible to convict anyone.of almost any crime. I think they had ample evidence to discredit the officer’s claim that Philando had pulled a gun, inter alia because the gun was found buried deep inside Philando’s pocket (not drawn) by other officers arriving on the scene after the shooting; because Philando himself said “I’m not going for it” before being shot, and again after being shot said “I wasn’t going for it”; because Diamond Reynolds, sitting right next to Philando told the officer before the shooting “He’s not going for it” and testified later that he was reaching for his wallet, not for his gun; because the gun wasn’t loaded and therefore Philando would have no reason to brandish it unless his intent was suicide; and because the officer himself can be heard clearly on the police dashcam recording in the immediate aftermath of the shooting saying, “I didn’t know where the gun was,” which flatly contradicts his own later self-serving statement that he “saw a gun” that Philando had “pulled out.”
Oh, and juries do sometimes get it wrong, notwithstanding all you say about how much evidence they heard, etc. Juries have often convicted people who were later found to be not guilty on the basis of DNA evidence that wasn’t available at the trial. And in a 2007 study in which judges agreed to fill out surveys about what they thought the correct outcome should be while the jury was deliberating, the judge and the jury agreed only 77% of the time. That’s not a high degree of agreement considering you’d expect random chance (e.g., a coin toss) would produce agreement 50% of the time. Of course, you can’t assume the judge is always right, so the author of the study assumed the judge and jury have roughly an equal likelihood of getting it right, and concluded the jury gets it right about 87% of the time or less. (My own view would be that the judge is somewhat more likely than the jury to get it right, inter alia because the judge is less likely to be confused about what the law is, or how the law applies to a given set of facts, or what “reasonable doubt” means in the context of a criminal trial).
@bclintonk What that juror said is pretty close to what I thought might have happened as explained in a previous post.
Technological evidence like dash cam and DNA is a blessing and a curse if you’re a prosecutor. Before there was such a thing as video evidence, juries were forced to make decisions based on the kind of things you’re talking about (where an item was located, who said what at what time, and other circumstances). Now that it is common to have video evidence, juries expect to see it and hesitate to convict without it. The same is true of DNA evidence, although DNA wasn’t at issue here. Before DNA existed, juries managed to convict plenty of people beyond a reasonable doubt. But now that DNA evidence is common, juries expect it and often won’t convict without it.
@bclintonk, you make a lot of important points, but perhaps the most important is that liberals/progressives/Democrats are not immune from racism. Black people are not immune from racism. It’s in the water, and it affects everyone to a greater or lesser degree.
“One juror told the media afterwards that because they didn’t have indisputable visual evidence that Philando Castile had not “pulled out” his gun as the officer claimed on the witness stand, they couldn’t convict because they still had “reasonable doubt” on that point.”
This is so troubling to me. Officer Yanez changed his story. At first he said he didn’t know where the gun was, then he claimed he saw the gun.
Philando’s last words were " I wasn’t reaching for it", Diamond says he wasn’t reaching for it.
The other officer didn’t see it, and the EMT says it was deep in his pocket. I also thought I read it wasn’t loaded.
Why is it an officer can completely lie and change his story, yet he is still believed?
I also read that "Jurors asked the court Friday to reread the officer’s testimony in its entirety, their second request … for statements he made regarding the fatal shooting of Philando Castile.
But Ramsey County District Court Judge William H. Leary III denied the request without elaborating, saying the reasons aren’t “important to share right now.”
@bclintonk - A dead white guy once said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” You can insert “jury trials” for democracy, and the statement would be just as valid.
I don’t think anyone was claiming juries are infallible. They are human and thus make mistakes. Same is true of judges. Prosecutors and everyone else in the system.
But to me, I give weight to decisions made by people (juries and judges) who sit through the entire process over someone who hasn’t. Hear all of the testimony. See all of the evidence. Listened to the testimony and observed the witnesses. Again, doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong.
“Today, the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), the nation’s largest independent police oversight entity, released a new report revealing insights into officer interference with civilian recordings of police interactions. The report, ―Worth a Thousand Words: Examining Officer Interference with Civilian Recordings of Police,‖ reviews complaints filed against members of the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and is among the first analyses in the country of this type of misconduct.”
“This report underscores a need for members of the public to be aware of their First Amendment right to record police activity, which is only limited by a specific set of conditions. At the same time, analysis of police interference highlights the need for clearer guidance for NYPD officers on how they respond to civilian recordings of interactions so that police respect civilians’ First Amendment liberties while ensuring the safety of the officers and civilians involved in an interaction.”