Eyewitness Accounts and Scientific Observation

Prejudice is alive and well. Nobody is immune; the police, the jury, or the parents and friends. Even the camera does not tell the whole truth. It only shows a snapshot in time looking from one perspective. It does not show what led to the alleged disturbance, or any extenuating circumstances. It does not show what is happening on the other side of the scene.

The job of the police was to collect all the facts, uphold the law, and make the peace. Was there any complaints? Was the video made available to the police before the ticket was issued? If it wasn't, who obstructed the police in the performance of their duties?

In South Central, you would get a different result. Jury nullification! Just ask OJ!

UMM the boys cam off as innocent of all wrong doing.

The camera cought the facts; the discussion afterwards concluded that it would not matter where a new trial was held the LAW would still loose.

Wrong is wrong, we had a 40% minority pannel, and the boys are lilly white.

"lily white"

So were the "Bird Rock Bandits" Link from the mean streets of La Jolla.

Weird sh*t happens when you get tied up by the system. DWW (driving while white, etc.).

P.S. Run a spell check, you got some problems!

Yeh:

Did the post without the spell check on, but the facts are the false charges were dropped after the post trial discussion proved that the "Facts" could not be changed regardless of what was being said. The Lawyers, the judge, the cops all were going along with the false charges and meant to hang the boys up to dry.

Did you know, the higher LAW states as a Jury you have the right to question the LAW itself as right or wrong? (Saw it in a book somewhere)

Cool is it not?

This case is very confusing. Were the lads convicted or found innocent? Verify that they were charged with disturbing the peace and resisting arrest.

The trial went to a twelve man jury. What did the jury find? Were you a defendant or a plaintiff the case?

What was the judicial standard set for the jury by the judge? (i.e. "beyond reasonable doubt", "preponderance of the evidence", some other standard).

These standards and statutes are not preempted or made moot in any way by virtue of the fact that a tape was presented at trial. Once you start resisting arrest, especially in LA (Rodney King), you are going to have a problem.

Better to submit to arrest than to assault the officier.

Keep in mind, USA is still marginally a nation of laws. Too much Hollywood is bad on the streets of LA in the reality realm.

Good Lord:

No wonder things are mucked up and reality as we know it might be doomed:

If you read the whole thread your answers might be answered.

I went back and read your Post #5 and #7.

In #5, you state that the boys were found innocent. But in #7 you state that post-trial discussions resulted in charges being dropped. Being found "innocent" is not the same as "hung jury".

You are correct then that I did not read each post to understand the state of the thread in real-time. While I was replying to #5, you were busy replying to earlier posts and I though some were being directed toward Milo.

But, yes. Now that I have caught up to the entirety of the thread content, I agree with you and Milo. In fact I give Milo GA!

Sometimes when I see a post (like the original one before any comments) loaded with typos, poor grammar, and in-coherencies, I get lazy and just go off without giving the poster enough credit. Sorry about that.

OTOH, why split a post up into three or four segments knowing that reader will react to the first and ignore the followups?

If it is any consolation, I was framed by that a-hole Bratton (LA Police Commissioner) many years ago before he moved to LA as a rookie cop in Boston! It cost me $500 to buy off the judge in legal fees to be found innocent at trial.

"How can stalwart upholders of Authority hold to a wrong fact, and state it as the truth??? "

The answer is in your sunglass wearing emoticon: Their perception is filtered through lenses of expectations and their "paradigm" of how the world works.

Scientists suffer similarly until they encounter the undeniable fact that renders their current understanding invalid. Until then, they just muddle along with their old/current model.

If you haven't read Thomas Kuhns' excellent treatise on the structure of scientific revolutions you should:

"Examining the record of past research from the vantage of contemporary historiography, the historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Even more important, during revolutions scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before. It is rather as if the professional community had been suddenly transported to another planet where familiar objects are seen in a different light and are joined by unfamiliar ones as well. Of course, nothing of quite that sort does occur: there is no geographical transplantation; outside the laboratory everyday affairs usually continue as before. Nevertheless, paradigm changes do cause scientists to see the world of their research-engagement differently. In so far as their only recourse to that world is through what they see and do, we may want to say that after a revolution scientists are responding to a different world."

Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 111.

That's how.

milo

I am Sooo tempted to give you a GA on that but:

Emotions are what I have seen as the "Wall Preventing Truth: from prevailing in this most telling of circumstances. One of the Stalwart upholders of Authority could not hold back expressions of disgust and pre judgments whenever a statement by Authority was questioned. He was our elected leader and in that post never overstepped the natural bounds. But in discussion the emotions came to the surface when the Authority statement was held up to the burning light of truth.

Prevention of truth is what can happen, that leads to life altering situations that did not need to happen to the individuals.

Again why would an Authority supporter let emotion rule instead of the "Truth"?

Cool Shades Huh?

Well I will not grovel for a Good Answer, but I would urge you to consider that emotions do have a role in critical thinking. Only on Vulcan on TV do "people" with no emotions survive their decisions.

The medical literature has a number of cases where through brain damage, the emotional centers in a person's brain are destroyed. These stories do not end happily. These folks cannot make even the simplest of decisions in their own interest.

To your point however, when one's emotions are hijacked and over control the more rational processing that is also part of critical thinking, then we can get the outcomes that you are not so happy with.

Thanks for the great question and engagement.

And a tip of the "shades " for the "So tempted " GA.

Temptation is not an issue for folks with no emotions.

milo "I usually use the shades, but not today"

Its getting close:

I am one of those nit'ty gritty type of investigators. I usually save my emotions until the path of truth and facts has been discovered. The two boys were hung in my estimation for the first couple of days till the video came out.

But facts were facts, myself and five others flipped as soon as the facts became clear. With a solid fact to go on and scientific principal being applied the truth still escapes many people. As a seeker of truths of sorts I try to get to the meat of the matter. Then apply known facts and scientific principals, yall might be surprised how many times in this forum "Facts man just the Facts" are completely ignored and thrown away as if they did not exist.

So since Humans are so much more interesting than mere science junk I try to examine us, to delve into why "Truth" is so easily avoided. I have been able to figure out most things that are based upon physics and mathematics. People on the other hand let their emotions rule them and that affects their will and ability to process "Facts".

The human "Will" is an amazing tool I hope to apply scientific reasoning to its false limits soon.

If they would have known that, they'd have never let you on the jury.

We can't be having people that think and try to understand the process, man.

Ha.

milo

It is written (by a higher court)

We the public when tasked as jurors have the authority to question whether the LAW beling applied is a just LAW.

Lots of real power there, if we only knew how much power we really have huh???

Believe me the legal system is not enamored of Jurors who understand their power and authority.

They want horses that can thump once for yes, twice for no.

milo

Thump:

OMG, now after five posts we find out you were on the jury (one of the six). Interesting. What else should we know about you? Never mind, I don't think I want need would like to know!

How did you turn the other five? Not with the lead pipe I hope!

Please post the video here ASAP. I want to see for myself.

Nah; I do not seek to know people who accept their walls:

I was actually one of the last turned as I was seeking all of the facts. The lawyer has the video (for the appeal and renumeration for injuries sustained) and i did not ask for a copy.

The sheer human acceptance for right and wrong is wonderful to behold. When that acceptance is put to the test by the system trying to force false facts on them, I took great pleasure in assisting the way of "Truth and Justice".

Accepting anything else is Crap you Know.

Please try to understand. We were not there. You apparently were, at least physically.

Are we learning that that lads were hurt by the cops? Or was it the other way around?

Again, the details of this case are not well known to those on the outside.

As Milo remarked, how did you get seated on the jury? That is the real mystery.

Why were you not the first to see that the lads were being framed? Being that you are smarter than most? Been there, done that!

Oh:

Are we learning that that lads were hurt by the cops? Or was it the other way around?

. . . The boys were hurt pretty bad

Again, the details of this case are not well known to those on the outside.

. . .. Details not so necessay, seeking an answer to "Stone Wall" acceptance, regardless of the Facts.

As Milo remarked, how did you get seated on the jury? That is the real mystery.

. . . . I was chosen as one of the last, I expressed no reasons for them to exclude me. (what is the problem here, five others saw the Bogus setup also?)

Why were you not the first to see that the lads were being framed?

. . . I am a upholder of the LAW, I see Cops in my neighborhood as good and just.

Being that you are smarter than most?

. . . Sarcastic, bet you win all of your arguments. : == )

Been there, done that!

. . . I have no negative record of any kind, either criminal or financial.

So put that in your pipe and, wwell you know?

OK, I just got off the phone (310-318-0360) with the Hermosa Beach, CA police.

They tell me there is no law against a juror mouthing off about a case after the jury is dismissed.

"put that in your pipe and, wwell you know"

Thanks but I'll defer to you on the dope smoking as you are clearly the more experienced.

"Sarcastic, bet you win all of your arguments"

Just the one that mattered. See my Avatar for details.

Cheers!

"So Scientifically Who is Right and Who is Wrong?

As far as the jury goes, they are all right.

The problem is their reference point. While one is comparing facts to their emotions, another is comparing facts to the letter of the law, another is comparing them to their religious beliefs, and another is comparing the facts to some gangland code.

One juror could see a beating, be shocked and assume that whoever did the beating is a vicious animal, while another would see that it was necessary to control the situation, or a righteous consequence. All judgments are based on the their personal history and morals. Someone growing up with a beating for misbehaviour, and who watches your violent TV all the time; may think nothing of beating a criminal. Others may think criminals deserve to be executed.

In addition to the different reference points, the interpretation of the law statutes which were written by lawyers in uncommon legalese language will add confusion. They use subjective words like "minimum force necessary" instead of quantitative words such as 50 lbs of force. This is done on purpose so as to cover most situations, however, it leaves the interpretation up to the user (police) at the time.

So what you have is a bunch of jurors comparing perceived actions to different moral standards or subjective laws. With no fixed reference point, you will get multiple outcomes.

You are living in a society with multiple moral standards, where money and violence is worshiped. The numbing of society to violence is a result of a media that constantly thrives on anything that is immoral or shocking.

upholders of Authority hold to a wrong fact, and state it as the truth???"

Your "stalwart upholders of Authority" are simply human beings with their own personal problems. They experience weaknesses such things as fear, anger, rage, racism, prejudice, being pissed off by the boss, mob mentality, difficulty achieving overly high standards by the public, or any other human weaknesses. Yes, overzealous police should be held accountable for their actions as we all should.

Unfortunately the judicial system rewards lies by getting them off with "reasonable doubt"

Sounds like it could be this case:

If so, then I agree 100%.

Briley et al, v Hermosa Police Department

Just what part offended you???

My investigation came about as a look into Human nature. You seem to have taken just a piece of the question, decided you did not like it and got all offended.

I have stated more than once I respect cops, is communication a problem? If you are seeking a fight over your "Principals" then bring it on out. Why go and drag the Cops into this intellectual discussion? Are you insecure about your own convictions?

I am very sure of what I understand and what I stand for. I need not "Bring in Heavy Weights" to show my power.

Is that your power, using a club where just a few words would suffice??? I Dun-Know why you went all ballistic, cept about questioning Authority?

Hey Yall just think a bit instead of getting so riled up.

Please forgive my obtuseness.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here? I have read through all the posts to this point and am trying to understand what issue you are presenting. From all you have written, it sounds like the process worked and justice prevailed. What has you so worked up? (And why do you always write law in all caps?)

It is a basic one:

Even when the facts are clear, proof positive has been made. Some people will not cross that Authority line. Even when they are wrong.

The investigation was to seek out why there is that part of the Human brain that will not listen to or understand reason.

I guess with the Hot Head here, we found one of the reasons.

The main problem is that there are always two sides to every story. This particular rant has been confusing at best. My goal has been to get one-story version straight and then compare it to the other side with the ultimate goal of making a judgement as to which version is more credible. Sort of an investigative approach, Oui!

I would have thought that was what the jury tried to do as well. I'm not so sure now.

I have confirmed that the incident is indeed the one that took place on July 4, 2003 at Hermosa Beach Pier involving Justin Thomas, Chris Briley, et al. There is a civil case pending (I think) still.

Both sides claim the video supports their position. The Thomas lad has a filthy mouth, but that did not stop Sgt. Nancy Cook from cuffing him. Ego hurts when a girl cuffs you!

Link to story. Easy Reader

"why a jury is composed of 12 individuals"

He seems vexed that the twelve could not agree. Essentially, I am wondering why as well. If the case was a slam-dunk, why not a unanimous decision? His reply is that those that did not agree are blind or obedient to the man or some such non-sense. Maybe they saw something that the majority missed. Why won't he tell us what case it is. I'll get the video and see for myself.

Hey, nobody likes to see cops have to use force to subdue a suspect. It happens. It happened to me when I was a young "punk kid".

"He seems vexed that the twelve could not agree"

Yes, that does seem to be the meat of the problem. But that is the basis on which the jury trial is built: a unanimous decision is not required for acquittal, only conviction. As it should be: far harder to convict than to acquit. As I said, it appears justice was served (at least from his perspective), why can he not put this behind him?

At this point I am curious as to why he has not responded to my post. I've been exceeding polite (I believe) and have tried to have an honest discussion about his issue. I would really like to read his response to the idea that two different individuals can evaluate the same facts and reach two different, but equally valid, conclusions based on their individual value sets.

(And I'm still curious as to why he writes LAW every time!)

Nope that at all:

No vexation just a curious notion about those who hold Authority so highly. And I need to exercise and do normal healthy people things. So I do not get around to each person umm in "real time". The word LAW is used in that manner because it represents one of the walls limiting freedom that people must accept. And it can be frightful if one opposes it wrongly. Also I used it that way to get a termperature on discussion participants.

The argument digresses all over the place. Facts are what the LAW was saying against the boys was proved dead wrong.

So not demeaning the LAW in any way, why do people give up their LAWful freedom when told to do so by Authoruty?

My question still stands how can upright dignified citizens see facts have every second of them clarified, and still go with the falsehood? I know the evaluation of individuals differ greatly. Its the meaness of the attitude that I seek answers for.

I mean thinking are what we do, thinking to destroy innocent boys lives with a lie is just wrong.

Okay, so I'm still confused. By LAW, do you refer to personified authority or the actual written statutes?

Why does it surprise you that a (not so small) segment of society is willing to sacrifice personal liberty for the security of authority? Ben Franklin observed and warned against this over two centuries ago. Nonetheless, that attitude seemed to surge right after 9/11 and has been picking up speed ever since.

"My question still stands how can upright dignified citizens see facts have every second of them clarified, and still go with the falsehood? I know the evaluation of individuals differ greatly. Its the meaness of the attitude that I seek answers for."

The answer is really very simple: true and false in this type of situation is subjective, not objective. It is pointless to believe the dissenters on your jury panel willingly believed a lie - rather, understand that they believed a truth that is more in line with their personal values. These are individuals who have invested so much in the security of authority, that the notion of authority being fallible is unthinkable. In their minds, if authority has the potential to be wrong, security is nonexistent. It would be the same as you or I considering a failure of gravity: our entire world would literally fly apart.

Take the self-defense example I wrote of earlier. The facts of a self-defense homicide are simply that one human forcibly and with intent took the life of another human. It is a murder - no more, no less. On the facts, the killer should be punished. Now, most of us would agree that killing in self-defence is justified and should not be punished, and that majority belief has even been codified in the written law. But many people (and I have talked with several) believe that no homicide is ever justified and would see the killer punished regardless of the intent of the deceased. What is the truth? Who is right and who is wrong? The answer lies in majority opinion, just as you experienced on your jury panel.

CSM

I have been going around that comfort zone problem with a friend for quite some time now. Authority does indeed create in some minds the feeling of being looked after. (Wish it were true myself. : == ) ). But I have been attempting to pin down the feeling/cause of the comfort zone that makes it possible for the person in denial to harm innocent children.

Our police, lord bless em are doing the best with what they know. But increasingly I have been seeing random acts against innocent civilians. A New York video about bike riders, the cop just randomly grabbed one and took them down. The guy got charged with resisting Authority much like this case. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

It seems Authority these days approves of random violence by their own, this troubles me. So I am seeking a whole picture answer.

"random just like this case"

Nope. Nothing random about why Thomas and Briley were picked out of the crowd on July 4, 2003 at Hermosa Beach Pier.

See Story and posts #26 and #30 for details.

The tape shows Briley being taken to the ground after being handcuffed after he begun to shout obscenities at the officers. Thomas emerged from the crowd and was approached by Sgt. Nancy Cook. Officer Jim Sibbold leaves Briley on the ground to assist Cook. Briley stands up. Sibbald returns to tackle Briley with a clothesline hold to the throat.

Random would be if Sibbold just pulled out anyone from the crowd. But, he pulled out Briley because he was shouting obscenities. Likewise Cook picked Thomas not at random, but because he came out of the crowd and pointed his finger at her.

True, the cops tried to jack up the charges and these were eventually thrown out of court. But a riot was avoided possibly.

These kids stand to make millions on the Civil trial now pending against Hermosa Beach police.

Good god man:

The video shows a peaceful party atmosphere all was quiet and the air was full of hapiness. They were taken down without any probable cause. Pointing a finger is cause for brutality, what reality did you come form?

What point are you trying to make? Is it possible that you just dont understand the freedoms and rights of civillians? And I hope they do make millions, they deserve it. I need to stop auruing with you, you know the old saw "when two argue you cannot tell them apart." Since you support this kind of brutality.

I hope you and yours get to experience what you wish on others.

"video shows"

Haven't seen it.

"you support this kind of brutality"

Don't support it. You are lying. At least we have established that this if in fact the case that caused you be initiate this thread.

I'm going to have the Administrator's shut her down. Goodbye!

And I'll suggest it be started back up.................

You said:"The answer, of course, is that personal responsibility is slowly being divorced from the common welfare. The founding fathers established a system by which every citizen was individually responsible for the prosperity of themselves and their neighbors."

This part by itself deserves a GA.

GA.

milo

Milo:

I also added my GA to CSM's last itteration. I appreciate it when things like this are thought out. Only by facing this and walking through the goods and the bads can people see what they are really facing. This new brutality by those who are paid and trained to protect us should be minimized, if the public has any say at all in how we are managed.

If our franchise has been taken from us, this kind of thing will proliferate till everyone is exposed to it. I hope that if this is the case, we can determine the best course to get back what is rightfully ours.

"If our franchise has been taken from us, this kind of thing will proliferate till everyone is exposed to it. I hope that if this is the case, we can determine the best course to get back what is rightfully ours."

If history is any indication, it will require bloodshed.

I wish I knew the recipe to give everyone a good shaking and make them realize just how far we have slipped from the Founders' vision. A collective re-assertion of our basic liberties and responsibilities would be wondrous, but highly unlikely.

Thank you both (and others) for your GA vote. I hope it will draw others to read what is written here and spark some thought in at least a few minds.

The deadline is near - register and vote! Voting is the difference between a citizen and a subject.

"The deadline is near - register and vote! Voting is the difference between a citizen and a subject."

If MA and FL + TX are any indications of the above problem.

The machines are rigged, have you not read about the Diebold voting maching farce?

We are in deep yougurt, voting is just a walking exercise now.

Whatcha think???

Stop smoking. Put down your pipe. You need help, big-time.

I'm not the cynical...yet.

I wasn't either till I realized it!

He's a pot-head. Explains it all!

The spelling. The incoherence. The package!

Next problem please!

I understand the difference of opinion, actually the difference of perception that was the genesis of this thread.

I do not understand the need to pronounce judgement. I do not understand the need to name call.

peace.

milo

In post #53 he spake upon me this:

"I hope you and yours get to experience what you wish on others"

It is because CR4 refused to act when I reported this threat to me and my family by him. Had they cut this out, I would have continued to let him go on unchallenged while making himself out to be what he is. Ask Chris why he would not help out. I'm sick of his non-sense and not afraid to say so.

I hope my kids get what they wish on others too.

I don't see that as a threat. I see that as a sentiment recalling the golden rule.

"may all your wishes come true" in a manner of speaking.

Where is the threat?

Where is the harm in these words?.

milo

Yall know?

Its fun to argue on semantics and how the thought is put together, but its the thought that becomes the leverage to move the mountain. Now and then I feel like that fellow who had move the mountain, but hey it makes life interesting.

Thoughts falling on deaf ears, we - most of us have had children who have suffered from this condition. So it does indeed come down to those easily offended by those who would think freely and find no wrong in the expression of an honest thought. To be threatened by freedom of thought or threatened by freedom of any kind one must don the regal robes of a tyrant.

To give up ones freedom easily to a tyrant without facing whatever level of threat or discomfort is to lose the most valuable thing a man has outside of his own skin.

Therefore in my most honest opinion:

"Never Back Down" if it hurts to stand up for freedom of thought and freedom of expression, then hurting is what that is worth. If the price is higher, well this place where we live is famous for providing talent for that job also.

Eriew....perhaps it's the two dimensionality of the written word that can be misconstrued to be meant offensively. That being the case I have to understand that you being offended in some way has a deeper platform which is uniquely yours. I don't mean to offend you but it appears you've taken this far too personally. Are you perhaps of that nature which finds comfort in those authorities whose mandate is you and your familys safety? If so, then you should be very concerned that this authority is not corrupted in some way and I would urge vigilance on your part (and everybodys) to maintain it as such.

"The greatest deception the devil pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist"

No offense taken. I've moved on.

I don't need some pot-head telling me what I think or implying that I'm some kind of Nazi. I already know what I think.

If he read the posts, he would see that the exact same things happened to me. I basically hate cops, but somehow he has concluded the opposite.

Let him rant on and on, he's a "moonbat" and I will not respond to him ever again.

He has no point and that is the point!

"something interesting below the surface"

Exactly! But since it (something interesting) is below the surface we must scratch to get to it!!!

What ever happened to Perry Mason (Raymond Burr)?

My point has been made:

Thank you sir for your most valuable participation. Without facts or even knowing what the actual question is a judgement has been made. The guilty have been executed and a summary report to higher ups made to protect the offenders.

Sigh; that is totally why some people cannot cross the Authority line and think for themselves. It takes two much effort to read it all, then think of what actually is or has transpired.

Also the rights of the Citizen mean nothing, how can you be that way?

Yes, judgement by a higher being! I understand all of it and I believe in all of it.

But, I'm not convinced Thomas, and Briley or the cops understood or appreciated any of this. They (and we) will be judged twice; here on earth, and in the after-life.

Let's take it step by step. I think the problem is you are looking at the final judgement and I am looking at the present case.

In the present we have either punk kids, or rouge cops. Facts please on that one! Go!

Who now:

Punk Kids?

I take it that you are without family? The love one has for their own young one is passed on to others of their age. And a parents feelings for how that young one of yours is treated by other people, do you know that? When my young ones bring others by I treat them with the same love and respect that I treat my own. I expect no less from other parents.

Do you see it fit for others to mistreat yours?

I can see the difference between questioning Authority, and questioning those who hold authority. A police officer working the scene of an accident has the authority to order me to leave if my presence poses a danger to others or myself, or my presence interferes with his duties. He does not have the authority to kick my posterior to make me leave, unless I resist to the point that he must use physical force to remove me from the area.

Problem is:

Most folks in that non functioning frame of reference cannot differentiate. Nor do they care to. But my question centers around why is their questioning nature, shut down in this circumstance?

Bet that one is used a lot by someone who knows the social manipulation angle.

It was proven to the majority that a wrong had been committed. I hold a deep curiosity on why facts are not enough to move people in the right direction?

A fear of being labeled or placed into a category is a possible excuse. But an innocent youth is going to be marked for life and outright falsely two.

I want to express a life that is right.

My own wall is that I care not whether a religious or political feeling is put to the test. I just don't care about crossing those lines.

Because I want just the "Facts mam just the Facts".

Please read the articles about the case which I have dug up to help OP get to the facts.

"He does not have the authority to kick my posterior"

She. Sgt. Nancy Cook was a she.

Posterior. Sgt. Nancy Cook broke Thomas's finger trying to cuff him. Never kicked his butt. Thomas was physically much bigger than the female officer.

3Doug, you didn't happen to be at Kent State University with the National Guard back in May 1970 by any chance? Just asking. "Four Dead in Ohio" by CSNY?

Ummm:

I was there, I have first hand facts. A curosity for me is that since I have seen with my own eyes what transpired, why would I need or require someone elses "Opinion on it." I witnesed first hand the evidence, got a belly full of it two, they must have shown that thing 300 times in two weeks. I was in front of the monitor.

I do truly love attorneys, after seeing for ourselve the true facts the guy still tried to tell us what happened. And tried to tell us what the Authority said, which also did not happen.

When we did see it for ourselvs, the written up offense just did not happen.

"I was there"

OK, good. Will you concede then that the case being discussed here is in fact Briley, et al. v. Hermosa Beach Police Department.

I ask this because it took four or five iterations to get you to admit that your interest in the case was as a member of the jury panel. At one point it was not clear what your role or interest in the case was (defendant, plaintiff, citizen) in addition to not letting the CR4 forum know which case you were pontificating about.

Are you willing to disclose what the standards given to the jury by the judge were? At one point, you objected to the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. How is it that you are able to ignore the judicial standards of the County of Los Angeles and substitute in it's place your own standard?

This is a recipe for anarchy. We do not like anarchy. Rememer the Rodney King case. Not good.

I could do that but:

If you have read and understand my earlier posts, "The juror has the right and obligation to question the rightfulness of the LAW as well as the case being judged."

So I cannot discuss what was told wrongfully to us as jurors. We who understood what was going on there, and what was at stake knew what to do.

And for god's sake believing what our own eyes are telling us will not lead to anarchy, unless that is what you deserve to get for your actions. What sinful stuff are you up to where you want people to follow lies???

We did not see a "Pig Fly" when we were told it was flying.

"3Doug, you didn't happen to be at Kent State University with the National Guard back in May 1970 by any chance? Just asking. "Four Dead in Ohio" by CSNY?'

This is milo. I was a senior in high school, and that day was the only day I ever skipped school. Myself, and three buddies piled into my a friends' ancient Desoto. the Gas gage didn't work, he kept track of gas on a paper pad above the visor (who could afford fill ups?) we stopped to get a couple dollars worth of gas and we drove to Kent to "watch the riot." We were kids and it sounded like a great idea at the time.

We weren't even half way there when we (and all other traffic) got pulled over for a convoy of National Guard Trucks. Seemed like a half hour or so of troop trucks blowing buy us as we sat on the shoulder. We never got to city limits of Kent proper.

Next day in our Problems of Democracy class, we got to hear our instructor parrot the Official story that the National Guardsmen were "frightened." Total BS.- There was an abundance of Troops available. And as events shown, they were armed with deadly weapons.

Fast forward 10 years, I get a job in Lorain Ohio at a Steel Plant, and my maintenance expeditor is the father of one of the lads killed that day in Kent. A very sad and angry man. He never got any satisfaction from his legal fights to get "The Facts" of his son's murder at the hands otf the ohio guardsmen.

Four years after that I become laboratory supervisor at that plant and I have the brother of that same lad working for me. A very troubled soul.

Fast forward to about the year 2001, and he committed suicide.

I was "Almost" there, but my life was definitely touched by those events. I learned not to confuse "LAW and ORDER" for those who use/abuse the system of 'law and order' to achieve their own malignant purposes. And I learned that as a senior in high school, I wasn't a very good Critical Thinker... But for a few different circumstances, I or my buddies might have had a far different role...

milo

Yup, it was a really bad day that I will never forget. We never returned to school after the massacre and I did not go to graduation in protest. The University mailed my degree home. Some astronaut gave the commencement adddress.

When you compare this to what happened at Hermosa Beach, or the Rodney King riot, it seems much about nothing.

The system is not perfect, but it is the best we have and we need to work it "For what it's worth". (there is that Neil Young guy again, circa 1968).

"Battle lines being drawn, nothings right when everything is wrong. Young people speaking their minds, getting so much resistance from behind, step out of line the man comes and takes you away. It's time we stop, say what's that sound, everybody look around......paranoia.... starts when you're always afraid... etc"