Originally Posted by
CommuterRun
I agree with San Rensho. As a member of the public, if I served on a jury for this case I would be inclined to give her nothing. Taking into account that she has chosen to be a criminal, a crack-head with prior convictions. Now if she suffered permanent injury and/or disfigurement I may be inclined to award her some paltry amount. But why give her anything when it's known that she's just going to blow it on more drugs?
when serving on a jury our responsibility is to uphold the
law not express our approval or disapproval of particular lifestyles or use our participation in the jury as the means by which we can push our own particular agenda or personal opinions or biases.
Were this to go to a jury trial the
police officer (s) would be on trial
not the cyclist. We are all (yes, even crackheads with prior convictions!) protected by inalienable constitutional rights (in this case at least the 4th and 14th amendment would apply).
The kind of justice many seem to be advocating in this case can be seen in places like Saudi Arabia and Somalia where a group of people standing around a "criminal" and stoning them is an acceptable form of punishment.
In this case how "reasonable" the search and seizure was still hangs out there for me- but since she pleaded guilty that becomes a moot point but there's little question in my mind excessive and unreasonable force was used in the arrest of this woman and
that and only that is the crime a jury would be asked to weigh.