Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 4/15/2006 3:46:06 AM EST
Nothing of FNC and I googled.

But they said the three officers who were accused of beating some guy at a party were found not guilty by a jury. I can't find an acutal article.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 3:55:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Nothing of FNC and I googled.

But they said the three officers who were accused of beating some guy at a party were found not guilty by a jury. I can't find an acutal article.



I saw this also. Quite a travesty of justice, hopefully the civil suit will punish the police officers.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:21:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dance:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Nothing of FNC and I googled.

But they said the three officers who were accused of beating some guy at a party were found not guilty by a jury. I can't find an acutal article.



I saw this also. Quite a travesty of justice, hopefully the civil suit will punish the police officers.



Found not guilty by a jury of 12.

Still looking for an article. Please feel free to start your own thread if someone finds one.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:44:54 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:45:30 AM EST
Try www.jsonline.com IIRC, that's the Milwaukee newpaper site. They should have it there. I work in MKE and have been following the case from the beginning. Didn't hear about the verdict yet. The problem in this case was that there was such a drunken melee at the scene and some of the investigating cops alleggedly joined in the beating. Then there was an attempted coverup. This didn't even get in the news until 3 months after it happened. Most of the cops, even those that were fired over the incident are reluctant to talk. I'm surprised they only charged the three guys. There were about 15 people involved.

I really couldn't tell from reports of the trial if these 3 guys are the guilty parties, other than being there. I'm sure the jury was confused also.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 5:22:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:24:44 AM EST
______________________________________________________________________________________
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:35:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 7:35:38 AM EST by Dance]

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



OJ is innocent also.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:45:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



And I know more about the case than you do.

It was a classic case of the blue wall.

This guy was beaten senseless. He was ID'd by cops on the scene. Cops were pressured not to talk by other cops.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:50:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dance:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



OJ is innocent also.



OJ was not innocent, he was found "not guilty" I hope you know the difference.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:51:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



And I know more about the case than you do.

It was a classic case of the blue wall.

This guy was beaten senseless. He was ID'd by cops on the scene. Cops were pressured not to talk by other cops.



Just because someone is "beaten senceless" does not mean a crime was comitted.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:02:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



And I know more about the case than you do.

It was a classic case of the blue wall.

This guy was beaten senseless. He was ID'd by cops on the scene. Cops were pressured not to talk by other cops.



Just because someone is "beaten senceless" does not mean a crime was comitted.



And somehow you managed to "senseless" after I spelled it correctly one line above.

And yes, genius, it does mean a crime was committed. My guess is you don't know jack shit about this case other than reading maybe an article or two.

The main crime this guy committed was being a black guy brought to a party filled with white milwaukee cops.

Some idiot then accused Jude of stealing his badge (he didn't). Then a dozen or police officers proceeded beating and kicking him while he was on the ground...because they were drunk and stupid and could get away with it.

Then the 'stop snitching' line that the police hate for normal citizens became alright for the cops. No one wanted to talk. When some tried to talk, they were intimidated.

The police who did this are basically scum. Luckily many were fired and will likely never work in law enforcement again.

And people are here defending this shit. I have to wonder why. Why would people defend drunken police beating an unarmed, innocent man in the middle of a street? Because he deserved it since he's not white? Or this is a special entitlement police have - randomly beating people and getting away with it because they're cops?

And before the numbnuts try to say I don't know what I'm talking about and they do, I've read on and listed to talk radio about this story roughly 2 or 3 times a week for the past year a half. Come and tell me how you know what happened better than I do after you read a whole one or two stories on the case.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:07:47 AM EST
Clearly it was a matter of the thin blue line. Civilians saw what happened, one of the off duty cops even said he kicked the guy, but none of the other cops saw a thing. The guy must have beaten himself senseless, yeah right. JBT's for the win.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:09:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Luopo:
Clearly it was a matter of the thin blue line. Civilians saw what happened, one of the off duty cops even said he kicked the guy, but none of the other cops saw a thing. The guy must have beaten himself senseless, yeah right. JBT's for the win.



Poor guy was accident prone...he fell down several hundred times....the cops were just trying to protect him from himself.

Yeah, that's it. It's all a big misunderstanding!
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:35:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By bastiat:

And somehow you managed to "senseless" after I spelled it correctly one line above.

And yes, genius, it does mean a crime was committed. My guess is you don't know jack shit about this case other than reading maybe an article or two.

The main crime this guy committed was being a black guy brought to a party filled with white milwaukee cops.

Some idiot then accused Jude of stealing his badge (he didn't). Then a dozen or police officers proceeded beating and kicking him while he was on the ground...because they were drunk and stupid and could get away with it.

Then the 'stop snitching' line that the police hate for normal citizens became alright for the cops. No one wanted to talk. When some tried to talk, they were intimidated.

The police who did this are basically scum. Luckily many were fired and will likely never work in law enforcement again.

And people are here defending this shit. I have to wonder why. Why would people defend drunken police beating an unarmed, innocent man in the middle of a street? Because he deserved it since he's not white? Or this is a special entitlement police have - randomly beating people and getting away with it because they're cops?

And before the numbnuts try to say I don't know what I'm talking about and they do, I've read on and listed to talk radio about this story roughly 2 or 3 times a week for the past year a half. Come and tell me how you know what happened better than I do after you read a whole one or two stories on the case.



Ok genius, I think you meant that I managed to misspell "senseless". Well you managed to leave out "missspell".

No that fact someone was hit untill he was "senseless" does not by itself mean a crime was committed. You are absolutely wrong about that.

You are correct that I know nothing of this case and have never even read a single article about it.

I did not know it was a crime to be black in Milwaukee. (You should use a capitol for names and stuff)

A dozen or what police officers? Do you mean "a dozen or so....."

There is more but I am leaving for a church picnic.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:39:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 8:43:13 AM EST by bastiat]

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

And somehow you managed to "senseless" after I spelled it correctly one line above.

And yes, genius, it does mean a crime was committed. My guess is you don't know jack shit about this case other than reading maybe an article or two.

The main crime this guy committed was being a black guy brought to a party filled with white milwaukee cops.

Some idiot then accused Jude of stealing his badge (he didn't). Then a dozen or police officers proceeded beating and kicking him while he was on the ground...because they were drunk and stupid and could get away with it.

Then the 'stop snitching' line that the police hate for normal citizens became alright for the cops. No one wanted to talk. When some tried to talk, they were intimidated.

The police who did this are basically scum. Luckily many were fired and will likely never work in law enforcement again.

And people are here defending this shit. I have to wonder why. Why would people defend drunken police beating an unarmed, innocent man in the middle of a street? Because he deserved it since he's not white? Or this is a special entitlement police have - randomly beating people and getting away with it because they're cops?

And before the numbnuts try to say I don't know what I'm talking about and they do, I've read on and listed to talk radio about this story roughly 2 or 3 times a week for the past year a half. Come and tell me how you know what happened better than I do after you read a whole one or two stories on the case.



Ok genius, I think you meant that I managed to misspell "senseless". Well you managed to leave out "missspell".

No that fact someone was hit untill he was "senseless" does not by itself mean a crime was committed. You are absolutely wrong about that.



So exactly what was your point in posting that I have to wonder. Seriously. Tell me. Were you just making a profound observation about beatings that had nothing to do with the topic, or was it an attempt at defending the police?

And yes, I left out misspell because I looked up to make sure it was one word or two and then forgot to type it when I came back to this tab.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:42:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

And somehow you managed to "senseless" after I spelled it correctly one line above.

And yes, genius, it does mean a crime was committed. My guess is you don't know jack shit about this case other than reading maybe an article or two.

The main crime this guy committed was being a black guy brought to a party filled with white milwaukee cops.

Some idiot then accused Jude of stealing his badge (he didn't). Then a dozen or police officers proceeded beating and kicking him while he was on the ground...because they were drunk and stupid and could get away with it.

Then the 'stop snitching' line that the police hate for normal citizens became alright for the cops. No one wanted to talk. When some tried to talk, they were intimidated.

The police who did this are basically scum. Luckily many were fired and will likely never work in law enforcement again.

And people are here defending this shit. I have to wonder why. Why would people defend drunken police beating an unarmed, innocent man in the middle of a street? Because he deserved it since he's not white? Or this is a special entitlement police have - randomly beating people and getting away with it because they're cops?

And before the numbnuts try to say I don't know what I'm talking about and they do, I've read on and listed to talk radio about this story roughly 2 or 3 times a week for the past year a half. Come and tell me how you know what happened better than I do after you read a whole one or two stories on the case.



Ok genius, I think you meant that I managed to misspell "senseless". Well you managed to leave out "missspell".

No that fact someone was hit untill he was "senseless" does not by itself mean a crime was committed. You are absolutely wrong about that.

You are correct that I know nothing of this case and have never even read a single article about it.

I did not know it was a crime to be black in Milwaukee. (You should use a capitol for names and stuff)




Do you mean a 'capital'??? Because if you were talking about letters, you really should have typed CAPITAL.

Doesn't it suck when you go all spelling nazi and then fuck it up????
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 9:47:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 10:37:22 AM EST by Bama-Shooter]

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



And I know more about the case than you do.

It was a classic case of the blue wall.

This guy was beaten senseless. He was ID'd by cops on the scene. Cops were pressured not to talk by other cops.



Just because someone is "beaten senceless" does not mean a crime was comitted.



And somehow you managed to "senseless" after I spelled it correctly one line above.

And yes, genius, it does mean a crime was committed. My guess is you don't know jack shit about this case other than reading maybe an article or two.

The main crime this guy committed was being a black guy brought to a party filled with white milwaukee cops.

Some idiot then accused Jude of stealing his badge (he didn't). Then a dozen or police officers proceeded beating and kicking him while he was on the ground...because they were drunk and stupid and could get away with it.

Then the 'stop snitching' line that the police hate for normal citizens became alright for the cops. No one wanted to talk. When some tried to talk, they were intimidated.

The police who did this are basically scum. Luckily many were fired and will likely never work in law enforcement again.

And people are here defending this shit. I have to wonder why. Why would people defend drunken police beating an unarmed, innocent man in the middle of a street? Because he deserved it since he's not white? Or this is a special entitlement police have - randomly beating people and getting away with it because they're cops?

And before the numbnuts try to say I don't know what I'm talking about and they do, I've read on and listed to talk radio about this story roughly 2 or 3 times a week for the past year a half. Come and tell me how you know what happened better than I do after you read a whole one or two stories on the case.




So did they beat him because he was black or just beat him because they were cops?



Also why do you think a jury of twelve did not convict?
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 9:57:35 AM EST
bastiat,
What info do you have on the case, other than what you have read?

Sean
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 10:47:05 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:08:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 11:22:24 AM EST by TheKill]

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



And I know more about the case than you do.

It was a classic case of the blue wall.

This guy was beaten senseless. He was ID'd by cops on the scene. Cops were pressured not to talk by other cops.



Just because someone is "beaten senceless" does not mean a crime was comitted.



And somehow you managed to "senseless" after I spelled it correctly one line above.

And yes, genius, it does mean a crime was committed. My guess is you don't know jack shit about this case other than reading maybe an article or two.

The main crime this guy committed was being a black guy brought to a party filled with white milwaukee cops.

Some idiot then accused Jude of stealing his badge (he didn't). Then a dozen or police officers proceeded beating and kicking him while he was on the ground...because they were drunk and stupid and could get away with it.

Then the 'stop snitching' line that the police hate for normal citizens became alright for the cops. No one wanted to talk. When some tried to talk, they were intimidated.

The police who did this are basically scum. Luckily many were fired and will likely never work in law enforcement again.

And people are here defending this shit. I have to wonder why. Why would people defend drunken police beating an unarmed, innocent man in the middle of a street? Because he deserved it since he's not white? Or this is a special entitlement police have - randomly beating people and getting away with it because they're cops?

And before the numbnuts try to say I don't know what I'm talking about and they do, I've read on and listed to talk radio about this story roughly 2 or 3 times a week for the past year a half. Come and tell me how you know what happened better than I do after you read a whole one or two stories on the case.




So did they beat him because he was black or just beat him because they were cops?



Also why do you think a jury of twelve did not convict?




Short version.....

The standard for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Most of the officers that testified "didn't see who hit him".

A couple that testified that they saw certain officers strike the victim, and further testified that they were shunned, harrassed, and intimidated at work after they reported this travesty, were painted as disgruntled employees by the defense.

The entire trial was "he said, she said", with the testimony of those that mattered incriminating no one. All the main players were drunk at the scene, and the defense played that up to make any testimony useless. It's no wonder they couldn't convict. Two on duty officers were willing to testify and go the distance, but I do know one of them couldn't remember some key facts....it happened a year and a half ago! And the blue wall held up solid as a rock. The thing that I don't understand, is that the charge was "party to the crime"....meaning that all the DA had to prove was that these officers were somehow involved. That's it. Through the testimony given, it was obvious that the victim was struck, stabbed, and kicked by both drunken off duty officers, and on duty officers when they arrived, and this behavior continued well after the victim was cuffed and face down on the ground, crying "please stop". When the on duty officers arrived, the off duty ones were so out of control that they refused to submit to commands by the on duty officers (if you are I did this we would get tased or shot), and one of the on duty officers kicked the victim while telling him to "shut up". Another on duty officer, trying to piece together what happend and getting conflicting or no statements from the officers involved, went to the paddy wagon to interview the victim. When she opened the door, he fled to the furthest corner of the van and started crying "please, don't hit me anymore".

IA was called and when they arrived, everyone shut up and refused to give any kind of statement.

One female officer who attempted to gain control of the scene, and subsequently gave a statement that incriminated the off duty officers, was completely ostracized by her fellow officers afterwards. They pinned pictures of the victim to her locker, with "kiss kiss" signs, harrassed her, and worst of all, when she was called to high priority calls requiring backup, her backup never came!

The only thing I can figure, is that since the testimony could not pin down exactly which officer did what and when, the jury felt they couldn't convict on that basis.

Everyone knows what happened. I work with someone who lives in Bayview, near where this happened. And everyone who has been here long enough, knows about Milwaukee cops. They are above the law and get away with a LOT of crap. Most people think of them kind of as the stepchild of the Chicago PD.

Thankfully, MOST of them are decent enough folks. It's the drunken beating, midnight sledding and breaking my ankle than making up a chase story, drug buying ones that shake down citizens for drugs and guns and threatening to jail them if they don't break the law and do it, cover up for each other at all costs ones that we have to look out for.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:16:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Irish317:
bastiat,
What info do you have on the case, other than what you have read?

Sean



It's been on local radio for a year and a half, covered on nearly every show once a week or so.

There's a lot you can get from being immersed in it from a year and a half that you can't possibly get from reading a few stories on it.

TheKill's post covered most of the important parts. One of the most telling is how they messed with the female cop who was there and testified against them. It shows where these scumbags priorties are - they'd intimidate someone to protect cops who beat an innocent man - the "blue wall" in the name of solidarity...but when it came time for that cop to need backup on third shift in dangerous situations, they'd abandon a cop in a heartbeat.

They're nothing more than worthless pieces of shit who happened to wear a badge at one time. My only hope is that Karma finds them and makes all of them its bitches.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:20:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Thankfully, MOST of them are decent enough folks. It's the drunken beating, midnight sledding and breaking my ankle than making up a chase story, drug buying ones that shake down citizens for drugs and guns and threatening to jail them if they don't break the law and do it, cover up for each other at all costs ones that we have to look out for.



And the other stories like having special 'police only' after hours bar get-togethers (illegal for anyone but them) and tons of stories here and there.

Milwaukee has suffered a rash of crappy police chiefs - the last one being a midget black racist whose only effort to maintain discipline was to fuck with people who didn't like him. Promote cronies and demote / penalize cops who questioned his stupidity.

Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:21:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Big_Bear:
So when do the riots start?



They were worried about that - they actually had police in riot gear outside the courthouse late last night while they were preparing for the verdict to be delivered.

I don't think there's going to be riots, milwaukee seems to prefer mob beatings.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:23:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Big_Bear:
So when do the riots start?



They were worried about that - they actually had police in riot gear outside the courthouse late last night while they were preparing for the verdict to be delivered.

I don't think there's going to be riots, milwaukee seems to prefer mob beatings.





Dude....you mean "wildings" right????
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:34:02 AM EST
You LEOs who started the blue wall thing and denigrating those who posted here that they were disappointed in the verdict.......DA E. Michael McCann has words for you.....

SATURDAY, April 15, 2006, 11:42 a.m.
By John Diedrich

McCann says he hopes cops come forward
Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann said this morning he hoped police officers who know what happened the night Frank Jude Jr. was beaten will still come forward to tell the story that McCann said others are hiding.

"I just keep hoping someone comes forward and says, 'I can't live with myself,'" McCann said. "Decisions like that define who you are as a human being."

A jury acquitted three former officers in the beating late Friday and hung on one charge.

McCann said he has never seen in his 42-year career as a prosecutor so many police officers who claimed not have seen something that several civilian witnesses saw.

"You usually don't have the numbers saying I didn't see anything,'" McCann said, adding it shows "a police code of silence," a theme McCann emphasized through the trial.


Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:38:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Big_Bear:
So when do the riots start?



They were worried about that - they actually had police in riot gear outside the courthouse late last night while they were preparing for the verdict to be delivered.

I don't think there's going to be riots, milwaukee seems to prefer mob beatings.





Dude....you mean "wildings" right????



How about a politically correct "disenchanted youths looking for a midnight basketball game"

Did you see one of the fourteen year olds involved in one of the beatings four years ago was just arrested again in green bay? It was on the news this week - I think it was robbery but I can't find any news articles on it.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:39:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Big_Bear:
So when do the riots start?



They were worried about that - they actually had police in riot gear outside the courthouse late last night while they were preparing for the verdict to be delivered.

I don't think there's going to be riots, milwaukee seems to prefer mob beatings.





Dude....you mean "wildings" right????



I'm sure Alderman McGee will go on the record that "the MAN be holding him down!". Both sides of this whole thing are equally ridiculous.

How about a politically correct "disenchanted youths looking for a midnight basketball game"

Did you see one of the fourteen year olds involved in one of the beatings four years ago was just arrested again in green bay? It was on the news this week - I think it was robbery but I can't find any news articles on it.

Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:40:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Big_Bear:
So when do the riots start?



They were worried about that - they actually had police in riot gear outside the courthouse late last night while they were preparing for the verdict to be delivered.

I don't think there's going to be riots, milwaukee seems to prefer mob beatings.





Dude....you mean "wildings" right????




How about a politically correct "disenchanted youths looking for a midnight basketball game"

Did you see one of the fourteen year olds involved in one of the beatings four years ago was just arrested again in green bay? It was on the news this week - I think it was robbery but I can't find any news articles on it.



I'm sure Alderman McGee will go on the record that "the MAN be holding him down!". Both sides of this whole thing are equally ridiculous.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:50:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Big_Bear:
So when do the riots start?



They were worried about that - they actually had police in riot gear outside the courthouse late last night while they were preparing for the verdict to be delivered.

I don't think there's going to be riots, milwaukee seems to prefer mob beatings.





Dude....you mean "wildings" right????




How about a politically correct "disenchanted youths looking for a midnight basketball game"

Did you see one of the fourteen year olds involved in one of the beatings four years ago was just arrested again in green bay? It was on the news this week - I think it was robbery but I can't find any news articles on it.



I'm sure Alderman McGee will go on the record that "the MAN be holding him down!". Both sides of this whole thing are equally ridiculous.



I just wish McGee and McCann would disappear off the face of the earth. Bother are pretty much worthless.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:56:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



And I know more about the case than you do.

It was a classic case of the blue wall.


so the Jury of 12 non cops is part of "the blue wall?"

The system in place says 12 people have to agree to convict or aquit. They agreed to aquit, end of story. Unless you are one of those people who only believes in the justice system when it produces the results you favor.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:57:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



And I know more about the case than you do.

It was a classic case of the blue wall.

This guy was beaten senseless. He was ID'd by cops on the scene. Cops were pressured not to talk by other cops.



Just because someone is "beaten senceless" does not mean a crime was comitted.



and even if a crime was committed is doesnt mean the person or persons charged with that crime are the ones that did it. That's for the jury to decide.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 12:03:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



And I know more about the case than you do.

It was a classic case of the blue wall.


so the Jury of 12 non cops is part of "the blue wall?"

The system in place says 12 people have to agree to convict or aquit. They agreed to aquit, end of story. Unless you are one of those people who only believes in the justice system when it produces the results you favor.



And your knowledge of this case is what, exactly? You read a few stories on the net?

They played the denial and confusion game to a T. I don't know what those on the jury were thinking - maybe they wanted to be home for easter. Maybe they're idiots like the OJ jury.

Maybe they thought Frank Jude Jr tripped and fell several hundred times and the cops were just innocent witnesses.

So, if they're really not guilty, does that make the two cops who testfied against them and are still on the job LIARS? Or do we exist in some sort of strange universe where the ex cops didn't do it, and the cops who said they didn't aren't liars because they still wear a badge??

Here in the real world, both facts can not be true at the same time.

If you ever wonder why people end up with a bad opinion of cops, look no further than this thread. Bad cops, the blue line, and the apologists for it all. Way to make people respect your profession when you can't bring yourself to condemn some obvious bad apples.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 12:04:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 12:09:43 PM EST by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By TheKill:
You LEOs who started the blue wall thing and denigrating those who posted here that they were disappointed in the verdict.......



That's a stretch. Of course some fail at reading comprehension. The jury saw the evidence and did not convict. translated to english it means "The jury saw the evidence and did not convict."

It does not mean;
The cops were good guys.
Or the victim deserved it.

It only means the DA was not able to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of 12 non cops.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 12:08:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



And I know more about the case than you do.

It was a classic case of the blue wall.


so the Jury of 12 non cops is part of "the blue wall?"

The system in place says 12 people have to agree to convict or aquit. They agreed to aquit, end of story. Unless you are one of those people who only believes in the justice system when it produces the results you favor.



And your knowledge of this case is what, exactly?


That a jury of 12 non cops reviewed all the evidence the DA had against the suspects, and no only refused to convict. But all 12 agreed to aquit.

dont like it? Change tthe burdon of proof for court or make juries a majority vote.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 12:17:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By TheKill:
You LEOs who started the blue wall thing and denigrating those who posted here that they were disappointed in the verdict.......



That's a stretch. Of course some fail at reading comprehension. The jury saw the evidence and did not convict. translated to english it means "The jury saw the evidence and did not convict."

It does not mean;
The cops were good guys.
Or the victim deserved it.

It only means the DA was not able to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of 12 non cops.



Stabs at reading comprehension notwithstanding, I see your point about 12 "non-cops"....and appreciate it.

That said......98% of our citizens are flunking citizenship 101 in a lot of ways. I don't think a jury of my peers would even be "peers" in the classic sense of the word. IOW, I don't trust the jury any more than I do the Milwaukee PD in general, or Alderman McGee, OR E. M. McCann for that matter (he is first and foremost a political creature). Furthermore, the victim is a shitbag too. Did that play into it? It's hard to tell.

Based on the publically released testimony, it appears to me that these guys beat the hell out of Jude, refused to submit to on duty officers when the victim's friends called 911, and then lied and obfuscated their way out of paying for it. Further, unless you can come up with a completely apolitical DA and 12 apolitical jurists who understand their role in the process, I think a trial is a shot in the dark. That's where I stand.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 12:24:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By TheKill:
You LEOs who started the blue wall thing and denigrating those who posted here that they were disappointed in the verdict.......



That's a stretch. Of course some fail at reading comprehension. The jury saw the evidence and did not convict. translated to english it means "The jury saw the evidence and did not convict."

It does not mean;
The cops were good guys.
Or the victim deserved it.

It only means the DA was not able to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of 12 non cops.



Stabs at reading comprehension notwithstanding, I see your point about 12 "non-cops"....and appreciate it.

That said......98% of our citizens are flunking citizenship 101 in a lot of ways. I don't think a jury of my peers would even be "peers" in the classic sense of the word.



Of course not. I doubt if i was ever on trial i would get a jury comprised of young upper middle calss white military veteran cops. Its more likely to be unemployed folks, retirees and housewives.


IOW, I don't trust the jury any more than I do the Milwaukee PD in general, or Alderman McGee, OR E. M. McCann for that matter (he is first and foremost a political creature).


juries are largely comprised of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. or they have no life/job and can spend a couple weeks sitting in court for $5.00 a day. That said they usually follow the judges instructions well. but as for the evidence, its a personality contest, the go with whoever they find more likable, the Prosecutor or the Defense.

Unfortunately that is the system we have in place. I personally think we should have professional juries made up of retired judges and students in their last year off law school.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 12:38:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheKill:
A jury acquitted three former officers in the beating late Friday and hung on one charge.

McCann said he has never seen in his 42-year career as a prosecutor so many police officers who claimed not have seen something that several civilian witnesses saw.

"You usually don't have the numbers saying I didn't see anything,'" McCann said, adding it shows "a police code of silence," a theme McCann emphasized through the trial.



We can't blame the jury because they are not supposed to have seen the media reports and are only supposed to pay attention to the evidence presented to them during the trial. The blame is on the people in whom we trust to protect us and instead conduct themselves according to a "code of silence".
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 1:21:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Dance:
Quite a travesty of justice...


the jury apparently disagrees. They know more about the case than you do.



And I know more about the case than you do.

It was a classic case of the blue wall.


so the Jury of 12 non cops is part of "the blue wall?"

The system in place says 12 people have to agree to convict or aquit. They agreed to aquit, end of story. Unless you are one of those people who only believes in the justice system when it produces the results you favor.



And your knowledge of this case is what, exactly?


That a jury of 12 non cops reviewed all the evidence the DA had against the suspects, and no only refused to convict. But all 12 agreed to aquit.

dont like it? Change tthe burdon of proof for court or make juries a majority vote.



Ah, the 'non position position'.

So what about the two cops that testified as to who did the beatings- are they liars, or are you not going to touch that one?
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:24:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheKill:
McCann said he has never seen in his 42-year career as a prosecutor so many police officers who claimed not have seen something that several civilian witnesses saw.

"You usually don't have the numbers saying I didn't see anything,'" McCann said, adding it shows "a police code of silence," a theme McCann emphasized through the trial.




So if there were several witnesses who saw it, why did the jury not believe them?
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 12:56:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2006 12:59:39 AM EST by TheKill]

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:

Originally Posted By TheKill:
McCann said he has never seen in his 42-year career as a prosecutor so many police officers who claimed not have seen something that several civilian witnesses saw.

"You usually don't have the numbers saying I didn't see anything,'" McCann said, adding it shows "a police code of silence," a theme McCann emphasized through the trial.




So if there were several witnesses who saw it, why did the jury not believe them?



That's a damn good question. Every detail of the trial was hashed out in the media. Long story short: several non-leo witnesses testified that the three off duty drunken LEOs surrounded this guy and two girls in a truck as they were trying to leave their party. They yanked him out of the truck and accused him of stealing a badge from the party that belonged to one of the off duty LEOs. At this point in the confrontation, the girls where calling 911 on the cell phone, and giving the dispatcher the blow by blow. According to the testimony of the girls, the LEO who was missing his badge at this point pulled out his folding knife and held it to his neck, and then stabbed him (I don't recall where though). They then beat his ass, put him down, and then continued to beat and kick the victim, even after he was down, handcuffed, and no longer resisting. The on duty LEOs arrived right after they put him down and witnessed the continued beating, and one on duty LEO kicked the victim in the head repeatedly. The on duty LEOs where a man and a woman. The woman was the one who tried to gain control of the situation and couldn't, and testified to the above. She also testified that she was harrassed at work after that daily, and when responding to calls, nobody would come as her backup. All the accused basically testified in circles with a lot of "to the best of my knowledge" and "I don't recall exactly" without admitting anything. In the cross examination, they spun it that they had to do the things they did to control the victim.

This is NOT speculation. This is straight from the reporting on the testimony at the trial. They used a LOT of quotes.

The jury deliberated for 3 days, and came up not guilty. Now, here is the kicker. The way I understand it (and I may be wrong), is that most of them were charged with "being party to the crime of (assault) under color of authority". The standard for conviction, if you believe the DA, is different. The DA had to prove byond a reasonable doubt, that (a) The off duty officers put themselves on duty at the outset to investigate an allegation raised by one of the off duty officers that the victim had stolen his badge from his room (they testified that it WOULD apply, since it is SOP with the MPD), (b) that the victim was actually beaten rather than "restrained and subdued" while being detained (have you seen the pictures?) and (c) that the off duty officers where actually involved.

I really don't have the time or inclination to go back and research it in more detail right now (need to get to bed so I can get back up at noon for the family thing). But, that is how it is explained in the paper, so if this really is the case, I just can't see how the jury did not convict, it's ridiculous!
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 1:14:23 AM EST
Here we go.....the latest story. It's pretty hard to imagine how they didn't get a conviction....

Case of bad strategy?
Witness credibility may have hurt 'code of silence' argument
By DERRICK NUNNALLY and JOHN DIEDRICH
dnunnally@journalsentinel.com
Posted: April 15, 2006
After a jury acquitted three former Milwaukee police officers of severely beating Frank Jude Jr., thousands of people who had expected convictions wondered, "What went wrong?"


Frank Jude Jr. Beating Case


Attorneys in the trial of three Milwaukee police officers accused in the Frank Jude Jr. beating case confer with Judge David A. Hansher Friday over the release to the jury of a statement made by a witness.

Related Coverage
The Trial: Case of bad strategy?
Kane: In time of despair, we need hope
Reaction: Observers react with anger, dismay at verdicts
Stingl: Jude case plays out like a tragedy
Spengler: Will focus on getting job back
Closer Look: All-white jury came from racially balanced pool
Victim: Jude is 'devastated'
Next: Case to get federal review


Jurors aren't talking, so no one knows for sure. But some observers suggest it could have been a case of the prosecution having too few witnesses and credibility issues with their best ones. And the strategy prosecutors used to show the "code of silence" may have left them short in a numbers game that led to not-guilty verdicts for Andrew Spengler, 26, Jon Bartlett, 34, and Daniel Masarik, 26.

"It was a cover-up case," said District Attorney E. Michael McCann, frustrated by his first defeat in a felony jury trial in his 42-year prosecuting career. "We brought it right out in front of them."

But apparently they didn't see it.

McCann presented much of the evidence through extensive, almost hostile interrogations of stonewalling police witnesses who said they never saw the defendants or anyone else beat Jude. McCann repeatedly invoked the phrase "police code of silence."

That approach, he said, was necessary to help jurors understand why - when there were so many people at the party, including more than a dozen officers - there were so few accounts of what happened to Jude.

He defended the tactic Saturday as "proper impeachment," of the reticent officers.

Finally McCann called two who appeared to be his star witnesses - the only two MPD officers who said they did see who beat Jude - Joseph Schabel and Nicole Belmore, who responded to the scene in uniform and on duty. They each gave testimony damaging to the defense, and both said they'd suffered reprisals within the department for cooperating with prosecutors.

The contrast seemed sharp. But the jury may have just been keeping a ledger count that favored the defense: Six officers said one thing, two said something else.

"If I were a juror, I would have been wondering, sometimes, why this witness was called," said Jonathan C. Smith, attorney for Daniel Masarik, referring to the officers who said they didn't see anything. "The state was trying to really build this code of silence thing, but that is not evidence. You cannot convict people for what they didn't say or didn't see."

Exploiting weaknesses
All three defense attorneys attacked the credibility of Belmore and Schabel. There were liabilities to exploit: The officers didn't mention the beating in their first reports, didn't initially name names for investigators, and Belmore didn't identify one of the defendants until photos had appeared in the media.

The two were the first on-duty officers to respond to the scene outside a party at Spengler's house early on Oct. 24, 2004, in Bay View. Jude had shown up at party with three others, but left after a short time and was accused of stealing Spengler's badge. A confrontation ensued in the street outside.

The defense also focused on a 911 call in which a woman who had come to the party with Jude, Kirsten Antonissen, tells a dispatcher that on-duty officers had joined in the beating.

At trial, Antonissen testified she didn't remember what she saw, and Bartlett revealed, for the first time, that he remembered seeing Schabel kick Jude.

"I hope the jury speaks to it, but I suspect much hung on Schabel," McCann said. "(Antonissen) believed he struck Jude when he arrived. That's a very unusual twist in the case. I've tried a lot of cases and never had that come up."

In a case with little hard evidence, that 911 recording seemed key. A transcript of it was among the few pieces of evidence jurors requested during deliberations.

"It's common sense to say what she's talking about at the time (of the beating) is an accurate sense of what's going on," defense attorney Bridget Boyle said. "It's a play-by-play."

Defense attorneys glided past other parts of the taped call, where Antonissen said up to 15 men she believed to be off-duty officers were taking turns kicking Jude in the head.

The defense contended that two of the off-duty officers - Bartlett and Spengler - put themselves on duty to arrest Jude, who they believed had stolen Spengler's badge. But the men did not beat Jude, jam anything in his ears, put a knife to his throat or yank back his fingers, their lawyers said.

The third defendant - Masarik - simply claimed he wasn't there, but was inside Spengler's house looking for a memo book.

Because an all-white jury acquitted white officers in a beating case with racial overtones, "I've heard some comparisons to the Rodney King case," said Rodney Cubbie, defense attorney for officer Ryan Packard, who was at the Spengler party but not charged in Jude's beating. "There's a difference. In King, you had a videotape that showed the beating, and the question was whether or not it was justified. Here, you don't have a videotape that shows who did what, and none of the defense attorneys argued that what happened to Jude was justified.

"The big question was: Who did it?"

The eight-woman, four-man jury deliberated 26 hours. Because their names have not been released, attorneys could only speculate what evidence and which arguments the jury found convincing or flawed.

"They were just trying to figure out, as I have done for the last year and a half, who did what to Jude," said Bridget Boyle, who, along with her father, Gerald Boyle, defended Bartlett.

McCann never had to prove the defendants actually beat Jude.

They were charged in each count as being "a party to the crime," someone who can be convicted if he or she is "aiding and abetting" the person who did it or was a member of a conspiracy to commit the crime. Even if it were proved that a defendant stood around Jude and was "ready and willing to assist" but didn't do anything, he could be convicted, according to the jury instructions.

"That was a pretty smart way to charge it," said Lee Jones, a candidate to succeed the retiring McCann. "There had to be some disconnect between that and the way it was presented to the jury."

Bartlett's own testimony - that he cut Jude's coat, held him down and punched him - appeared to have approached the definition of being "party to a crime." Bartlett's defense was that he was lawfully acting as an officer and that Schabel and Packard assaulted Jude.

McCann said he has not decided whether to proceed with a pending perjury charge against Masarik, related to his testimony at a John Doe investigation of the Jude matter, or what will happen with the charge the jury could not reach agreement on Friday, substantial battery, party to a crime, against Bartlett.

McCann said he still hopes officers who know what happened will come forward.

"I just keep hoping someone comes forward and says, 'I can't live with myself,' " McCann said. "Decisions like that define who you are as a human being."
Top Top