Federal Grand Jury Indicts Sheriff Bobby Shirley

[catsmom]

I have never met or even set eyes on Shirley nor am I monumentally stupid. What I am saying is the media may not have been supplied with all the facts. Usually they are not and yes media can be bias in their reporting and views they present. It is not the way it is suppose to be but it is the way it is. Wake up and smell the coffee. Just take a reasoned observation of CNN or Fox. Assuming that the media reports only the facts without the views and opinions of those reporting is monumentally naive and straight out of the cabbage patch. I am saying that on this forum it appears that some are judging him based on hearsay and incomplete facts. It is like the seven blind men describing a elephant, we don't have a complete picture and therefore do not have the right to judge or convict as some have done on this forum.

[LFE]

3:17
Frank Zappa - I_m The Slime Live SNL 1976.flv

[KatherineA]

I have never met or even set eyes on Shirley nor am I monumentally stupid. What I am saying is the media may not have been supplied with all the facts. Usually they are not and yes media can be bias in their reporting and views they present. It is not the way it is suppose to be but it is the way it is. Wake up and smell the coffee. Just take a reasoned observation of CNN or Fox. Assuming that the media reports only the facts without the views and opinions of those reporting is monumentally naive and straight out of the cabbage patch. I am saying that on this forum it appears that some are judging him based on hearsay and incomplete facts. It is like the seven blind men describing a elephant, we don't have a complete picture and therefore do not have the right to judge or convict as some have done on this forum.

I bet his girlfriend in Dept. of Parks and Recs. has a complete picture.

[LazerFlash]

I bet his girlfriend in Dept. of Parks and Recs. has a complete picture.

Oh, lord... thanks a lot for a mental image I just didn't need to have!

[StickonFreeze]

I have never met or even set eyes on Shirley nor am I monumentally stupid. What I am saying is the media may not have been supplied with all the facts. Usually they are not and yes media can be bias in their reporting and views they present. It is not the way it is suppose to be but it is the way it is. Wake up and smell the coffee. Just take a reasoned observation of CNN or Fox. Assuming that the media reports only the facts without the views and opinions of those reporting is monumentally naive and straight out of the cabbage patch. I am saying that on this forum it appears that some are judging him based on hearsay and incomplete facts. It is like the seven blind men describing a elephant, we don't have a complete picture and therefore do not have the right to judge or convict as some have done on this forum.

How can the actions seen on the videotape be "hearsay"? How do you explain the extensive facial injuries?

You have your head in the sand.

[KellyR]

How can the actions seen on the videotape be "hearsay"? How do you explain the extensive facial injuries?

You have your head in the sand.

Prove to me the victim in the video tape is the person bringing the case.

[StickonFreeze]

Prove to me the victim in the video tape is the person bringing the case.

That doesn't make any sense.

[KellyR]

That doesn't make any sense.

Clearly, Mr. Shirley is beating something or someone, that is not clear from watching the video who this person is, and the "suspected" persons lawyer released this video. So the statement is, prove to me that this video is who they say it is. I certainly cannot tell and if I am on the jury who has to use this video tape as evidence, I would not be able to convict.

[LazerFlash]

Clearly, Mr. Shirley is beating something or someone, that is not clear from watching the video who this person is, and the "suspected" persons lawyer released this video. So the statement is, prove to me that this video is who they say it is. I certainly cannot tell and if I am on the jury who has to use this video tape as evidence, I would not be able to convict.

I suppose that you do have a point. However, any reasonably competent prosecuting attorney should be able to prove via testimony from the officers that they weren't beating each other - and based upon the video timestamps, it couldn't be any other suspect. Also, the chain-of-custody on the original dashcam video is not something that the CIVIL attorney has any control over.

By your own words, you admit that Shirley is "clearly" beating someone (or something). If the prosecuting attorney proved that the only person he could be beating in that video was, in fact, Haines, would your verdict change?

[KellyR]

I suppose that you do have a point. However, any reasonably competent prosecuting attorney should be able to prove via testimony from the officers that they weren't beating each other - and based upon the video timestamps, it couldn't be any other suspect. Also, the chain-of-custody on the original dashcam video is not something that the CIVIL attorney has any control over.

By your own words, you admit that Shirley is "clearly" beating someone (or something). If the prosecuting attorney proved that the only person he could be beating in that video was, in fact, Haines, would your verdict change?

It would have to be presented with other evidence, and be clearly "without a doubt." Otherwise, no I would not.

[StickonFreeze]

It would have to be presented with other evidence, and be clearly "without a doubt." Otherwise, no I would not.

Well, then you are failing to use common sense.

It's possible that Shirley will not be convicted. But one really has to dance around the obvious to conclude that law enforcement didn't go WAY too far when roughing up this guy. Maybe Shirley was hitting another officer? Maybe there was a swarm of bees? Maybe it was an alien? Shirley was having a seizure?

Shirley kicked the guy in the head. That's what happened.

[Tony]

and be clearly "without a doubt."

Actually that's not true in the United States (or any other jurisdiction I've ever heard of). As a juror, you're looking for "beyond a reasonable doubt", not the much higher "beyond any doubt". If any conviction relied on "no doubt at all", there would be very few.

[KellyR]

Ok let me word it differently. Can i say beyond as reasonable doubt that Mr. Shirley is kicking and hitting Mr. Haines? No i can't because I don't see Mr. Haines. I don't even see a "person" other than the officers. Are they doing something wrong? Sure they are - but please tell me who are they doing it to. Because the video does show that. Thats all I am saying.

[Tony]

Well, that would be a novel defense if you could pull it off. As the sheriff's attorney, you would have to at least explain why the little white pickup truck matched Haines' truck. Then you would have to explain the radio chatter which the prosecution would show time-stamped as occurring during the chase. It is a bit odd the dash-cam has no time stamp, ID, or speed stamp, but they may have been cropped out by whoever posted the video. Then there's the little problem of the other half dozen officers on the scene that might not go along that this was a different suspect at a different time.

Personally, I think going to all that trouble would just annoy a jury that you thought they were stupid. Why not just point out that Shirley isn't actually seen kicking anyone? His leg movements can easily be explained as stepping over objects in the back of the truck. Assuming you don't have a lot of pictures showing the truck bed to be clear of objects.

[LFE]

That's one well placed black SUV....
Looked to me like they were tagging folks into the back of the truck (tag, your turn?).
Looked like the guy was still struggeling while on the ground as well.

[catsmom]

Can you see what Haines is doing? No, just because he is handcuff doesn't mean he didn't have a concealed knife he got a hold of and was either going to use it on himself or others who came near. The simple fact is we can't see so therefore do not know and can speculate all we want but SPECULATION (guessing)is not now or ever has been grounds for conviction. It requires FACT. Facts for both sides of the story which are not present.

[saltman241]

Can you see what Haines is doing? No, just because he is handcuff doesn't mean he didn't have a concealed knife he got a hold of and was either going to use it on himself or others who came near. The simple fact is we can't see so therefore do not know and can speculate all we want but SPECULATION (guessing)is not now or ever has been grounds for conviction. It requires FACT. Facts for both sides of the story which are not present.

You don't find it odd that not a single officer present has a drawn weapon? If the accused was an active resistor, let alone an armed resistor, the officers would take measures to ensure their safety. These officers are not responding to an active resistor. Law enforcement has very defined policies on use of force in these incidents as it's there job and duty. The body language of the officers speaks volumes to the state of the accused, they in no way demonstrate an engagement. I assure you the actions found in this video do not fit any model of any agency. Your arguments are ludicrous. I suspect they are just for the sake of argument.

[StickonFreeze]

Can you see what Haines is doing? No, just because he is handcuff doesn't mean he didn't have a concealed knife he got a hold of and was either going to use it on himself or others who came near. The simple fact is we can't see so therefore do not know and can speculate all we want but SPECULATION (guessing)is not now or ever has been grounds for conviction. It requires FACT. Facts for both sides of the story which are not present.

Nonsense.

You are grasping for anything that might make the obvious seem untrue. If Haines had a concealed knife, how would the officers see it? If he was threatening officers with a weapon, they would have put a bullet into him. Your theories are absurd.

I'm not talking about gaining a conviction in court, I'm talking about what happened. What happened is the sherriff kicked a guy in the head for no reason.

[LFE]

What happened is the sherriff kicked a guy in the head for no reason.

He might have said something mean about his mommy?

[KatherineA]

Conviction is what occurs in court, when a jury finds guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction does not occur on a website forum. Speculation, discussion, gossip, yes. Opinions - yes. In fact, in my opinion, Shirley kicked the guy in the head mercilessly while other so called "professional" law enforcement officers (of the law) stood around and let him do it. All of them were acting contrary to their oath to protect and serve. Also, in my opinion, they should be indicted because I think that they are just as guilty as Shirley.

Is this a "conviction" - no