11 years would likely be more like 3-5 years served

 

Even for a violent crime?

Involuntary manslaughter (3rd degree felony) is:

9 months to 5 years can be up to 11 years if committing another crime in the process.

 

Voluntary manslaughter (1st degree felony) is:

3 - 11 years.

This guy won't walk away from this as someone said earlier. You may or may not get him at murder but at minimum he will be convicted of manslaughter.

 

I would think so too. However, I've sat on a couple juries where a member simply refused to vote guilty. Despite overwhelming evidence she (in both cases) simply didn't want to accept the responsibility for affecting another person's life, and these were very minor compared to what this case is about. Could not believe they made it to the jury box. Strange things can happen, jury selection will be vital.

I didn't listen to Deters. I have no idea what the eventual criminal charge will be.

 

I can't imagine a murder charge. Plea to manslaughter would be my guess.

I would think so too. However, I've sat on a couple juries where a member simply refused to vote guilty. Despite overwhelming evidence she (in both cases) simply didn't want to accept the responsibility for affecting another person's life, and these were very minor compared to what this case is about. Could not believe they made it to the jury box. Strange things can happen, jury selection will be vital.

 

So how on earth does someone with that mindset get selected for jury duty? Isn't that part of the vetting process?

I didn't listen to Deters. I have no idea what the eventual criminal charge will be.

 

I can't imagine a murder charge. Plea to manslaughter would be my guess.

 

I don't think he will plea because I don't think the prosecution will make any generous offers.

So how on earth does someone with that mindset get selected for jury duty? Isn't that part of the vetting process?

 

They either lied or really believed they could vote guilty but when it came down to it they couldn't. Zero doubt about their guilt in either case. They even admitted they thought the defendant was guilty but couldn't vote that way. Pitiful.

Um, I wasn't saying they should convict him just so riots don't happen?

 

Here is what you said. "No way he walks. And if he does, the fall out would be worse than any of us could imagine"

 

Why is that?

Here is what you said. "No way he walks. And if he does, the fall out would be worse than any of us could imagine"

 

Why is that?

 

Because there are idiots in our world looking for any reason to act like a fool.

 

In no way does that mean I was insinuating the outcome of a trial should be affected by that.

Because there are idiots in our world looking for any reason to act like a fool.

 

In no way does that mean I was insinuating the outcome of a trial should be affected by that.

 

Don't believe I ever insinuated you said the outcome should be effected. You just said there would be fall out.

So how on earth does someone with that mindset get selected for jury duty? Isn't that part of the vetting process?

 

Some people go through life avoiding every tough decision and in these cases "she" had to pick a side. Doesn't surprise me in the least.

If he walks after the DA called it murder the city will burn. There will be riots for days. After such a strong comdemnation from the Deters after viewing the film and his remarks, there is no way this guy gets off without reprocussions to the city. If you talk like that you better get your conviction. I think they will but if not. I'll be in Union for a week.

The situation only got dangerous when the officer pulled his gun.

 

The crux of the matter. I don't see any reason for him to reach for his gun, much less pull it and fire it at the victim's head.

I would think so too. However, I've sat on a couple juries where a member simply refused to vote guilty. Despite overwhelming evidence she (in both cases) simply didn't want to accept the responsibility for affecting another person's life, and these were very minor compared to what this case is about. Could not believe they made it to the jury box. Strange things can happen, jury selection will be vital.

 

I was the foreman on a jury one time where there was one woman who was very similar to the one you describe here. She went along with the other eleven of us, but I felt at the time--and still do--that she didn't have the courage to be the lone wolf. But had the decision solely been hers, she would have gone the other way.

If this hasn't been shared here it is:

 

Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio

 

Statement by Jay McDonald, President of the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio

 

"The Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio was disappointed by Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters' remarks that disparaged all of the officers of the University of Cincinnati Police Department. These professional officers are dedicated to protecting their community and work tirelessly to do so. University police are certified state peace officers and they do their job with honor and distinction just as city police, county sheriff deputies, and other law enforcement professionals do.

 

Prosecutor Deters also referred to enforcing Ohio’s vehicle laws as “chicken crap.” Ohio’s legislature has determined that every vehicle must have a front license plate and thirty-four other States have the same law. Ohio’s law enforcement officers have found enforcing the front license plate law to be invaluable in solving crimes, ranging from robberies and murders. Fleeing felons, wanted fugitives, even terrorists have been caught because of traffic stops for minor vehicle code violations.

 

We understand that politicians often make statements meant for political impact and aimed at public opinion. That appears to be what this prosecutor was doing. But his remarks should not have disparaged all university police or the thousands of officers who follow the law by conducting traffic stops for minor misdemeanor violations."