oh wow sick burn, really demonstrating your own knowledge here and refuting my points. Try again

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

I already did.

There are a tremendous number of criminal prosecutions that rely upon insignificant or no police testimony in any way to make a case against a defendant.

You, as a prospective jury pool participant, have no idea what case you will hear, and who will testify in the proceedings.

So you, as a prospective jury pool participant, sound like a dumbass to claim that you should not be obligated to participate in the process in the same manner as every other citizen because you think that ALL cops are liars, and thereby can't sit on a jury because you will hear testimony from a cop. Regardless of the fact that you have no idea if you will actually hear testimony from a cop.

Do such cases exist? yes, but they are the minority of cases. Most criminal proceedings that come to trial will be cases dependent upon a police investigation and thus evidence gathered and presented by the police and testimony from those officers.

I have stated multiple examples showing corruption and outright civil rights abuses from police departments across the country. As has been pointed out, rather than condemn these cases, most officers and their professional organizations circle the wagons and rush to the defense of the officer. Just look no further than the continued defense of the officer who murdered Mr. Castile in Minneapolis.

If you want to serve on a jury dependent upon police testimony and evidence fine. I simply will play no part of being a pawn in a machine that allows police to rob citizens and infringe upon their rights. If a prosecutor doesn't dismiss me from serving, more power to him. He should just expect his conviction rate to suffer as I'm not going to accept the word of a police officer to be the truth.

Perhaps more citizens should take this line of thought to heart as I don't think police departments will change until they feel the anger of the people and see us not imprisoning those who they have arrested. Our law enforcement officers now steal more annually than all burglars. That isn't a statement of opinion, but rather a statement of fact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 7189da1643

You're a bigger fool than I thought if you're going to sit on a jury and accept the word of a thief to be the truth.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

_________________

on the subject of me not willing to recognize evidence presented by police, Baltimore (just days after the 1st incident) has discovered even more cops planting evidence.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

The problem is even more widespread as the previous story noted that officers have the ability to switch the cameras off allowing them time to plant it undetected.

With this type of culture rampant across police departments, how can anyone reasonably be expected to take the word of a cop on the stand (or evidence gathered by said cop) to be the truth?

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson