From my weekly column at Greed: “No Quarter”
(GREED) – “I cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict.” This is the sound of what a fully militarized system of white supremacy sounds like.
Jaws hit the floor yesterday in the case of Michael Slager, better known as the cop who shot an unarmed man named Walter Scott, when a jury of 11 whites and one black person said it looked like they were heading for a mistrial. This wasn’t some dire gridlock either, but one lone asshole who somehow has decided that they cannot possibly conceive of any punishment for a cop that not only shot an unarmed man in the fucking back but tried to plant a weapon on him to make it look justified.
We here at the Greed Florida Office have been staying up all night reviewing the details of this case, practically draining the local liquor store of supplies absolutely critical to reviewing the footage of the shooting. It must be very difficult to be a juror on the Walter Scott case, what with the vast amount of studying required of what surely must be a very long and very unclear bit of videotape. We did our best to put ourselves in their shoes. Try your own hand at it:
Eight shots, eight motherfucking shots for a man who:
- Had no weapon
- Had his back turned
- Took no aggressive action against the police officer
- Was running at about the speed of a de-caffeinated 12-year-old
On what strange and alien planet can one view this footage and possibly allow the words “I cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict” slither from your lips? What kind of vile, brutish existence in some godforsaken den of absolute mayhem can one even ponder a quantum possibility in an alternate timeline where a cop shoots a man basically fucking speed walking and be unsure as to who is at fault?
But that’s just it isn’t it, because this juror isn’t unsure, isn’t waffling on some legal pretense or the language of the law. No, this pile of human excrement has declared “I cannot and will not change my mind.”
That the jury might go for the lesser charge of manslaughter, the crime of killing a human being without malice, would be scandal enough. We could sit around and talk about how this country considers killing an unarmed black man as something free from malice, as if stepping on a roach or brushing away a fly. THAT would be bad.
But that one juror, who somehow sneaked past the jury selection phase, has decided that they refuse to prosecute a modern-day lynching because the killer wears a badge boggles the imagination….
Latest posts by Dr. Bones (see all)
- Anything But Class: The Horrors I Saw At A Democrat Town Hall - Apr 25, 2017
- Easter is an Empty Ritual, Just Like the Fights at Berkeley - Apr 16, 2017
- What the Wealthy’s Quest for Immortality Means for You - Apr 11, 2017