A Comment Worthy Of A Post: Salisbury Police VS Salisbury University Students

While this is a long Post, I believe it makes for an extremely interesting read as well as an incredible debate. Chime in through comments if you like. 

Anonymous Said...

Well Joe.....this was a travesty. You know I love what you do but with the freedom you exercise with this blog comes great responsibility. We talked about this some until we got sidetracked. (Imagine that). This is something you really need to think about. By your own admission your blog reaches many. Even those whom it doesn't reach directly are reached by word of mouth. I would proffer that no one on that jury hadn't heard about that case prior to trial. Then we add the fact that blogs are more popular because people can comment with anonymity without responsibility. Many of these comments are made by people who write as if they are authorities on legal matters yet have nothing more than an opinion. 99% of the time these opinions are rendered with no legal knowledge yet are viewed by most (who are likely followers rather than leaders) as if they were gospel. Rommel played a scumbag lawyer trick and used you as a way to get his side of the story out to the public knowing that it would be tried in the court of public opinion way before the jury ever heard the case. I would bet that his plan the entire time was to play the media - in this case your blog - and then pray jury trial knowing that any jury pool would be tainted. In my opinion he manipulated the entire system and Sbynews to bring about a very calculated result. He intentionally released video to you knowing you would post it. He also knew he was going to use these videos as evidence when he released them to you. To me, this shows the underbelly of an individual who is not a good attorney, but rather an attorney with no moral compass. 

Now.......to all these roadside attorneys speaking of lawsuits who are obviously members of the group who know nothing of that which they speak but writes as if they are authorities......you completely misunderstand the implications that the different burden of proof thresholds required to make specific cases. For the purposes of this discussion the burden of proof for probable cause (that which is needed to file charges) was met as indicated by the impartial judicial officer for the district court. That means enough evidence exists to charge the defendants and bring the case to trial. If we had to assign a percentage amount to this level of proof we could attach a number of about 51%. The number needed to convict using the same scale is about 99%. Now....the number needed to win a civil case would be commonly called a preponderance of the evidence.....about 51% if using the same type of number assignment scale. In a nutshell this means that it has been already established that the officer in this case had enough evidence to arrest and bring charges....but according to a jury...not enough to convict. (Arguably) however if the defendants in this case argue that the officer didn't have enough evidence to arrest and that the arrest was false......the contrary has already been established. 

Joe....the anti-police sentiment in the U.S. Is increasing at an astounding rate. I would argue that much of this is due to what is tantamount to a hue and cry. In medieval times it would be the masses would be gathered on the front steps with pitchforks and torches demanding a hanging. We live in a nation of laws. When lynch mobs form due to misinformation it seriously undermines the rule of law....and it makes the job of police officers even more dangerous than it needs to be. These college students will now be emboldened and the citizens living in the areas surrounding the university will pay for it. When we look at your blog we see this post and then we see posts about the increase in violence in Salisbury. You can't condemn the police for doing their jobs and then expect them to put their necks on the line thinking they will be ridiculed in the court of public opinion by those who have no idea of what their job entails of the laws that govern their actions.

Here are some mistakes: 

"That means enough evidence exists to charge the defendants and bring the case to trial. If we had to assign a percentage amount to this level of proof we could attach a number of about 51%." 

"The number needed to convict using the scale is about 99%." (If this had been said, this at trial it would result in a mistrial; courts have made very clear the reasonable doubt standard is not a percentage or number). 

In a nutshell this means that it has already been established that the officer in this case had enough evidence to arrest and bring charges. 

These statements are absolutely not true. Any determination made by a district court commissioner is simply based upon the written allegations contained in the statement of probable cause. Evidence is not considered. Testimony is not considered. No factual findings are made. It is just based upon the allegations of the officer-there is never another side to the story. To say, therefore, that "it has already been established" that there was enough evidence to arrest and bring charges is simply incorrect. 

If the writer of the comment is going to criticize others for unformed statements, he should stick to what he knows and stay out of the area of legal burdens of proof. 

Rebuttal: Most people who are charged with a crime have their names and pictures (often a mug shot) released to the community long before their trials. The news media (including Salisbury News) publishes this information, which is based on charges, not evidence. There has been no trial, no hearing and no conviction, and no "other side to the story." Despite the fact people are presumed to be innocent the public sees them (for the first time, for a lot of people) standing and pictured in front a concrete wall at a police station because they have been accused of committing a crime. Being accused of a crime is different than being guilty or being convicted of a crime. Yet for most the these people, the first and only public attention or coverage they get is based on a charge made by a police officer, a charge that can be right, wrong or somewhere in between. Unfortunately for a lot of people, they do not have the means or opportunity to ever respond publically when they are acquitted of a crime. In many cases, the damage is done. (Ask Sheriff Lewis, and to a lesser extent Davis Ruark) 

If police agencies are going to use the news media to publish and broadcast arrest (based on their side of the story), I see no problem with some of the concerns expressed in the post above. Why should a person have to simply wait for trial and hope and pray for the best? What if they cannot afford a private lawyer, and their only option is to use a public defender they meet for the first time on their trial date? What if no one wants to hear their side of the story, because court is busy that day? What if a person charged is actually innocent? 

It is easy to say that the police are always right. Most of the time they are. Most people are in fact guilty of what they are charged with. But consider this: assume for a minute you have been falsely accused of a crime, and you have video evidence that you believe proves your innocence. You are going to want that video played on Salisbury News.