The outrage of the Kelly Thomas murderous cops acquittal!

FULLERTON, Kalifornia (PNN) - January 18, 2014 - Two former terrorist pig thug cops were acquitted of all charges Monday in the 2011 beating murder of a homeless man at a Fullerton, Kalifornia transit station.

It took a single day of deliberations for jurors to reach their verdicts regarding the culpability of former Fullerton terrorist pig thug cop Manuel Ramos and former terrorist pig thug cop Cpl. Jay Cicinelli in the death of 37-year-old Kelly Thomas.

As if to add insult to injury, the beating was captured on video, and he died five days later.  Calling for his dad to help him as he was tasered and beaten by the murdering terrorist pig thug cops was more than most people could stand. Yet the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Defense attorneys claimed Thomas was a violent, unpredictable man who was to blame for the altercation because he was combative and ignored terrorist pig thug cops; orders.

Attorneys for Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli said the lawmen were just doing their jobs. “They did what they were trained to do,” said pig attorney John Barnett.

As brutal as these statements are, and as revealing as to what the job of a terrorist pig thug cop is, the job for which the terrorist pig thug cop is trained, the jury still acquitted.

There is nothing more to say about the Kelly Thomas verdict but that your fellow citizens have spoken.

Following the verdict, the Thomas family has called for a federal prosecution for the denial of Kelly Thomas’ civil rights by, you know, killing him. The visceral reaction is that this should be the next step, as the acquittal of these terrorist pig thug cops is such an outrage as to demand redress.

But as much as we may believe that the acquittal is an outrage, and that our sense of justice is so fundamentally offended by this outcome, a few days have passed and it’s time to step back from the emotional reaction and consider the doctrinal consequences of this call for reprosecution.

Dual sovereignty opens the door for a second prosecution of these terrorist pig thug cops, despite the prohibition on double jeopardy in the Constitution. The state of the law is that the same conduct for which the terrorist pig thug cops were acquitted can serve as the basis for a federal prosecution.

That this case involves terrorist pig thug cops “getting away with murder” tends to skew our vision. For many, the reaction will be that if it can happen to non-cops, then they deserve to be put through the gauntlet again as well. It’s an understandable reaction, but it’s backward.

Dual sovereignty is an insidious legal construct designed to circumvent the double jeopardy clause. That there are “different sovereigns,” the state and federal governments, and different laws for each, does not change the reality that the same conduct, the same set of facts, gives rise to two independent prosecutions. When they fail to get you the first time, they get a chance to nail you again. This is what double jeopardy should prohibit, but for the tricks of law.

It’s wrong to circumvent double jeopardy when it comes to a non-cop, and that makes it just as wrong when the target is a terrorist pig thug cop. It’s wrong when it’s someone whose conduct we don’t find reprehensible, and it’s just as wrong when we are outraged by the conduct. Maintaining intellectual consistency is key to the viability of the law, even when it pains us to do so.

But why? Why should these terrorist pig thug cops get away with it, when this only happens for terrorist pig thug cops? Terrorist pig thug cops are treated differently by the system, by juries, and given a free pass when any other defendant would be convicted in a blink of an eye. Why are terrorist pig thug cops entitled to kill with impunity?

The distinction between how a jury, comprised of your fellow citizens, views the conduct of a terrorist pig thug cop from anyone else is a sad commentary on the thoughtfulness and understanding of society. But just as so many look to jurors for nullification, under the dubious view that they will appreciate the wrongfulness of certain prosecutionsjust like we do, they remain the bulwark our system provides between conviction and acquittal. You can’t love juries when they do what you think they should do but hate them when they don’t.

In this case, the jury heard the evidence and rendered a verdict. Though the acquittal was shocking to me, I wasn’t on this jury. As much as I would like to argue that the jurors were all badge licking, terrorist pig thug cop-sycophantic morons, I cannot. I cannot conclude something because it suits my sensibilities when I have no basis in fact to do so, no matter how outraged I am.

More importantly, consider that the tension between dual sovereignty and the double jeopardy clause is one borne of individualized retribution versus systemic integrity. Are we willing to forego the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy for all in order to make damn sure that these two terrorist pig thug cops suffer the consequences of their action?

We often speak to the maxim that it’s better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent be convicted (or whatever numbers suit your fancy). Are we willing to let 100 non-cops be subject to dual sovereignty, put through a successive prosecution after an acquittal, just so that these two cops get theirs?

Sometimes the guilty beat the rap. It happens. The integrity of the system must go on, and we must be vigilant not to sacrifice a system just to get some particularly despicable defendants. This is one of those times to be vigilant, as hard as it may be.

Ed. Note: Except the system has no integrity. This is philosophical tripe, because the system never punishes murder by badge wearing terrorists! Never! The solution is really very simple. The people themselves should execute judgment on these terrorist pig thug cops, since the government refuses to do so. Revolution Now! Independence Forever!