what? wrote on July 20, 2008 07:03 PM: Another classic example of how a jury can be swayed by a person. We judge people on appearance, so he looks like he's 12, he walks? Some trials should be conducted with the jury not seeing the accused, to prevent sympathy. Regardless, he's guilty of accessory to murder anyhow. What 15 years? He will be in his mid 30's, unless early release. In 5 years he will be 24, early release, allowed to rejoin society. He was driving? Well then he's just as guilty, even as an accessory on all charges.

Michael wrote on July 18, 2008 11:21 AM: Brendan,

Again, check the law. The "Blanket" Fleeing Felon law was changed in the 1970's. However, it is still JUSIFIED to use deadly force to stop a person fleeing when the issue involves the following:

1. National Security (Nuclear Technology, Espionage, etc.)
2. To stop someone immediately engaged in force which could cause grevious bodily injury or death.
3. Or to STOP a person fleeing (handcuffs or not) who is BELIEVED to have committed a crime whihc inflicted grevious bodily injury or death.

Lopez fits number 3. Shooting justified. End of discussion.

Do what police tell you to do when theytell you to do it and no one gets shot!

To Brendan wrote on July 18, 2008 08:17 AM: Brenden--you have the right to use this platform to expouse your sentiments about bad cops or the establishment, but do you realize what you are saying to the majority of honest police, DAs and judges who work hard everyday to protect us?

Get off your soap box and deal with the majority--the good guys who put their lives on the line every day for people like you and me. Read the records--the shooting was justified, Lopez wriggled his hands to the front and started to run. Just because he hadn't been convicted of the crime they were trying to arrest him for doesn't mean the police shouldn't protect citizens like you and me in harms way from a a man who had just been recently released from prison and had served time for something else he was invloved in before he did this,

In respect to those who have been tragically affected by Lopez and Carter's criminal acts--get off your soap box!

Brendan Perez wrote on July 18, 2008 01:49 AM: If people are still unhappy with the fact that Carter was found not guilty of the murder and you believe he was an equal part of it, blame the prosecutor for failing to convince the jury, him and his lawyer for lying about his involvement and finally, blame the detectives for shrouding this case in doubt and controversy by shooting the accused co-defendant in the back.

See, that last part may have played a bigger part than some of you are willing to admit.

It's not new-prosecutors have tried to "throw the book" at people in the past as a way to divert attention away from bad acts by cops, judges, prosecutors, etc.

Whenever it's convenient for them to say so, cops claim they're regular people too. Well, we know from first hand experience that not all regular people are good, honest, trustworthy, have integrity, etc. It would follow that there are some in the police force that lack those same qualities.

Before you go blindly asserting that every cop is , honest, trustworthy, restrained, and law abiding and that all one have to do is comply, imagine what you would do when you run into a cop who is not any of those things.
How many people have been raped/murderded/beaten/robbed even after doing everything they were told?

The dangerous thing here is this unwavering belief that the police are always right and the suspects in custody are always wrong.

Imagine if shooting running suspects becomes acceptable-what happens to someone who turns around while talking to a bad/marginal cop? Does the cop get away with saying you were running and he was justified in shooting?

In short, everything you support the police doing to Lopez could be done to you or I by a bad cop.

Brendan Perez wrote on July 18, 2008 01:36 AM: Who's defending or sympathizing with Suave Lopez?
I'm not saying I agree with anything he did, anything he's accused of doing, and anything he didn't do.

My problem is solely with the fact that he was shot in the back while unarmed and handcuffed.

As far as I can see, it's no different then the police shooting someone in handcuffs because he refuses to stand up or sit down.

Whether you all like it or not, accused people have rights too. We cannot just "let the gloves come off" so to speak because someone is accused of committing a heinous crime. If accused criminals don't have rights, none of us do because it takes very little to be accused of a crime.

The police should have tackled him and brought him back. Then he would get to stand trial for what he did.

It's entirely possible, that he would have confessed and he and Carter would have both been found guilty of murder. But, he was killed and (truth or not) Carter was able to convince the jury he had nothing to do with the murder.
The jury is not the only one responsible for a verdict-both sides' attorneys are as well. If Carter as responsible as Lopez, then the prosecutor failed to convince the jury.

This idea that juries are always required to find every person guilty is another disturbing idea. It's always claimed to be a bad/weak jury when they find someone "not guilty" of a crime. Why? Do the police and prosecution never make mistakes? Plenty of people have been freed by DNA evidence.

Carter was still found guilty of robbery, conspiracy, possession of stolen property and stolen vehicle. There's plenty of room to sentence to 25+ years in those four charges.

Barbie wrote on July 18, 2008 01:20 AM: When one gets acquittedof murder it will take only a short amount of time befor one tries to perfect that same crime. As in his height just give him a short time as this jury will soon be asking themselves how they ever acquitted this warm being.As he will re-offend Just a feeling that I have!

rjC wrote on July 17, 2008 11:33 PM: To This was a weak jury- Your husband also protects and had fought for Brendan's right to say what he wants. Remember, this is a free country. Also, under islamic law, muslims would never let a wife speak as you did, let alone published in a public forum. I know, I've been there and observed their oppression of freedoms. On the other hand, Brendan would have been beheaded for his anti-establishment
opinions hours ago.

Kim wrote on July 17, 2008 08:56 PM: I think this is bullshit I think he should have been convicted of something....he was there he helped cover it up. Even though he wasnt the one that pulled the trigger he was still present. He helped burn MY FRIENDS BODY!!! Where is the justice in that?

Where is the 2nd degree murder, manslaughter...something??? All he is going to be charged with is stealing Kyle's Mustang you have got to be kidding me!!!!!

This was a weak jury wrote on July 17, 2008 08:17 PM: Brendan, do me a favor and never dial 911. I do not want my husband to put his life on the line for someone like you!
My husband that I am very proud of is a Police Officer. He is the bravest man I have ever met. He is honest and takes pride in his work over the past 15 years. It would take me all night to list all his accomplishments.
Prior to becoming a Police Officer he served the Country you are living in. 8 years in the Marine Corp. He fought in 2 wars for you.
What have you done for society other then insult good hard working people?
How could you even defend someone that steals, kills and goes back the next day to set the body on fire?
I think you need therapy!

CJ wrote on July 17, 2008 07:15 PM: Wow Brendan, way to go on sympathizing with the victim. Congrats on being so empathetic. Now let's float on down to reality for a minute and pretend that bad guys in police custody might actually be guilty. Here's some quality advice for those that are handcuffed and in police custody, don't run, guilty or otherwise. Why is that so complicated?

Read All Comments