On 6/25/2010 2:40 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:02:13 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> Guilty of _what_ though? "Murder" isn't a catch all for "he did
>> something I don't approve of and somebody died". It is in most
>> jurisdictions a carefully defined offense and for the charge of murder
>> to be brought the action must meet the defined conditions.
>
> Murder.

If you want to bring that charge, counselor, you may, but the defendant
is going to walk.

> It may have been a spur of the moment decision, but he killed
> someone.

Which does not make the offense "murder".

> Perhaps the driver meant to graze, but they wouldn't be able
> to convince me otherwise if I was in the jury box.

You first have to prove that the driver _meant_ to hit the officer at
all. You have not done that, you have just assumed that he was aiming
at the cop.

> Anyone who
> deliberately and illegally drives to the right on the shoulder when a
> car is pulled over on it and there is a person standing on the right
> has more in mind than just passing.

Objection, counselor is testifying. What leads you to believe that he
even noticed that there was a car pulled over and a person standing on
the right?

And do you mean "on the right of the car that is parked there" or do you
mean "on the right side of the road"?

> As I said, my mind is closed on
> the subject so I'll never be put in a position to render a judgment.

You are correct. You will never serve on a jury for this offense if you
answer honestly in voir dire.