[Brilliant]

I am curious as to what the jury’s logic was in acquitting these guys.

[alice_in_bubbaland]

Simple, when you try to run over a cop, you will be shot.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I am curious as to what the jury’s logic was in acquitting these guys.

Self defense. Two of the cops are black, I'm sure there were blacks on the jury. He was taking a run at them with a car. Bang, bang, you're dead.

If it had been three blacks cops and a white teenager, would barely have made the evening news.

[Fishrrman]

“I am curious as to what the jury’s logic was in acquitting these guys.”

Um... there was NO jury.

The case was tried by a judge withOUT a jury, at the defendants’ request.

He heard the case alone, and pronounced the verdict.

- John

[Tanniker Smith]

Jury's don't always use logic. That's why the officers asked for a judge in leiu of a jury.

There's still going to be a deparmental hearing (after which, they probably won't be cops any more) and a civil suit, which will come out in the family's favor, I'm sure.

Adding a federal hearing will just prolong everything and delay the civil suit further.

[Alberta's Child]

No jury in this case. The defendants waived their right to a jury trial and had the case heard by a judge in criminal court.

The judge's lengthy comments in his decision were very interesting, and haven't gotten a lot of attention in the media. He based his decision on two key points:

1. Many of the witnesses called by the prosecution had extensive criminal records and had very little credibility on the stand in their testimony.

2. Under cross-examination, many of the prosecution witnesses rendered testimony that clearly conflicted with points the prosecution was trying to make and actually supported the points the defense lawyers were making.