In recent events justice has added a new tool, cameras caried by the police. Personally, for the sake of the officers, I wish that it had been added much sooner. Just a personal opinion. I suspect that it would have likely cleared many officers of false accusations, and more quickly. Perhaps that riot in Saint Luis would have never happened if the officer had a photo of the perp reaching for his gun. Maybe not. Some people just like to riot. Any reason will do. I suspect, too that it would have helped keep the officers on their best behavior, good for police and suspects.

The thing is that it has added a quirk to our justice system. People who are ignorant of our jury system simply don’t understand the reasoning behind not releasing the videos right away. There are some real ones, you know. It is to the advantage of all parties involved.

If the officers are to be prosecuted, they deserve a fair trial with an unbiased jury. If the officers are to be cleared, the authorities making that decision should be able to completely examine the evidence, physical, eyewitnesses as well as the videos. Finally, let’s face it. The video idea is not perfect. Sometimes they provide little or no proof whatsoever.

In any case, if the videos are released to the public, it might make it impossible to grant the officer(s) an impartial jury, being as they might have seen the videos on TV and heard comments by news anchors that will bias a large part of the public. Indeed, it might not be possible at all. It actually might permit the officers to get off on a technicality, though everyone knows they are guilty. At the very least, it will complicate the trial. It might disallow the very videos that might convict them.

Sometimes I wonder. I’m just a high school grad. I never had any law school. But I know these things. I don’t understand why most people are not aware of them. Worst of all, why is it that the media push to see the videos so very much knowing that it might poison the jury pool. Why do they permit some to speak from a podium knowing the complications they introduce.

I just guess they don’t like the idea of impartial juries. Maybe they will one day come to their senses when they are the ones who are relaying on the impartiality of twelve people who, just might have pre-judged them as the result of some news story or stories. Indeed, the innocent reporter might be convicted be a the partial jury.