Innocent in spite of the evidence

A few weeks ago in Toledo, OH. a trial ended in a hung jury and a mistrial was declared. That in itself is not unusual, however the reasons (or lack thereof) they did not convict the defendant leaves me scratching my head.

The trial concerned a shootout in a bar. The video footage of the shootout was seen nationwide on the news. Patrons scattered as several men stood over a pool table firing into the street. A second camera captured video of others outside firing into the building. The defendants were not actually on trial for creating a panic or endangering others but for having a weapon in an establishment that serves liquor. Fortunately they were so inept at firing weapons that no one was even injured.

The jury was hung because they couldn't agree that, what, weapons were discharged? One lawyer claimed his client merely found a gun and shot to protect himself. If you look at the video you will see one person coming out of the back with a gun before the shooting even started. He then proceeded to stand fully erect and plug shots into the street. He should be put away for just being stupid and a bad shot.

Another who couldn't have claimed such a feat since he rolled over the pool table and just came up shooting. I'm not sure which person was on trial but it was clear just by the video someone should have been guilty of something. If it wasn't the jury's fault it should have been the prosecutors fault for not pressing the proper charges. It was like watching a shootout at the OK Corral.

Apparently you don't have to actually look at the evidence to vote on a jury, you just have to ignore it.