12 Mildly Disgrunted People

The case was about an alleged robbery two and a half years ago;

We also pointed out to him that the issues of fear and threat are beside the point when determining whether or not a potentially dangerous situation was created. He merely repeated his conclusion. I explained that he was only giving us his decision, and not his thought process or rationale for it. He stared at the table and floor, refusing to answer or make eye contact.

I asked him why pointing a gun at a cop isn't creating a dangerous situation. No answer. I asked him whether or not people should be allowed to point guns at cops. No answer. I asked the entire room "is there anyone here who doesn't want an answer to the questions I'm asking?" Everyone wanted an answer. He said nothing.

Eventually he let little things slip, but they only worsened his position. He said that it wasn't reckless "in this instance." Naturally, this led to questions about why this instance was different from others, to which he offered more silence.

Eventually he conceded that the actions in the bakery were reckless and endangered people, so I asked where the line was drawn (quotes are rough, but close): "What's the difference between the reckless actions in the bakery and the reckless actions towards the officers?"

He gave no answer, but after being pressed further and asked again, he offers a response:

Him: "It was only for a second."
Me: "How long does it take for a bullet to reach its target?"

Silence. Staring intently at the floor and table again. I followed up:

"How long does it take to fire a gun?"

Silence. No eye contact. I rephrased again:

"How many seconds before it becomes reckless? Are you saying it's okay to point a gun at a police officer if you only do it for a second?"

Nothing. No reasons, no answers, no thought process. Every now and then he'd repeat his conclusion, and I would explain once again that I wanted to know how he had reached that conclusion. He looked dumbfounded, as if it had never occurred to him that he was required to explain himself.

Once the trial had ended, everyone from the judge to the lawyers spoke openly and bluntly about everything. It was as if they were simply actors in a play wanting to know how their performances were.

I also told them how he'd said, more than once I believe, that "all cops lie." No kidding.

it seems like that he misled them during the screening,

... and get asked to be foreman or something based on that alone.

In my case, though, the other 11 were the ones without logic or reasoning, so I was the one questioning all of them ... once they got done harassing me.