Seattle jihadist gets mistrial

Were there any Muslims or liberals opposed to Israel on the jury? I think it goes without saying.

Nothing can defeat jury nullification.

How many Muslims were on each of these juries?

Any juror who agrees with him politically, which is probably most of them, cannot find it in their hearts to convict him. They cannot separate their activism from justice in the legal system.

Mix that with their fear of Mulsim reprisal and we have a recipe for a very scary future in this country. Islamonuts will be able to do whatever they want.

It's the first step in protecting the constitutionally protected religious rights of muslims. Isn't it their allah given right to kill pesky joos (and other infifels) as they see fit? Wait for the ACLU to step in at some point arguing that if muslims aren't free to kill Jews, then they aren't free at all. Wait for our own courts to rule that preventing a muslim from practicing his faith as was laid out 1400 years ago by the pedophile (piss be upon him) is a violation of his civil rights.

Biased jury

I also wonder why so many jihad-related court cases are ending with deadlocked juries and mistrials

And I wonder too, if the new lexicon that precludes the use of "jihad" etc., has entered into the picture.

Why do I have the feeling that shariah courts are going to be mandated as the only means by which these people will brought to "justice?"

Would such fears be a gross exaggeration in light of what is taking place in reality?

Clearly a jury made up of his peers. Insane or muslim.

It ends up in mis trial because the western mindset does not yet understand the Jihadi reality. The Jihadis are the way they are because of their religion Islam. It teaches them to create violence and hate towards non Muslims. Because this concept is beyond the western mindset it is considered to be not normal, but to the Jihadi and Islamic mindset it is normal and pious.

This isn't jury nullification. This is open, violent rebellion against the social order: making the murder of Jewish civilians... Haram I guess.

Sorry, halal. Still drinking coffee.

The disasters and defeats come thick and fast these days.

Haq held a teenage girl at gunpoint to force his way into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on July 28, 2006. Once in the second-floor office, he began railing against U.S. policies and opened fire. He shot some people in their cubicles, some in the hall and one, Pamela Waechter, fatally as she fled down a stairwell.

Why did Haq hold a teenage girl at gunpoint? Did he have a "plan?"

"...to force his way into ... "

Indeed, Haq did formulate a plan; can truely "insane" people formulate such plans?

"Once in the second-floor office, he began railing against U.S. policies and opened fire."

So, Haq had a plan that included a gun? Doesn't that mean this plan was in the workings of his mind for a period of time before implementation?

Do really insane people have long term plans? Do insane people anticipate future events? Do insane people have "the goods" to understand deep and complicated foreign polices against which they "rail?"

He shot some people in their cubicles, some in the hall and one, Pamela Waechter, fatally as she fled down a stairwell.

Why would a truly insane person flee down a stairwell after killing someone? Was Haq reasonable enough in that instant the he knew that what he had just done was wrong? Did he anticipate a future event in which he would subsequently be arrested for a crime? Is that why Haq fled?

This sounds like a person who was grounded in reality; planned this event in the past, anticipating a future time of action; understood right and wrong; knew that he had murdered someone in cold blood; knew the police were coming and fully understood the consequences; and fled to avoid those future anticipated consequences.

Did I miss something? Do I fail to understand these events correctly; if so, show me my error on this one.

So much for insanity -- now, lets put the rest of the cast of characters under the microscope and let us see what vile things are lurking in the darkness.

Okay, Pamela fled down the stairs, but I thought I also read somewhere that Haq also tried to flee the crime.

Is that point correct? Or did Haq just stick around for the police to arrive?

If he did, then perhaps he was insane; otherwise, I fail to see how he could be.

I think this inability to weigh the evidence and reach a decision is infecting more and more juries in all types of cases, not just those involving muslims. In Florida we have a case of several teenagers beating a young teenage girl senseless for no real reason other than meanness. The beatings were caught on video tape (by the perpetrators themselves)and shown on TV. The attorneys for the accused are already saying that "what is shown on the tapes isn't really what happened." Say what? And I have no doubt the attorneys will be able to convince at least some members of the jury that the beating they are watching on the video isn't really a beating they are watching, but something else.

Some people just cannot accept that there is evil in the world and that it must be stopped. They see criminals as victims with a legitimate reason for being criminals. Some people could never bring themselves to convict anyone for anything. Some people would not even raise their hand to defend themselves or a loved one in the face of an attack, much less to defend something less tangible. Lawyers know how to identify these easily confused and manipulated souls and put "reasonable doubt" in their minds, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It still remains to be seen whether a Florida jury will be able to convict Ahmed "It's only fireworks" Mohamed and his sidekick Yousef Megahed on terrorism charges. I have serious doubts.

David Gomez, the assistant special agent-in-charge of the Seattle FBI office, said there is "nothing to indicate he is part of a larger organization." "We believe he is a lone individual with antagonism toward this organization," said Gomez. . .During a news conference Friday night, Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said that, based on the conversation Haq had with 911 dispatchers, police are treating the shootings as a hate crime. . .The landlady told Richey that Haq was heading to Pakistan. Richie often talked with Haq about guns and politics, though little stuck out. A friend, Andres Atencio, 29, a real-estate agent in Maple Valley, said he lost touch with Haq after high school. He described Haq as studious and friendly. "He was pretty much just a normal guy. He was a little more toward the academic side than the average high-school person," Atencio said. "He was the kind of guy when you talked to him he was always laughing ... not outgoing but not reclusive either."...

Hate is a form of insanity, following qur'anic scripture is insanity . Cases like this one, ending in mistrial give license for muhammadans to use the insanity defense to kill at will.

I'm from Seattle and was driving into downtown when Haq was shooting.

The reason for the hung jury is, in my view, the effete, feckless, vapid Seattle liberal "values".

It's not that they can't decide what's right or wrong; it's that they decide to choose whatever feels best to them at the time and then assuage their guilt by "hiking" Green Lake or going to the nearest Starbucks.

This was entirely predictable and no re-trial will bring a different outcome. If the prosecutor wants a conviction, he should move the trial to Western Washington, the Tri-Cities, in fact.

This trial should be exhibit A in the case for continued, and even expanded, use of terms like "jihad" by the government. The more the public is familiar with the term, the more they understand what it means to muslims, the less likely they, as jurors, will buy the insanity dodge, and will instead view murderers like haq as very sane soldiers in the death-worshiping religion known as islam.

Seattle has shown that they consider Jewish blood of no consequence. How about a little rage.

This isn't jury nullification. This is open, violent rebellion against the social order: making the murder of Jewish civilians... Haram I guess.

Posted by: Beagle

It's rebellion against the social order that uses jury nullification as its instrument. It's an instrument you can't beat because there is no response to it that doesn't violate the principle of double jeopardy.
Meir Kahane's killer was also acquitted of murder by a jury, despite the evidence against him. All they would convict him on was a gun charge. It took the first WTC bombing to get him locked up for good.
Some people are lucky and beat the rap. It doesn't make killing Jews acceptable, anymore than the OJ verdict made killing your ex acceptable.
There is no reason to believe that a different jury would have reached the same verdict.

These juries need to be investigated. Does "hopelessly deadlocked" mean one mahometan who bullies others on the jury? This was as open and shut a case as you could imagine. If there is no price to be paid, you will see a lot more of this.

There will be no investigation of this jury... I'm tellin' ya.

This is how they "think" in Seattle.

In 2007, after a terrorism trial similar to the one described above, ending with the same kind of dismal result, I wrote about the need for special courts, with specially-trained judges. For juries present a special problem. All Muslims, and all suspected Muslim sympathizers, would simply have to be excluded during a voir dire, and in order to do so the prosecutors would have to lay out, in great and convincing detail, the nature of Islam as a Total Belief-System, and the enormous hold it has over the minds of so many of its Believers, and the loyalty, the sole loyalty, that is owed to fellow members of the Umma and to Islam. And this would have to be gone into at such great length, and with such expert testimony, and would take so long, and would have to be repeated again and again for each separate trial involving acts of Muslim terrorism, that the drain, and the expense, would be intolerable.

And even if all Muslims, and all detectable sympathizers with Islam (which could include those who have their own quarrel with “The System” or the usual, irreducible percentage of the population that can be described as anti-Semitic), were to be kept out in a voir dire, that would still leave the problem of the non-Muslim members of a jury who, like most people today, like President Bush, for example, and so many members of the government, including those who are choosing the vocabulary to be employed by the State Department and, if they have their druthers, the security services, refuse to believe that an ardent Muslim, in full command of his senses, would kill civilians in the name of Islam. But of course they would, and they do, and are not regarded as crazy. Is Osama Bin Laden crazy? What about the hundreds of millions of Muslims who say they sympathize with, agree with, the attacks made by Al Qaeda? At what point will non-Muslims begin to understand that in the closed mental world of Islam, such people are not crazy? Would testimony from apostates do the trick? Would readings from the greatest Western analyzers of the Muslim mind help?

It is an impossible task.

And that is why I keep recommending the establishment of special courts, courts where the verdicts would be entrusted not to juries, but to judges, and not just to any judges, but to judges who had been specially trained in the subject of Islam. They need not be described quite so openly as such. It would be politically difficult, I realize, to explain that “Security Courts” or “Homeland Security Courts” or (choose another name), required special knowledge of Islam. So don’t broadcast that. Simply set up courts designed to deal with an unprecedented danger, and requiring special knowledge on the part of judges, and then, as a large component of that special knowledge, make clear that study of the “ideology” of those committing these acts would be a major requirement for judges appointed to such courts.

We can’t continue to endure the spectacle of one mistrial, or miscarriage of justice, after another. There isn’t time, there isn’t money, and we can’t, nor can the courts in Western Europe, continue to be stymied by the inability of so many in the West to acquire the requisite knowledge of the Total Belief-System of Islam, or to make full use of that acquisition.

Here are some past posts on the subject:

#1.

Two weeks ago I put up the posting below. It was about another case, but judging by the behavior of the judge as described, it applies to the case described in the article above as well:
‘This shows again the need for special courts, with jurisdiction over all cases about Jihad, for they cannot be understood without a solid grounding in the texts and tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, and that takes a bit of study, far more study than the average judge will put in, and certainly more than those selected for juries.

These should be based on the Patent and Tax Courts, in which a panel of judges, who have received a solid grounding in Patent Law, aor Tax Law, and have specialized in those matters so that they can understand the issues in order to better decide.

If ordinary judges are not up to the task, juries are even less so. For all it takes, on a jury in a terrorism case, is for one person to have been threatened. Or for one juror to be a Muslim (how could all Muslims be systematically challenged and kept off of such juries, without a Constitutional objection being raised and, alas, likely to be upheld because the real nature of Islam will not be discussed, and not brought to the attention of the Supreme Court in any brief) or a sympathizer with Islam, or someone determined to "settle scores" with (the Bush Administration, Amerikka, "Zionists" you name it).
No, we can't have another of these farces, as with the Holy Land Foundation, where the meticulously gathered evidence was overwhelming, convincing beyond any reasonable doubt to any reasonable person who also understood, grasped the nature of, Jihad and of Islam. And that latter requirement is the Big Problem that our system, and all Infidel systems of justice, will have to learn to deal with.
Special courts, with panels of specially-educated judges, are a part of the answer."

[Posted by: Hugh at November 21, 2007 5:13 PM]

Posted by: Hugh at December 6, 2007 12:44 AM

#2. And here is an excerpt from a comment on still another trial that descended into farce:
“And this is not the first, nor will it be the last, farcical trial. The need for judges to be instructed in the nature of Islam, of its texts, tenets, attitudes, atmospherics, to understand the loyalties -- to Islam, then to the sect, then to the tribe, then to the family, without any loyalty conceivably being given to the Infidel nation-state or to its legal and political institutions -- is a concept that is hard for ordinary people (and judges are perfectly ordinary people), with conventional ideas that they have picked up, about...oh, about how we all want the same thing, and if someone works for the army in Iraq that someone must be a good, loyal, wrongly-suspected American, and so on -- well, that kind of naive and dangerous mindset just has to go.

And the whole thing is and will remain a farce, using ordinary courts, with their ordinary juries and ordinary judges, when what is needed is special courts, with judges trained in the relevant matters (and the most relevant matter is Islam), who can dispense justice in a way that makes sense, adequate to the high task at hand. Such courts exist wherever specialized knowledge is required -- Tax Courts, Patent Courts. There should be such courts for cases of Muslim terrorism. This is a difficult and unpleasant problem, for it raises the matter of having to learn about Islam. But it has to be discussed, in detail, rationally. We cannot all be put permanently at risk because everyone is afraid of offending either Muslims, or the kind of people who, though non-Muslim, are "offended" by discussions about something which, of course, they really know nothing about, but have their attitudes, and their attitudinizing, to keep them warm.”

[Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2008 8:52 AM]

BOOM! Direct hit for Hugh.

Inch by inch we are seeing it demonstrated that criminal law is inadequate to deal with TERRORISM.

People who commit this kind of murder or suicide murder will always have elements of complete insanity to the WESTERN MODEL OF LAW AND CIVILIZATION.

The result will be either the executive and/or law enforcement acting in ways inimical to the constitution to protect the body of Americans, who will LOOK THE OTHER WAY, OR....we will all be armed and dangerous and ready to open fire, AND take the laws into our own hands ..AND look the other way while we're about it.

The law must be made responsive to the terror model of behavior.

A few days ago marked the anniversary of the fall of Constantinople. Today we mark another one. This is the 40th anniversary of the first major Muslim terrorist attack on US soil - the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.

Jury nullification is not the problem...it is jury selection. If the selectors find out that you know it is your right vote your conscience in spite of evidence, you will not be selected. They want smart jurors, but not too smart. Jury selection may have been a good idea, but it soon got out of hand. Lawyers have developed jury selection into such an art, that specialists in the field have been created.

From post above: Indeed, Haq did formulate a plan; can truely "insane" people formulate such plans?

Yes indeed they can. Of course this depends on the particular type of insanity. Some 'insane' people are to scattered or depressed to plan much of anything, but there are others who are plenty capable of formulating insane plans.
It is plenty possible for Haq to formulate a jihadi, religious based attack, while under frenzied paranoia. Dar al-harb already gives muslims lots of reasons to be paranoid. Focus that on slavery to Allah, the fascination with death, hated Israeli's, or any infidels, and you have a jihad terrorist operation...You have Haq...

OUTRAGEOUS! WHERE WAS JURY-SELECTION SCREENING???COULD ANYBODY IN THE SEATTLE AREA, IF NOT THE REST OF THE COUNTRY AND MOST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD NOT BEEN AWARE OF THIS ACT OF TERRORISM/HATE CRIME?? SOME JURORS PROBABLY LIED ABOUT "NOT HAVING HEARD OF OR HAVING 'FORMED' OPINIONS ON THE CRIME", PERHAPS EVEN BEING TAQQUYIAH-PRACTICING "MISINTERPRETERS" OF ISLAM.

Thinking about this more; the City Attorney was also responsible for this. He should have moved the trial to a different venue.

He probably wants to lose this case so Seattle liberals don't vote him out of office for being intolerant.

PMK wrote:

It's rebellion against the social order that uses jury nullification as its instrument. It's an instrument you can't beat because there is no response to it that doesn't violate the principle of double jeopardy.
.............................

Just yesterday I was in downtown Oakland and found cards at a bus stop urging people to deliberately misuse serving as jurors. It emphasized that jurors cannot be prosecuted no matter what their findings.

I don't know who distributed these cards--they were not cheap, being well designed and full color printed. It might have been Black Muslims (who often set up right at this spot, selling "The Final Call"), or it may have been any number of radicals calling for "social justice". Very dangerous indeed.

Add this to the more innocent but more widespread problems with jurors, such as holding an overly broad idea of reasonable doubt or insanity, or being easily swayed by apologists, and it may prove nearly impossible to convict any violent Jihadist.

By the way, the San Francisco "sudden Jihad syndrome" SUV killer, Omeed Aziz Popal, is also pleading insanity. I have little hope that this plea will not be accepted, despite his clear jihadist comments when he was arrested.

It seems to be widely accepted here that Popal was just an unstable fellow who was despondant over the delay in bringing his arranged bride over from Afghanistan. Why exactly that would bring him to go on a 30-mile spree of mowing down pedestrians in several Bay Area cities, shouting anti-Infidel slogans, and winding up on the sidewalk outside the large San Francisco Jewish Community Center is anyone's guess.

I guess he was just crazy.

RE: crazy or not crazy -

I'm sure Hugh won't mind my re-posting one of his 'finds', namely, the words of an astute Israeli Jew, gifted with the psychological lucidity that the most clear-sighted among his people have made peculiarly their own, ruthlessly psycho-analysing the Arab Muslims and making some pertinent socio-political/ historical observations as well (and one might extrapolate beyond the 'Arab' world to the wider Islamosphere...if the shoe fits...):

Dr A Carlebach, Ma’ariv 7.10.1955:

"These Arab Islamic countries do not suffer from poverty, or disease, or illiteracy, or exploitation; they only suffer from the worst of all plagues: Islam.

'Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression.

‘The danger lies in Islamic psychology, which cannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress, that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword.

‘The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world, the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood, from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting, and above all:

'the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world...their reactions -- to anything -- have nothing to do with good sense
.
“They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat. You can talk 'business' with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah...

“This is what every grain {of sand} in this country [Israel] shouts.

"There were many great cultures here [in eretz Israel], and invaders of all kinds [e.g. Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, non-Muslim Persians].

"All of them -- even the Crusaders -- left signs of culture and blossoming.

"But on the path of Islam, even the flies have died.”

Hugh found this passage in Said's 'The Question of Palestine' (where, presumably, it was included as evidence of 'racism'?). But by citing it (and the passage which follows it, in which Carlebach shows that this Arab Muslim mindset that he has just described, suffices entirely to explain the 'palestinian' Arab Muslim warfare against, and enmity toward, the Jewish state of Israel), Said shot himself in the foot.

For - harsh as it is - can anyone deny, from the abundant evidence of history, and from the contemporary conduct of persons like Haq or Mohammad Atta, that it is nothing other than an accurate description? Or, more correctly, diagnosis?

I suspect Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish and Ali Sina would agree with Dr Carlebach.

I never thought I'd live to say this, but if folks in Seattle form a lynch mob to give Haq the treatment he clearly deserves, I will applaud.