Lately, I've been seeing a lot of negative criticism over the phrase "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." The negative criticism seems to be based in a belief that a police officer would rather kill just about anyone rather than be killed or that police officers believe it is best to kill anyone with no fear of impunity.
That is not what that phrase means at all. What the phrase really means is that of all people, those in law enforcement realize split-second decisions must be made with many aspects of data and that data can be highly interpretive and interpretive at the worst of times.
It also means that those dealing in the arena of legal definitions KNOW the general public has a terrible knowledge of legal definitions. For example, the general public often thinks "homicide" is "murder" when it is not. On top of that, in highly emotional times, interpretation of legal definitions is often thrown right out the door (right now we are seeing tremendous usage of the loaded word "murder" when "murder" does not fit the legal definition of an event). Also, in modern times, too often the interpretation of events is often premature or lacking in full knowledge of an event. Too often, people ignore the past, present and future of an incident and only base their opinion on what part they have observed without examining all parts of an event. So when the incident is fully examined and all aspects are seen by twelve people, a true view of what happened may be realized.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to excuse criminal or unjustified behavior and just trying to explain what the phrase means in its broader context.
To me though, the most troubling thing is the dissemination of so much information from both sides about some of these incidents. Take this Kenosha 17 yr old shooting. More and more video is being released and the unfolding story seems to be changing from the initial narrative (there are battling narratives going on right now and from the most recent information, it is looking murkier that "murder" charges are going to be eventually provable - see, to even cloud the "legal definition" waters, even more, there will have to be an exploration of intent and interpretation of the 17 yr old shooter). And to me, I have no idea what to believe at this point.
My last point about the 12 vs 6 is this - at the end of the day, the later legal battle in a courtroom by studious attorneys where dispassionate reasoning exists and spur of the moment decisions can be avoided is preferable in the hopes of the best opportunity for a righteous decision to be made (that is of course in the hopes of the true existence of genuine justice).
