Comments on Mistrial!

The jury needs to plead insanity. Either that or the jury is filled with anti-semites.

Not true, elswinger. Juries operate on the instructions and evidence they are permitted to see - not what the media presents.

You're not in that jury room.

What. a. crock.

This is absolutely insane.

Not guilty of attempted murder? Was he trying to shoot a bee off her back?

The only thing insane is this verdict. Unbelievable.

Hmmm face fucked for the rest of your life until you get shanked to death or tons of cool medicine and a room to yourself! I gotta go with option TWO!

And this is why the demand for real estate in Israel will always exceed the supply.

If this piece of shit is really insane he should be locked up and fed enough Thorazine that he can't do anything but drool on himself. If he's not insane, he should be locked up in prison and allowed to fend for himself.

@ 1, 7 - are you guys serious? You really think the result would've been different if he'd walked into Pemco?

@ 8 - he probably will be. Hinckley is still hospitalized.

Yes I do.

So did he load up on twinkies before he went on the rampage or what?

@ 10 - why? I'm relatively new to the area, but Seattle/Washington doesn't strike mas a hotbed of anti-Semitism, especially when the alternative is a lunatic Muslim.

@ 11 - no. He had a long history of mental illness, and on that basis, the jury, or at least part of the jury, concluded that he was incapable of telling right from wrong.

Clearly, this is a shitty thing for the victims and their families, and clearly, Haq should not be on a city street any time soon, if ever, but assuming that those members of the jury jury who didn't convict were reasonable in finding that Haq was insane, it's the right verdict.

And, if it makes any of y'all feel better, insanity pleas are rarely pursued and even more rarely successful.

The defense was brilliant to dress the guy like a mongoloid, including the retardo glasses, sorry, the mantally-challenged-o glasses.
Of course it's quite possible the guy is insane and that the press accounts just squashed that because they wanted a politically relevant story.

The prosecutors should've accepted an insanity plea from the get go.

I doubt they'll have any better luck the next go round.

From what I've read so far the jury sounds like they were idiots.

what I don't understand about the legal system is why can't you be guilty AND insane?? did you or did you not do it? are you or are you not insane? these are really separate questions. prison has psychiatric services by the way for those who don't know.

full disclosure- I work at a psychiatric hospital and have a psych degree.

@ 16 - because guilt is generally not decided solely by whether or not you physically committed the act. A criminal defendant has to know both the nature and quality of his acts - meaning, what he's doing, and whether or not it's wrong - in order to be found guilty.

Pardon my ignorance, but does mistrial mean he walks? Or will he be locked up in a mental institution?
Will this guy be free to kill again? I'm terrified. And I'm also sick to my stomach to think the jury couldn't convict him.

To be clear, a mistrial is not a verdict. It is what the judge declares when the jury cannot reach a verdict. And we don't have the details on whether they were deadlocked 1-11 to say guilty, 1-11 to not convict b/c of insanity or somewhere in between.

To me, judging by the facts I have read of the case, and the narrow definition in WA state law of insanity (hint: you can't just have a history or mental illness), the prosecution simply did a bad job. They didn't overcome the "reasonable doubt" requirements, as is their job.

And I say this as someone who has friends amongst the victims. I think Haq is guilty, and doesn't meet the standard of not guilty by reason of insanity. But I also believe in the jury system, and lay the blame primarily at the prosecution's feet in this case.

@19
haha You BELIEVE in the jury system? Are you talking about the same system that routinely sends innocent men to death row? Or are you talking about the same system that found OJ not guilty? Or is this the jury system where if you have your boss write you a note to say that you're needed to hold down the chair in your cubicle you can get out of the duty?

I do not believe in the jury system or our "justice" system. If this non-verdict was some sort of anomaly that would be one thing. It's not.

I'd rather be on trial for a crime I committed than a crime I didn't commit. Probably have a better chance of going free.