The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: fightingquaker13 on September 28, 2010, 03:52:26 PM
-
I just got called again. Twice in a year. This time its local, not federal. Oddly enough, the feds let me off by sending a note expaining (truthfully) that my meds made me drowzy and play hell with the short term memory. (I think I might have mentioned this on Walter's reposting thread, but I don't remember. ;D). Anyway, no dice with the locals so off I go. I wonder if I can claim to have been sexually abused by a judge as child and so the mere sight of a black robe provokes a homicidal rage? ;D I guess that would be a bad idea. With any luck they'll put me on a drug or prostitution or self defense case. That way I won't have to waste time in deliberations. ;)
FQ13
-
Don't forget to wear your "Body Piercing by Glock" t-shirt. ;D
-
Suck it up, Iguana Wrangler!!
;D ;D ;D
-
Tell them you got hemroids and can't sit for long periods. Or maybe you don't trust lawyers.
Richard
-
Just toss it. I've been doing that for the last 15 years. Bill T.
-
Remember FQ, your not a prejudice person, you can't stand them all, as they are intellectually inferior, and frankly Darwin should continue to weed out the "riff-raff" of society, and public hangings would be great to comeback to town square.
Also let them know you have a shooting match at 3:00, and need to move this along...
OR THE ULTIMATE,
You have a Tea Party Rally to attend.... You'll be dismissed quick.
::)
-
Remember FQ, your not a prejudice person, you can't stand them all, as they are intellectually inferior, and frankly Darwin should continue to weed out the "riff-raff" of society, and public hangings would be great to comeback to town square.
Also let them know you have a shooting match at 3:00, and need to move this along...
OR THE ULTIMATE,
You have a Tea Party Rally to attend.... You'll be dismissed quick.
::)
ROFL, but its 50/50 on the tea party thing. The prosecution would love me, particularly if the trial involves another one of our county commisioners (I think we have two who haven't been indicted ::)). The reverse stategy would be a peace sign tye dyed shirt and flip flops, but then the defense would love me. I think I'll be serving unless I just show up drunk, which could probably get expensive in a hurry. ;)
FQ13
-
Here in Dallas I got an easy out because of the way the rules are written, I got into trouble when i was 19, did my duty and my case was expunged, I have no record at all, but the way it is written, is have you ever been convincted of a crime for which you could receive 1 yr or more, no matter what the actual sentence was, so I just go to the clerk and say yes, and they say have a nice day. Your excused. ;D Now I don't even have to go, just fill out the card and send it back in. ;D
-
Suck it up and get it done. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not willing to take part in the process, you've got nothing to bitch about. The system blows but it's our system and unless you play, it won't get better.
Voting is the same way. Voice your opinion at the polls or shut the f..k up about it!
-
Take a length of rope and practice tying a Hangman's Knot during jury selection.
When done with the knot, snap it tight a few times, put on a big grin, untie it and start over.
-
I might have said it a little more tactfully than Timothy, but I echo his opinion.
Also, if I remember correctly, your location is not too far geographically from me. May it never be, but what if I were on trial because of a self-defense shooting? Let's say there was just enough "gray area" for an itchy prosecutor to try and make a name for himself and I am the scapegoat. At this point my life, and my family's way of life is on the line. You and others like you and me could mean the difference between exoneration and conviction.
I would want a jury full of people like you. People who value human life enough to affirm the right to self-defense with whatever weapon there may be. People who believe not just in victim's rights, but in the right to NOT BECOME a victim.
You serving on a jury is just a much a right of the parties involved in the case as our right to bear arms. We can't pick and choose which rights we like and which are too inconvenient.
If the only people who serve on juries are "too ignorant to get out of it", or those on welfare looking for a buck we aren't going to be too happy about the verdicts.
A modern day trial by jury has got to be the scariest thing in the world. Someone's freedom or maybe even their life hangs on the whim of a dozen people who simply want to be home in time to watch the latest reality show.
End of rant. :)
Go and do your jury DUTY!
-
I'm right there with you and Timothy, Red. I didn't volunteer, but I won't lie to get out of it either. Its as important as voting or serving in the military in wartime. If not you, who? I really do have a hard time with @#$%^^ pills I have to take, but I'll live. As far as an SD case? I think the verdict is in at the end of opening statements. Sadly though, Fl. does not require a unanimous jury. Since my fellow jurors don't know me, maybe Ill be able to persuade them. ;D
FQ13
-
A lot of the disdain for jury duty comes from the arrogance of the people who are involved in the process. I was selected some time ago when I was working a 10 and 12 hour night shift. I called and told the (hispanic) sounding man on the other end my problem, and there was no way I could serve, but would be willing to do so if they had some type of night court, or at least something that could be more accommodating to my schedule.
He became very arrogant with me over the phone, and told me my work schedule was not an excuse. I should add that my company did not pay for jury duty. We went back and forth as I tried repeatedly to reason with him. It reached a point where he became sarcastic and threatening with me. My patience finally ran out and I basically gave up and told him to shove it, and slammed the phone down, tore up my jury duty summons, and that was that. Since that time I've probably received 6 or 8 more summons. All went through the shredder, and that was the last I heard of it.
People I've talked to who have "done their civic duty" have told me they ended up sitting there all day and were never selected. A complete waste of time. I know all about the whole deal of, "What if everybody did that!?" I would only assume if everyone did they would have to find a more efficient way to run things. Something the government has trouble doing on their best days. The entire system of jury selection needs revamping. What they have now is the equivalent of running in place faster. Bill T.
-
Its the draft. Everyone has somewhere they'd rather be, otherwise, there wouldn't be a draft. I have no problem with people (arguably me, as a borderline case) getting out of it if there's a legit reason. If not, you serve. The feds let me off. The locals didn't. So my ass will be at the courthouse on 10/19. I may bitch, but its all in fun. Sombody has to do it, and as Red posted, don't you want someone who isn't a brainwashed moron on a jury? Why not us?
FQ13
-
A jury vote is more important than an election vote since jury nullification can make or eliminate a law.
What good is law X if the jury refuses to enforce it ?
"Citizens" who shirk their duty are the reason for most of Billt's rants, so things he bitches about are his own fault, and the fault of the rest of the slackers.
Semper Fi.
-
I doubt I'd ever have to serve. The last time I was called the defense attorney asked about my degree...I think the criminal justice degree spooked her. Then if I ever got called on a dui case they couldn't dismiss me fast enough because I'm all for those being capital cases.
-
I doubt I'd ever have to serve. The last time I was called the defense attorney asked about my degree...I think the criminal justice degree spooked her. Then if I ever got called on a dui case they couldn't dismiss me fast enough because I'm all for those being capital cases.
Yikes! I never thought I'd say this to a teetotaler (and I honestly respect that position) because there are a thousand reasons why taking that first drink is a bad idea and damn few as to why its a good one. That said, take a step back and have a beer man! If you are drunk enough that even you should know it, by all means throw away the key. But .08? That's three beers. Not an excessive amount. Just like the drug war, we seem to have lost our minds and come up with a one size fits all system. It seems to me, being a little buzzed (and maybe not knowing it) should be treated differently than being falling down drunk. Sadly MADD seems to have stolen our common sense.
FQ13
-
A jury vote is more important than an election vote since jury nullification can make or eliminate a law.
What good is law X if the jury refuses to enforce it ?
"Citizens" who shirk their duty are the reason for most of Billt's rants, so things he bitches about are his own fault, and the fault of the rest of the slackers.
While these kind of fantasy keyboard statements sound good and read well on public forums, and support apple pie, along with flag waving and even an occasional baseball game, they are solidly detached from reality. We live in a society where ones financial obligations come before anything and everything else. Aside from health, there is nothing that is more important for ones very existence, nothing. If you doubt the importance of that statement, keep your eyes on the television this November 2nd. This nations rancid economy, along with a housing market that is all but non existent, is going to drive people to the polls like never before in this nations history.
The jury selection process directly effects that. They just expect people, at a moments notice, to be able to drop everything and submit to "do their civic duty" as if citizens have no other obligations. Not to mention you very well could find yourself stuck on a jury for weeks, possibly months. I know very few people who could endure that kind of financial disruption. Fewer and fewer companies can afford to pay their employees today for jury duty as they did in the past. The fact of the matter is times change. People for the most part today are 2 income families who have little, if any, financial leeway. Getting stuck on jury duty, some for even a day, could mean the difference of being able to purchase groceries that week, or not.
Now, I'm not saying or condoning my approval of people living on the financial ragged edge like that, but the sad fact is many do, not by choice today as much as by force brought on by a horrible economy and a lousy job market. And through it all there sits "jury duty" with the exact same selection process and procedures as it did when "Leave It To Beaver" was in the prime time line up, and stores and shopping malls were closed on Sundays.
If you think about it, it is totally stupid. They could change, much like the rest of society, but they simply refuse. They could have weekend court, but they don't because government employees, bailiff's and judges and such, don't want to work weekends. They could manage the system better so you could be preselected at a more convenient time, or even my mail, then be immediately placed on a jury where at least your time wouldn't be wasted sitting on your a$$ for the entire day for nothing. But they won't. They could even up the compensation to a realistic figure that would allow more people the financial option of attending. But no, they won't. And mind you this is the same government that has no problem dealing out over $4 TRILLION DOLLARS of the taxpayers money in the last 4 decades for Welfare payments to pay people to sit on their collective a$$es and do nothing for years on end. But they won't even think of using it to allow people the option of doing something more productive.
Like much of everything else in government, the system itself is set up to fail, and fail it does. I could afford to attend jury duty. My reason for not doing it is what I've just stated. It's bad enough they waste most all of the tax money I've provided them with my entire working life. That I can, and have replaced. I'll be damned if I now am going to give them something I cannot afford to replace at any price, TIME. As I said, people's financial needs come before everything else. We are seeing the result today of what happens when that process is disrupted by massive unemployment, along with stringent financial obligations people have placed on to themselves. Jury duty, along with how it is set up, refuses to accommodate any and all of the very peoples needs it requires to function. It is nothing more than a hooray for us, and screw you process that infringes to the point of arrogance. They can "fix" it, but refuse. Until they do I won't be participating. I can fail at anything on my own, I don't need the governments help by feeding into a system that is already so broken it barely functions. Pardon me all to hell for being the slightest bit realistic. Bill T.
-
I used to get out of jury duty as a volunteer firefighter. When I retired from that I got out of it one time because it would have placed an "Undue and catastrophic financial hardship" on my family.
Last time through some mixup my wife AND I were called on the same jury and actually spent three days sitting around the court house. The last day we went in court, listened to some stupid crap, and did not get selected. Mercifully they then sent us home, each of us having earned $15 for our three days service.That was when I learned that the metal detectors and guards don't check the jurors when they go in and out. A crazy juror could stash a weapon outside and then when he got his badge for the day could just go out for a smoke, grab his piece, and have at it. Amazing.
Right after that I got a summons for FEDERAL jury duty. I would have had to drive to Camden, NJ (a place on a par with Calcutta except it has gang bangers). Part of the response is to tell them how far my commute would be. I figured it at 164 miles per day. At $0.55 per mile, they decided they didn't want to pay me $90.20 on top of my $5 to be a jury member, so they let me go.
Find out a few judges names and tell them that you are personal friends of judge so and so. I am, and THAT works too. Cop in the family? That usually works too.
It IS our duty, but it DOES suck.
-
Bill, your argument falls short. Way short, because I'm one of those people who, if I missa day of work, has to choose between rent and groceries.The most important votes a citizen gets, are, Grand Jury, Jury, and election primary, if you neglect your duty in these area's you deserve the results.
-
Bill, your argument falls short. Way short, because I'm one of those people who, if I missa day of work, has to choose between rent and groceries.The most important votes a citizen gets, are, Grand Jury, Jury, and election primary, if you neglect your duty in these area's you deserve the results.
Supporting a bad system by submission to it will never change anything. If enough people refused to submit to this archaic, outdated nonsense, along with it's arrogant, sarcastic employees, they would change things around for the better in a heartbeat. But as long as the mule will plow, the teamster will beat it. I'll take the "results" I'm currently receiving by refusing to submit to their foolish lunacy. Money in the bank is the most important thing in being self reliant. If you want to lose 8 weeks of work sitting on a Grand Jury to prove some abstract civic point, be my guest. I have better things to do with my time and money. The system hasn't worked in years. Continuing to support will only make things continue to become worse, not better. What you're doing is the equivalent of voting for a third party candidate to, "make a statement". A total waste of time, effort, gas, and money. Bill T.
-
What's your plan Bill? Short of either doing away with juries, or paying folks a premium wage so they volunteer (both of which seem like bad ideas for obvious reasons), I don't see much alternative. If you have one, I'm all ears.
FQ13
-
It's no different than running any business. If you want to succeed you must be competitive. You cannot expect citizens to forfeit a $25.00+ hour wage plus overtime, to come and sit and scratch their a$$ for $5.00 a day or some such nonsense. They simply are not going to do it. I give myself as exhibit A. Does this mean our courts are going to become more expensive to run. You bet. Welcome to the wonderful world of business coupled with inflation. The private sector has been dealing with it for years, and succeeding I might add. Time for the government to get off it's a$$ and accomplish what the private sector has done for eons. I give you UPS and Fed Ex, vs. The United States Postal Service. These people are going to have to produce faster as well. No business ever succeeded by having people get paid to sit and do nothing. That is what the jury pool has done for decades. Having people sit around cheaply is no more of a bargain that if they do it for $25.00 and hour. Either way nothing gets done. Bill T.
-
Bill,
The only trouble with that whole "efficiency" scenario is the fact that the whole damn thing is lousy with lawyers. They get paid to NOT get things done.
-
Ok. Are you sugessting paying drafted juror's $25 an hour,or just offering it to who ever shows up as a volunteer? Because in the latter case you might get some good unemployed folks, or you might attract winos off the street corner.
FQ13
-
Excuse #1...
Of course they're guilty. They got arrested, didn't they? Cops don't arrest innocent people!
Excuse #2...
When we vote for the death penalty, I wanna put the needle in his arm.
Excuse #3...
I have to vote whatever way the voices tell me to vote.
Excuse #4...
I'm on a special diet of sauerkraut and pinto beans.
#4 ALWAYS works.
-
Look, you could fill jury boxes with all of the people in this country alone who are sitting on their a$$ collecting Welfare, Unemployment benefits, etc. With the economy and unemployment rate what it is today, they don't need to screw with the people who actually have jobs and are in fact productive. The best unemployment rate during GOOD TIMES is right around 4 1/2%. That alone would fill every jury box in the country. Bottom line is these people have enough "stock" to pick from based on what's already out there doing nothing. All they have to do is link their computers to a single data base to find them. But no, they just keep on keepin' on, doing what they do best, running as inefficiently as humanly possible. Christ, a high school business 101 class could do better! Bill T.
-
Look, you could fill jury boxes with all of the people in this country alone who are sitting on their a$$ collecting Welfare, Unemployment benefits, etc. With the economy and unemployment rate what it is today, they don't need to screw with the people who actually have jobs and are in fact productive. The best unemployment rate during GOOD TIMES is right around 4 1/2%. That alone would fill every jury box in the country. Bottom line is these people have enough "stock" to pick from based on what's already out there doing nothing. All they have to do is link their computers to a single data base to find them. But no, they just keep on keepin' on, doing what they do best, running as inefficiently as humanly possible. Christ, a high school business 101 class could do better! Bill T.
And the fact that the jury is supposed to be made up of "peers", you might be on to something, Bill. ;)
But then again, if I have to kill someone in SD, and for some reason an overzealous DA sends it to a jury, I don't know if I want a box full of derelict crackheads on welfare making my life decision...... :P
-
Uh, just a for instance Bill. I'm a poor latino kid. You shoot me on the street, saying you were threatened because I had a knife and tried to rob you. I say you called me a dirty spic and I only drew my knife because you were talking crazy.You are a rich white guy with a gun fetish who is anti-immigrant (according to ADA Lopez). Do you really want an Arizona jury made up of folks on welfare? Just sayin'.
FQ13
-
Bill,
The only trouble with that whole "efficiency" scenario is the fact that the whole damn thing is lousy with lawyers. They get paid to NOT get things done.
I won't argue lawyers ranking at the bottom of the food chain. But, with that said they are not the issue here. Once the cases finally make it into court with a jury and lawyers attached, things move along. Grant you I would love to have the job of kicking the lawyers square in the a$$ each and every time they stall, but at least they cannot be blamed on the whole jury selection process, as much as I would like them to be. This is simply government inefficiency at it's finest. YET AGAIN! About the only thing that is more inefficient are the DMV's across this country. Where else can you literally spend $ BILLIONS on computer systems, only to wait 3 hours to get a simple driver license renewed? Bill T.
-
Uh, just a for instance Bill. I'm a poor latino kid. You shoot me on the street, saying you were threatened because I had a knife and tried to rob you. I say you called me a dirty spic and I only drew my knife because you were talking crazy.You are a rich white guy with a gun fetish who is anti-immigrant (according to ADA Lopez). Do you really want an Arizona jury made up of folks on welfare? Just sayin'.
FQ13
Hell, we've had that in Alabama and Mississippi for decades. Remember "My Cousin Vinny"? ;D Bill T.
-
Here is another thing to remember. The whole jury selection process is hopeless to begin with, and needs revamping also. Does the O.J. Simpson trial ring a bell? As Marsha Clark said after the trial. If they would have panned the jury with a camera at the start of the trial, and again afterward, they would have seen 2 different juries. They kept eliminating juror after juror until they filled the entire jury box with racist blacks. The final jury would have let Simpson go if Detective Van Atter would have caught him red handed with blood dripping off the knife. How much did the Simpson trial cost the taxpayers as it stood? Much like the school system, giving them more money just results in bigger failures. What's the answer? You tell me, but showing up for jury duty like a good little citizen isn't it. That is like the people of Afghanistan trying to vote out the Taliban. They keep returning like diarrhea after a Mexican vacation. Bill T.
-
Yikes! I never thought I'd say this to a teetotaler (and I honestly respect that position) because there are a thousand reasons why taking that first drink is a bad idea and damn few as to why its a good one. That said, take a step back and have a beer man! If you are drunk enough that even you should know it, by all means throw away the key. But .08? That's three beers. Not an excessive amount. Just like the drug war, we seem to have lost our minds and come up with a one size fits all system. It seems to me, being a little buzzed (and maybe not knowing it) should be treated differently than being falling down drunk. Sadly MADD seems to have stolen our common sense.
FQ13
I know it's a little heavy handed, but I know of one case where the guy swore he never did it before. He had LEO training, blamed the woman he was out with for abandoning him, and he KNEW he was drunk to the point where he pulled over to sleep it off for a while. He also tried to blame the other driver he rear-ended Four hours after the wreck he still blew .13. The argument should have been made for depraved indifference. It should have been a 10 to 15 year sentence. A tree and a rope really would be a stretch to pursue...forgive the pun.
I guess I should have mentioned we don't have the death penalty. That would have pointed more to the inherent humor behind the statement and the surefire way to get out of that type of case.
Although, this kind of position makes it alot more fun to argue against pro marijuana types that try to say it's less dangerous than booze. While it MIGHT be, it doesn't metabolize out of a person's system for thirty days. It was funny when I told I'd be for legalizing it as long as those who smoked it gave up their rights to reproduce and their right to drive...dang hippies anyway. Now that I've fully gotten of point.
I would serve on a jury, but after being called a couple times I don't think I'll ever get picked because of where I work, degree, and whatever else. The last one was a drug case, the defense didn't really like the knowledge I had of criminal law so...
-
I would serve on a jury, but after being called a couple times I don't think I'll ever get picked because of where I work, degree, and whatever else. The last one was a drug case, the defense didn't really like the knowledge I had of criminal law so...
Funny, the defense in a drug case would LOVE my knowledge of criminal law. The prosecuter, not so much. ;D 8)
FQ13
-
Funny, the defense in a drug case would LOVE my knowledge of criminal law. The prosecuter, not so much. ;D 8)
FQ13
You might need a new prosecutor, or maybe the prosecutor needs to change sides. :D
-
I'm off to do the court martial jury duty thing today.
-
Bill, You are missing the whole point, If it weren't for the "system", ( imperfect as it is ) You would not have that job.
The Constitution does not require that much of us, just that we obey the law, pay reasonable taxes, and serve on juries when asked. It's a duty here, a big painful burden to the poor put upon upper middle class.
But it's a right people die for in other countries.
Man up, fulfill the only demand the Constitution puts on you, or quit bitching, you have a chance to effect something and you are spending more effort to weasel out of it than it takes to sit on your butt for 2 weeks.
And reread the Constitution.
I really want the citation for the right not to deal with asshole bureaucrats.
-
You're reading way too much into all of this. I've got no problem with the "obey the law", part. But lets take a look at this whole, "pay reasonable taxes" deal. Look at how our tax structure has changed since this nation was founded 234 years ago. Our tax burden as citizens has increased dramatically to accommodate a larger, ever expanding government. In short we as citizens are taxed far more to give them what they say they, and we "need". In the process we are expected to make do with less and less. We have had little to nothing to say about it. If you doubt that, try to get any tax reduced or eliminated. It's an all but impossible task.
On the other hand "jury duty" has not changed in the least. It is still the same outdated, antiquated, inefficient system that has been in place for decades. It has not changed one iota to be more forgiving and or accommodating to the very people who support the very same system it is built to serve. Every time the governments financial demands increase every 15 minutes, we as citizens are taxed at a higher rate to allow it everything it wants and needs. Yet in return government does not reciprocate to the peoples needs in the least. They simply keep demanding more. I won't give it. Certainly not if I have the choice.
As far a me "not having a job" without jury duty, I have no idea what nebulous point you are trying to stretch to come up with that. They in fact have enough people in the citizenry to pick from without placing all of this financial burden on those who have other obligations. Retired, disabled, and unemployed people exist in large enough numbers to easily fill every jury box in this country on any given day. Again, they simply refuse to change to do it. We as citizens are expected to change, and do without more and more all of the time to support their ever changing, increasing demands of bigger government. It's time for them to reciprocate.
Seeing as they refuse to improve or become the least bit more efficient, then I will simply do the same. Until enough people say ENOUGH nothing will change. The only way government will ever change is if the people force them to. If you keep giving in to government you will soon become it's slave. All it knows to accomplish is to take more, and produce nothing in the process. "Jury duty" is yet another example of that. It's time for them to "man up". I've been doing it all my life funding their wasteful ways. I'll leave supporting inefficiency, arrogance, and foolishness to guys like you who seem to have no problem with it. Bill T.
-
The fact remains that until the system is changed, only those who get on the juries are the ones who exercise the right and power given to juries by the constitution.
By design, juries are the final legal, non-violent protection and recourse The People have against bad laws and bad government.
The government knows of this power and continually work to dilute the power of juries. Not surprising that the "system" is such that it discourages exactly those individuals that would be the strongest supporters and appliers of the power of the jury from participating, leaving the jury pool full of sheeple.
That official you spoke to, Bill, may have been simply trying his best to get what he considered the best jurists to be in the pool. He may have been frustrated with how the system weeded out the strong jury candidates and was trying everything he could to get a good jurist in the pool. More than likely, though, he was a bureaucratic AHole who didn't give a damn about all that and was just trying to use his position as a bully.
Removing yourself from the system is not going to get it changed if the system is designed so that folks like you remove themselves from the process.
In any case, no shows by decent folks leaves the field to the remaining dregs.
-
Bill, you are simply trying to justify neglect a duty you owe all of us.
With all your material comfort, you begrudge us 2 crummy weeks of lawyer bs ?
Because they don't pay enough ?
No further comment. ???
-
I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I'm simply not going to do it. End of story. Bill T.
-
We cannot pick and chose what parts of our Constitution we want to believe in, we must accept them all or go through the process for change.
In MA, state law requires employers to pay up to three days of salary and CT is five days. Most trial last less than a day on average, I don't know about federal courts. I've been called, had to delay and was called and dismissed last year on a tort case. I would never try and get out of it or just trash the summons. It is my duty to the community in which I live. Sure, some folks may be put in a financial hardship but most folks can do three days or a week with out too much trouble.
Frankly Bill, I'm a little disappointed you'd use monetary reasons for shirking your responsibilities. I would guess you spent nearly what I earned last year on guns and ammunition alone. You can certainly afford more than most.
You can't complain about a system you chose to ignore.
-
You can't complain about a system you chose to ignore.
It has ignored me far longer than I have it. Bill T.
-
How many people on this forum would turn in their guns if the 2nd amendment became as perverted as the current jury process? I would bet not many.
Does anyone think that people in the late 1700's would have served on a jury if it meant they could possibly lose a few weeks of time uncompensated?
The court says "Hey farmer John we need you to serve on a jury, the trial could last a month." Farmer John replies "Screw you its harvest season and I will lose my crops." Court replies" Too bad its your duty, we don't care if you and your family starve this winter." Hmmmm..... I don't think that would have gone over very well back then and it shouldn't go over well now.
-
How many people on this forum would turn in their guns if the 2nd amendment became as perverted as the current jury process? I would bet not many.
Does anyone think that people in the late 1700's would have served on a jury if it meant they could possibly lose a few weeks of time uncompensated?
The court says "Hey farmer John we need you to serve on a jury, the trial could last a month." Farmer John replies "Screw you its harvest season and I will lose my crops." Court replies" Too bad its your duty, we don't care if you and your family starve this winter." Hmmmm..... I don't think that would have gone over very well back then and it shouldn't go over well now.
It's part of why Thoreau went to jail, for refusing Jury duty and poll tax, He was protesting the Mexican war.
Also, trials were scheduled to not interfere with planting or harvesting, the Judges had their own places to tend after all.
-
Another "reason" I told them was if the defendant was black or hispanic I would vote GUILTY! I said this was not because of racism, but rather mathematics. By chucking any and all testimony and going on a strictly numbers basis, I would have at least 80% odds of a truthful, proper, and above all correct conviction. He didn't want to hear it anymore than the fact I was working nights. I now believe him. I offer up O.J.'s jury as living proof. To quote Brenda Moran, the Simpson jury foreman when asked why they didn't convict, her reply was, "There wasn't enough blood in the Bronco!" Why should there have been ANY blood in the Bronco? Bill T.
-
Another "reason" I told them was if the defendant was black or hispanic I would vote GUILTY! I said this was not because of racism, but rather mathematics. By chucking any and all testimony and going on a strictly numbers basis, I would have at least 80% odds of a truthful, proper, and above all correct conviction. He didn't want to hear it anymore than the fact I was working nights. I now believe him. I offer up O.J.'s jury as living proof. To quote Brenda Moran, the Simpson jury foreman when asked why they didn't convict, her reply was, "There wasn't enough blood in the Bronco!" Why should there have been ANY blood in the Bronco? Bill T.
On the topic of OJ.
While I think there is a close to 100% chance he did it, some of the evidence and the way it was handled would give me reasonable doubt. I am not an expert on this case and only know what was presented by the news media, so I am sure I don't have the full story, but my observations are based upon what I do know from these sources.
As to the blood in the Bronco. The police claimed that they entered OJ's house after discovering the bodies because they went to his house to check on him and found a trail of blood on the driveway leading into the house and they were concerned for his safety.
Well, if there was enough blood to leave a trail on the drive way after he drove home in the bronco, there would be a good amount of blood in the bronco.
Next and related to the blood trail. They found the other glove between near the guest house and Kato (or was it Toto?) claimed to have heard a thump in the night suggesting OJ came over the wall and dropped the glove.
Now, did he first dribble blood up the drive way to the house and then go back out and vault the wall and drop the glove or did he vault the wall and then go back out and dribble blood? Cops want it both ways to cover different parts of their case.
Next, the blood sample taken from OJ. It took several hours for it to be delivered to the lab and when it finally was delivered, there was a small amount missing. Maybe the cop with the sample stopped for doughnuts and some of the sample evaporated on the trip?
They say the amount missing from the sample was not enough to be used to plant where OJ's blood was found. But it was enough to get a reading and have that type of blood reported as being found on the other pieces of evidence. That would mean other cops would have to be in on the frame up. I've see incidents where cops have worked together in cover ups and frame ups before so it is not an impossibility.
What I think happened is that the cops were so sure OJ did it (and I believe they were correct) that they decided to stack the deck and make for an open and shut case. But in doing so, they introduced "reasonable doubt" that any and all evidence might be falsified. At least in my mind.
-
All of that may in fact be true, but as to "reasonable doubt", I'm not sure either way. I do know that if I climbed into a friend or co-workers car to get a ride and noticed blood, I would wonder how it got there, not make a comment to the effect of, "Hey Joe, you sure don't have very much blood in your car today, what's wrong?".................... ::) Bill T.
-
All of that may in fact be true, but as to "reasonable doubt", I'm not sure either way. I do know that if I climbed into a friend or co-workers car to get a ride and noticed blood, I would wonder how it got there, not make a comment to the effect of, "Hey Joe, you sure don't have very much blood in your car today, what's wrong?".................... ::) Bill T.
Exactly. In the OJ case there would need to be enough blood to be noticed at least. If there was not enough to notice, then something does not add up.
-
Whether he did it or not is irrelevant.
The only part that counts is that the Jury ruled he was NOT GUILTY.
Government didn't like that verdict so they got him in civil court where the rules a less strict.
-
Correct. And I like to always remember the verdict is NOT GUILT rather than Innocent. You can be found NOT GUILT and be no where near Innocent.
-
Yikes! I never thought I'd say this to a teetotaler (and I honestly respect that position) because there are a thousand reasons why taking that first drink is a bad idea and damn few as to why its a good one. That said, take a step back and have a beer man! If you are drunk enough that even you should know it, by all means throw away the key. But .08? That's three beers. Not an excessive amount. Just like the drug war, we seem to have lost our minds and come up with a one size fits all system. It seems to me, being a little buzzed (and maybe not knowing it) should be treated differently than being falling down drunk. Sadly MADD seems to have stolen our common sense.
FQ13
Walk a mile in my shoes, FQ, and we'll see if you change your mind. On October 29, 1991 I watched in the rearview mirror as a car driven by a drunk driver, that I had just successfully dodged, hit a pickup driven by my wife, head-on. Miraculously, she survived. Fast-forward 15 years, to October 29, 2006......a drunk driver sideswiped a bridge abutment and bounced into the oncoming traffic lane, hitting an SUV driven by my brother-in-law head-on. My sister was killed outright, and my brother-in-law died in the helicopter, on the way to the hospital. Being "buzzed and not knowing it" is the cause of the majority of the alcohol-involved fatalities each year in the United States. Drink til you can't stand up, I could give a shit less.....just don't crawl behind the wheel of a car.
So as far ass your definition of "common sense" on this subject, I'd like to respectfully suggest that you sit down and STFU.
-
Walk a mile in my shoes, FQ, and we'll see if you change your mind. On October 29, 1991 I watched in the rearview mirror as a car driven by a drunk driver, that I had just successfully dodged, hit a pickup driven by my wife, head-on. Miraculously, she survived. Fast-forward 15 years, to October 29, 2006......a drunk driver sideswiped a bridge abutment and bounced into the oncoming traffic lane, hitting an SUV driven by my brother-in-law head-on. My sister was killed outright, and my brother-in-law died in the helicopter, on the way to the hospital. Being "buzzed and not knowing it" is the cause of the majority of the alcohol-involved fatalities each year in the United States. Drink til you can't stand up, I could give a shit less.....just don't crawl behind the wheel of a car.
So as far ass your definition of "common sense" on this subject, I'd like to respectfully suggest that you sit down and STFU.
Do you happen to know what the alcohol level was in the drivers that caused these wrecks? Bill T.
-
As we both know TT, I may sit down, but I won't STFU. ;D I am sorry for your experiences and wonder why your family suffered so much. Your stories are (no pun intended) sobering.
That said, what I had intended to convey was the following:
Lets agree that DUI is bad. Its not just bad, its stupid. If you have the money to drink, you have the money to keep an extra twenty in your pocket to pay for the cab ride home. Someone will take you to your car the next day.
Still, I think we should treat it like any other crime, with varying degrees of culpability. Think of assault. Simple assault, aggravated assault, or felony battery?
.08-.10, that should be one offense. .10- and above? A different story.
That is all Im suggesting.
Peace
FQ13
-
.08-.10, that should be one offense. .10- and above? A different story.
Here I agree. We have to introduce common sense into this somewhere. For example it has been proven in independent tests conducted by law enforcement, that people talking on cell phones and text messaging while driving are far more impaired than someone driving at the "legal limit" be it .08, .1, or whatever. Still more lunacy is here in Arizona it is perfectly legal to ride in the back of an open pickup bed. But if the driver isn't wearing a seatbelt he'll be cited and fined. The problem with some of this legislation is it is designed to attract dollars, but hides behind this nonsense of "being in the interest of public safety". The government doesn't give a damn about anyone's safety, just their cash coffers. Bill T.
-
Do you happen to know what the alcohol level was in the drivers that caused these wrecks? Bill T.
In the first case it was .275.....falling down drunk, but in the second it was "only" .085.
-
As we both know TT, I may sit down, but I won't STFU. ;D I am sorry for your experiences and wonder why your family suffered so much. Your stories are (no pun intended) sobering.
That said, what I had intended to convey was the following:
Lets agree that DUI is bad. Its not just bad, its stupid. If you have the money to drink, you have the money to keep an extra twenty in your pocket to pay for the cab ride home. Someone will take you to your car the next day.
Still, I think we should treat it like any other crime, with varying degrees of culpability. Think of assault. Simple assault, aggravated assault, or felony battery?
.08-.10, that should be one offense. .10- and above? A different story.
That is all Im suggesting.
Peace
FQ13
While I don't completely disagree with your above clarification, as far as it goes. I (for obvious reasons) am more inclined to think that if one's alcohol consumption.....regardless of the amount....causes a crash, then all bets about "degree" of BAC should be moot.
I realize that I have a tendency to become a flaming a-hole on this particular topic, but I think you'll agree that I've earned that right.
-
And now, in a feeble attempt to get this thread back on topic, I have personally been called for Jury Duty 3 times. The first two times were criminal cases, and when the Voir Dire brought to light my LEO background the defense attorneys almost shit themselves in their haste to dismiss me. The third was a civil case......a personal injury accident case that involved the parents of one of my high school buddies. When that came to light, the other party's attorney couldn't get me out of the room quickly enough.
The larger point, however, is that while it cost me money to even report, I did so (reasonably) cheerfully because it's my duty as a citizen. While I will agree that our system isn't perfect, it is still the best one on the face of the earth.
Bill, you know I like and respect you a lot. But on this topic, we must simply agree to disagree.
-
Don't base it on Blood alcohol level. Base it on consequences.
My half brother got 7 - 15 for putting a woman in a wheel chair.
Woman up here ran her boat into an island, killing her "Best Friend". 6 months in jail and loss of boating privileges.
Oh, did I mention that THE DAY AFTER her bail hearing, she was clocked by a State Cop at 85 MPH (in a 55 ) He was not going to chase her, but she was talking on her cell phone and almost hit him.
2 weeks after she hits jail she is out on work release, at Daddies Marina.
Now she's even suing to get her boating "Privileges" back.
-
Don't base it on Blood alcohol level. Base it on consequences.
My half brother got 7 - 15 for putting a woman in a wheel chair.
Woman up here ran her boat into an island, killing her "Best Friend". 6 months in jail and loss of boating privileges.
Oh, did I mention that THE DAY AFTER her bail hearing, she was clocked by a State Cop at 85 MPH (in a 55 ) He was not going to chase her, but she was talking on her cell phone and almost hit him.
2 weeks after she hits jail she is out on work release, at Daddies Marina.
Now she's even suing to get her boating "Privileges" back.
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the entire drinking and driving fiasco in this country. You have people out there with money who are driving with half a dozen D.W.I.'s and more. The reason is the dollar, pure and simple. It's no different than anything else in the justice system. Only here it has become the opposite. Money WALKS and bull$h!t TALKS. It has become all but a joke.
The drunk driver represents the biggest cash cow in traffic court today. Fines run into the thousands. Then comes all of the "Alcohol Rehabilitation Programs", "Traffic Schools", not to mention court costs and attorney fees. Everyone makes money off the drunk driver, and has been for decades, and it's not going to stop anytime soon. It has been said that today a first time offense of D.U.I. or D.W.I., (there IS a difference), will wind up costing the offender over $10,000.00 by the time you add everything up, including the jacked up insurance rates. Think insurance companies hate drunk drivers? Think again. If they did they simply wouldn't insure them. Much the same way health care providers won't take pre existing conditions. They welcome the drunk drivers with open arms because they full and well know they can make a fortune off them.
This country is set up to manufacture drunk drivers by the entire way it operates. First, the cities and municipalities issue liquor licenses at great expense. Have you ever seen a bar without a parking lot? Then they pay a police force to catch as many drunk drivers as possible. They then set up a court system to process and fine the living crap out of them. All of it designed around the almighty dollar, NOT the age old nonsense of "In The Interest Of Public Safety". That has become a total joke.
Ask yourself how these cities would replace all of that revenue if no one drank and drove? It will never happen. In Arizona for example, we have some of the toughest drunk driver laws in the nation. This year drunk driving arrests are once again on the rise in spite of the tougher laws, stiffer fines, "Sobriety Checkpoints", and all of the rest. We even now have the beer and liquor companies telling us to "Drink Responsibly", and "Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk", along with all of the other nonsense that doesn't work, except for getting the monkey off of their back.
This is going to continue simply because there is a profit margin in it, a very large one, and because we as a nation love to drink, and drink a lot. People will continue to drink regardless of what is said or done. Cars will continue to crash, and people will continue to be injured and killed. That is not a defeatist attitude, but rather a realistic one. Bill T.
-
You are right on that, Bill, it is a big business in my area........especially with illegals.
90% of the arrests in our local paper everyday are illegals that were caught DUI, suspended license or no license, no tag, and no insurance. If that were me, they would throw me under the jail. But the immigrants get a heavy fine (which they eagerly pay) and then get turned loose to change their name and do it again next week. The system isn't worried about sending them away because they make the county/city a surplus of money.
I went to municipal/traffic court once just to watch the dog and pony show. I watched as the 'judge' fined one guy $5000 for a third offense DUI/License/Insurance offense.....and the guy pulled it out of his pocket and paid the clerk. The judge then suspended the jail sentence, since the guy paid the fine.....I left, shaking my head.
-
Pay the right Lawyer enough money and you are Golden.
I used to work for a guy who was up for "Habitual Offender DUI" for the 4th time. No jail time.
His lawyer had a reputation of being able to get sodomy reduced to tailgating.
-
You are right on that, Bill, it is a big business in my area. I went to municipal/traffic court once just to watch the dog and pony show. I watched as the 'judge' fined one guy $5000 for a third offense DUI/License/Insurance offense.....and the guy pulled it out of his pocket and paid the clerk. The judge then suspended the jail sentence, since the guy paid the fine.....I left, shaking my head.
It all about the dollars, always the dollars. Always has been. Law enforcement and the courts work the same way today as when Al Capone ran Chicago. It is just more out in the open today as you proved with your open courtroom observance. Remember, this is all cash money at 100% pure profit. It goes right into the city and municipal coffers, and most likely into someones pocket. Has there ever been a case involving accounting fraud in the traffic court system? If there has I've never heard about it. It's up to the judge who pays what for whatever offense. It's not like there is a bar code to scan.
It's no different with all of these state sponsored lotteries. These things have been raking in cash by the BILLIONS of dollars for over 30 years in this country. They pay back squat simply because most of the time they purchase the winners a cut rate annuity for a small fraction of what they collect. Even if the winner demands a one time cash payout, it is nothing compared to what they've hauled in on that particular ticket. Where has all that money gone? When the lottery's were instituted in this country they were sold to the people on the basis the money collected would be used for education and infrastructure. Today kids graduating are dumber than ever, and our highways and bridges are all falling apart with no money to fix any of them. What do all of the teachers and school systems cry about? They need more money! When it comes to making money disappear, city and state government has got David Copperfield and Chris Angel beat 11 ways to Sunday! Bill T.
-
The secret to that is to NOT take the breathalyser or field sobriety tests, and keep your damn mouth shut in back of the squad car (doing stupid human tricks or asking if the officer is, perchance, a jew, does not look good in court ;D). at that point it is a matter of money, your word against the officers, and if you've got the cash to pay a lawyer to make it a PITA for the prosecuters? Well, they'll generally take your money, suspend your license and call it a day. :-\
FQ13
-
I've got a cousing who is going in the slammer for a couple of months for NOT taking the brethalyzer under suspicion of his third DUI. (Yeah.... I know...) Evidently under those circumstances it's a felony to refuse the test.
-
The secret to that is to NOT take the breathalyser or field sobriety tests, and keep your damn mouth shut in back of the squad car.
The problem with that is a little thing they learned a long time ago called Implied Consent. You are basically GUILY until you prove yourself INNOCENT. They've got this whole thing down to a science. A very profitable science. No matter how you look at it, it's all about collecting the cash, and masking it all over with actually caring about the public's "safety". No one has told them a wealthy drunk isn't any "safer" than one who is broke. Bill T.
-
Here in Fl. its only a six month suspension if you refuse. In the event of a crash, they can force you to take the blood test. For a regular DUI the general consensus is that if you know you're guilty, its best to refuse as you'll lose the license for at least 6 months anyway. Why hand them evidence on a platter?
FQ13
-
For a regular DUI the general consensus is that if you know you're guilty, its best to refuse as you'll lose the license for at least 6 months anyway. Why hand them evidence on a platter?
FQ13
Here I could not agree more. Well said. Bill T.
-
Another thing is to politely ask in a clear tone of voice to be cuffed and placed into the back of the squad car after refusing any and all field sobriety tests. If you notice, they like to parade you around in front of the car so the dash cam picks up as much as possible. I had a co worker make such an issue of this they shut off the dash cam and did what he asked. I'm not an attorney but there is something about not wanting to incriminate yourself they have to respond to. Bill T.
-
Another thing is to politely ask in a clear tone of voice to be cuffed and placed into the back of the squad car after refusing any and all field sobriety tests. If you notice, they like to parade you around in front of the car so the dash cam picks up as much as possible. I had a co worker make such an issue of this they shut off the dash cam and did what he asked. I'm not an attorney but there is something about not wanting to incriminate yourself they have to respond to. Bill T.
Its a very stupid (or very scary) cop that will turn off that camera. It there for their protection (unless of course they want to kick your ass ;D).
FQ13
-
For those who may need a refresher.
-
I should say at this point I have NEVER been arrested or charged with a D.U.I., or D.W.I. in my life. But like all of us, I know dozens who have been. Now, if you're going to ask if I ever deserved one, my answer is an honest NO. I deserved 300 of them in my younger days. But I was lucky, and kept many a paycheck because of it. Bill T.
-
For those who may need a refresher.
That gets funnier everytime I see it. I would show it in every class if it wouldnt get me fired, because God knows, half of them need to see it. ;D
FQ13
-
I should say at this point I have NEVER been arrested or charged with a D.U.I., or D.W.I. in my life. But like all of us, I know dozens who have been. Now, if you're going to ask if I ever deserved one, my answer is an honest NO. I deserved 300 of them in my younger days. But I was lucky, and kept many a paycheck because of it. Bill T.
Same here.
I know one local guy who lost his license for 6 months for DUI. After the 6 months, he took a $275 class, paid a $50 reinstatement fee, and got them back......and promptly went out to celebrate....and, yes ladies and gentlemen, got liquored up and arrested for DUI......this time losing his license for 2 years.........after which, you guessed it, he got them back and immediately lost them again (indefinitely) for DUI......did I mention the guy was an idiot?
-
Same here.
I know one local guy who lost his license for 6 months for DUI. After the 6 months, he took a $275 class, paid a $50 reinstatement fee, and got them back......and promptly went out to celebrate....and, yes ladies and gentlemen, got liquored up and arrested for DUI......this time losing his license for 2 years.........after which, you guessed it, he got them back and immediately lost them again (indefinitely) for DUI......did I mention the guy was an idiot?
Don't be too hard on him Peg. He was just drunk at the time. ;D ::)
FQ13
-
Don't be too hard on him Peg. He was just drunk at the time. ;D ::)
FQ13
Well, he was an idiot the 4 hours a day he was sober also. ;D
-
4 hours ?
That's an awful long walk to the "Packy".
-
A hangover is the price you have to pay to be sober.
-
4 hours ?
That's an awful long walk to the "Packy".
In all seriousness, he lived about 12 miles out of town....and he would walk it if he couldn't find a ride.