Jury duty! Again!

[billt]

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"?    Bill T.

[billt]

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.

[Dakotaranger]

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...

[fightingquaker13]

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.
FQ13

[Dakotaranger]

Funny, the defense in a drug case would LOVE my knowledge of criminal law. The prosecuter, not so much.
FQ13

You might need a new prosecutor, or maybe the prosecutor needs to change sides.

[Sponsor]

[Herknav]

I'm off to do the court martial jury duty thing today.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[billt]

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.

[Solus]

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.

 

[tombogan03884]

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.