#81  
Old 07-08-2011, 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post
That's the definition of attacking the poster and not the post. Come on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeo4 View Post
Anyone catching the irony of this? I mean, it was even posted back to back.
Seriously, both of you need to just stop. I did not attack anyone nor did I saw anyone's opinion is wrong. I stated my opinion. Some people said I could not do what I clearly can do and I told you so.

Most of you seem to be talking about things by the book. I pointed out that things do not have to be that way in a jury case. That is the whole reason for having a jury case. If you are on the defense, you want a jury and hope that the facts are ingored and opinions are used. I did not say anything you people say about the case were false.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 07-08-2011, 10:49 AM
Actually I said it would result in a mistrial and she would have walked Scott free.

Who is this Scott person anyway? Seems like I'd want his life.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-08-2011, 10:52 AM
I retract my last statements about wanting Scott Free's life. He does exist and heads a punk rock band.



To learn more about Scott Free.



Kind of like Elvis Costello and Paul Westerberg channeling Henry Rollins, but with less body hair.

Last edited by The Postmaster General; 07-08-2011 at 10:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 07-08-2011, 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Seriously, both of you need to just stop. I did not attack anyone nor did I saw anyone's opinion is wrong. I stated my opinion. Some people said I could not do what I clearly can do and I told you so.
Bullshit. You claimed to have to explain things to me because I'm in the "cheap seats" and that you don't know "what the fuck is wrong with" me. That has nothing to do with defending your right to an opinion.

Quote:
Most of you seem to be talking about things by the book. I pointed out that things do not have to be that way in a jury case. That is the whole reason for having a jury case. If you are on the defense, you want a jury and hope that the facts are ingored and opinions are used. I did not say anything you people say about the case were false.
The whole reason to have a jury case is for things to be fair and not biased. That may not be realistic, but that's why they exist, and they certainly don't exist so that facts can be ignored. Also, the idea that all defense lawyers do is try to make sure "the facts are ignored and opinions are used" is also bullshit. In this particular case, it was the state trying to ignore the facts. Sure, some defense teams take that strategy, but to act as if that's all any defense does is incredibly silly.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 07-08-2011, 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post
Bullshit. You claimed to have to explain things to me because I'm in the "cheap seats" and that you don't know "what the fuck is wrong with" me. That has nothing to do with defending your right to an opinion.
Maybe you are too young to know what that actually means, so let me clear it up.....again. When one says something about the cheap seats, it means for people who don't hear or understand me. It is not on insult to you. OK?

What the fuck is wrong with people is exactly what I said. People and not directed at you. There are a few people all saying the same thing. I think you are taking it a bit personal.....again. The Celtics lost. I am sorry and you need to get over it and more on. OK?

If you took anything as an insult I formerly apologize. I was just explaing my point and I am sorry you took it personally. OK? Good now?



Quote:
The whole reason to have a jury case is for things to be fair and not biased. That may not be realistic, but that's why they exist, and they certainly don't exist so that facts can be ignored. Also, the idea that all defense lawyers do is try to make sure "the facts are ignored and opinions are used" is also bullshit. In this particular case, it was the state trying to ignore the facts. Sure, some defense teams take that strategy, but to act as if that's all any defense does is incredibly silly.
You proved my point in your second line. "May not be realistic" Now you know the truth. Thank you for agreeing.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-08-2011, 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
What the fuck is wrong with people is exactly what I said. People and not directed at you. There are a few people all saying the same thing. I think you are taking it a bit personal.....again. The Celtics lost. I am sorry and you need to get over it and more on. OK?
Umm...what? I never said anything about taking anything personally. I know neither comment was directed directly at me and me alone. I (and others) were just pointing out how you seemed to break the rules than ask people to follow the rules with consecutive posts.

The Celtics comment made me laugh out loud. Have you ever entered the NBA thread? I'm sorry if I don't recall. I have never and will never made any excuses for the Celtics or expressed any attitude of not being able to get over them losing. I honestly have no idea where you're getting that. Just seems like an odd and petty thing to bring up here...and yeah, making it quite personal. Not offended, just seems so silly and childish.

Quote:
I was just explaing my point and I am sorry you took it personally. OK? Good now?
Again, I never said I took it personally I just thought it was so silly coming right after you (correctly) corrected another poster.

Quote:
You proved my point in your second line. "May not be realistic" Now you know the truth. Thank you for agreeing.
You're welcome; I do indeed agree that it's not realistic to have unbiased juries because people will lie and ignore evidence and that's a horrible thing and it's a huge part of why our justice system is so screwed up. So glad you agree.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-08-2011, 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post
Umm...what? I never said anything about taking anything personally. I know neither comment was directed directly at me and me alone. I (and others) were just pointing out how you seemed to break the rules than ask people to follow the rules with consecutive posts.
OK Yeah.

Quote:
The Celtics comment made me laugh out loud. Have you ever entered the NBA thread? I'm sorry if I don't recall. I have never and will never made any excuses for the Celtics or expressed any attitude of not being able to get over them losing. I honestly have no idea where you're getting that. Just seems like an odd and petty thing to bring up here...and yeah, making it quite personal. Not offended, just seems so silly and childish.
It is called a joke man. Lighten up.



Quote:
Again, I never said I took it personally I just thought it was so silly coming right after you (correctly) corrected another poster.
Three brain cells holding hands is not the same as saying Cheap Seats. One is a direct insult and the other is not.



Quote:
You're welcome; I do indeed agree that it's not realistic to have unbiased juries because people will lie and ignore evidence and that's a horrible thing and it's a huge part of why our justice system is so screwed up. So glad you agree.
The justice system is not so bad. Most of the time, I believe the right decisions are made. I would like you to explain to me of a better way?
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-08-2011, 06:09 PM
wait... I'm not allowed to say what I'm picturing??
I don't remember quoting anyone in specific, or naming names..
sounds like some paranoid brain cells, yo.

I'm not insulting YOU..really..
I'm just saying.. I think your opinion is a moron.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-08-2011, 06:11 PM
So no thoughts on your unethical principals theoretically resulting in Anthony walking free with a case to sue the state?
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-08-2011, 06:19 PM
Guys, I wouldn't count on the concept of insulting somebody's opinion instead of the individual as a valid excuse. That was Hey Man's favorite excuse to avoid discipline, and look how that turned out.

"I'm not calling YOU stupid, just your opinion."
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07-08-2011, 06:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
Guys, I wouldn't count on the concept of insulting somebody's opinion instead of the individual as a valid excuse. That was Hey Man's favorite excuse to avoid discipline, and look how that turned out.

"I'm not calling YOU stupid, just your opinion."
Hey Man is gone? Since when? Did he come back with a different name? I remember hating that guy and his avatar.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 07-08-2011, 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Hey Man is gone? Since when? Did he come back with a different name? I remember hating that guy and his avatar.
Hey Man was banned a long time ago. He came back as River Dog, then Freewheeler, each of them banned. I can't even remember his last username, he lasted about a week under that one. I do remember you and he had an argument in a recent thread under one of his aliases, you may not have realized that was Hey Man at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-08-2011, 07:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
Hey Man was banned a long time ago. He came back as River Dog, then Freewheeler, each of them banned. I can't even remember his last username, he lasted about a week under that one. I do remember you and he had an argument in a recent thread under one of his aliases, you may not have realized that was Hey Man at the time.
More accurately, he was:

Hey Man - Banned
Cinematic Soul - Banned
River Dog - Banned
Freewheeler - Deleted
Rock Steady - Deleted

I may be missing some, but you get the idea.

Last edited by jeo4; 07-09-2011 at 12:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07-09-2011, 08:06 AM
Bitch is cute, can't deny that.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-09-2011, 03:44 PM
That's what I figured Vong, because I always pictured Hey Man Fabio-esque, except with a goatee and sometimes with a tattoo of a firebird on his chest.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-09-2011, 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
That's what I figured Vong, because I always pictured Hey Man Fabio-esque, except with a goatee and sometimes with a tattoo of a firebird on his chest.

Badcoverversion likes this.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-09-2011, 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
As for this case... you can def vote in any way you can... and I am super surprised the Jury didn't stick to the "Fuck her she lied, fuck her" cuz that would have been my thoughts.
Not really. The defense after cases like this has the verdict reviewed to make sure jurors follow the judges orders and have a legal reasons to vote guilty, and not just "fuck her, she lied".

Quote:
I served Jury Duty a few years back, it was a Rape Trial... the person charged was some young punk, wore his pants down to his ankles, dressed like he didnt grasp the severity of what was going on. To me, he was still filled up with his status as a young gangsta, and not a dude who was fighting for the next 20 years of his life.
Which had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he committed the crime.

Quote:
The chick was just some white trash chick, which tossed some credibility issues.
Clearly...

Quote:
A few of us wanted to throw the book at this guy, cuz the evidence was barely there for Rape 1, but fuck him, it was obvious he did something, and the fact that he couldn't even clean up for court, he was better in jail than not.
So because he didn't wear clothes that society deems appropriate it obviously means he deserves to have charges trumped up on him, facts be damned. I bet you didn't like how he "talked funny" either, did you...

Quote:
If they believed she lied to cops after her baby was missing and she was out partying after her baby was missing, obviously this person is a detriment to society and is guilty of SOMETHING. Perhaps don't give her Murder 1.. but get her on one of the other serious charges that would put her behind bars for a substantial amount of time.
Whether the facts merit it or not, cause we all know in the America justice system we are innocent until some asshole has a funny feeling about you.

Quote:
I dont know what all charges were up against her, but i think i saw someone in here say she was put up on Manslaughter as well... if you dont think the state proved Murder 1, than lynch her on Manslaughter.
And if they didn't prove manslaughter either? Who cares?

Quote:
It sounds to me like this Jury was getting sick of working this trial, sick of not being able to talk about anything and once both sides rested, they wanted to come to a conclusion as quickly as possible and in that, that meant less give and take, more "ok ok, lets just get this shit done soon". There seems to have been no compromise in the jury room, because if there had been, she would have gotten something far worse than simple Lying.
Or, you know, they did what they were supposed to do and found her not guilty because the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of anything other than lying to police.

Quote:
In my case, the guy got 12 years in Jail, and he deserves every minute.
Hopefully so. I'd hate to think that you sent an innocent man to prison because you didn't like how he dressed and you "felt" like he was guilty. If you've never seen 12 Angry Men (the original) I'd highly recommend it.

Last edited by free; 07-09-2011 at 09:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-09-2011, 09:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
Bitch is cute, can't deny that.
Can and will.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-10-2011, 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
Point of the story and how it relates back is: We had a woman who was also an african american woman with a child roughly the same age as thhis dude on trial. She wanted to find him not guilty. A few of us wanted to throw the book at this guy, cuz the evidence was barely there for Rape 1, but fuck him, it was obvious he did something, and the fact that he couldn't even clean up for court, he was better in jail than not. So we were in the room and we negotiated down with the ones who wanted Rape 1 and negotiated up from the woman who wanted a full Not Guilty..

Your story sums up juries in a nut shell. This is why people on trial want a jury trial and not a judgement from a judge. The best part is if you get a hung jury, chances are you get away with it, because the state is most likely not going to want to go to trial again. This is why when you are found guilty by a jury of your peers they make a big deal of it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by free View Post
So because he didn't wear clothes that society deems appropriate it obviously means he deserves to have charges trumped up on him, facts be damned. I bet you didn't like how he "talked funny" either, did you...



Whether the facts merit it or not, cause we all know in the America justice system we are innocent until some asshole has a funny feeling about you.
.
Welcome to life. There are times when you want to pretend to be a human being and part of society. Like when your on trial for the better part of your youth. It matters and I am sorry you and I don't see it the same way.

How you talk also matters. It matter how you do at work or if you can get a certain job or in this case maybe proving yourself innocent. Is it right to be this way? No, but this is the world we live in.

I liked your last line. Very funny and true. But it is the best system in the world. Unless you have a better idea.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-10-2011, 04:22 PM
ya.. to every point Free made... I know you were trying to GET me, and make it seem like i was some ass hole who may or may not have sent an innocent dude to jail for 12 years all because of the way he dressed (Which believe me, he committed the crime... all im saying is had this dude presented himself better, that would have been taken into consideration... yes, in this country, where people have the free will to present themselves in any manner they choose, the way a person dresses will speak volumes to that persons character.. and when this person is in Court, fighting for their right for freedom... and they still can't present themselves respectably, yes, I (And the rest of society) will take that into consideration)

As for your points on Casey Anthony... if you didnt do something fishy, you dont lie when asked about it.

If your baby is missing, and you are out partying, there is something up with that. Sociopathic even.

And the jury had enough evidence to convict... traces of Chloroform in the trunk, residue of what was most likely a decaying body (Although they couldnt 100% prove it was in fact a decaying human body... but when a person is on trial for the murder of their child, and THEIR trunk has traces of something even semi relating to a decaying body.. it's a fucking decaying body!)

So, Free, I can appreciate your very linear way of taking our Justice System, but sometimes you have to look at other factors, such as behavior, to get to the truth.

If my child went missing, and the next week i was out partying and having a good time, throw me in jail, because I am a piece of shit!
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 07-10-2011, 05:26 PM
So if you get arrested in Japan should you be convicted for not wearing a formal kimono and bowing your head? What looks like a productive member of society and a good, innocent person to me, may not be the same for you.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-10-2011, 05:58 PM
Actually, I don't doubt that the guy was a rapist. I don't know you, but I assume that you wouldn't convict someone solely due to his wardrobe. The problem I have is with this notion that because he didn't dress "like you're supposed to" it somehow infers that he's "more" guilty or that he deserves to have the charges trumped up on him.

See, John Q. Public has the right to judge someone based on how they look and speak. John Q. Juror, thought, swears an oath to judge solely on the facts presented in the case.

Quote:
You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened–that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts–it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you.

You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences. However, you should not read into these instructions, or anything else I may have said or done, any suggestion as to what your verdict should be. That is entirely up to you.

It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took.
As for the Anthony trial, everything you bring up is circumstantial evidence. They couldn't even determine a cause of death. Personally, I do think she either killed her or helped to cover up her death, but our justice system is set up in such a way that the burden of proof in criminal cases is very high. The only thing that her partying and living it up while her child was missing/ dead proves is that she's a coldhearted bitch (borderline sociopath).
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-10-2011, 06:02 PM
not all people that wear their pants to their ankles are criminals... an ass hole, yes, a wannabe gangsta with zero street cred, yes... a criminal, no.

When you are in court, fighting for 20 years of your freedom, and you can't even fake like you care, you cant let go of your street cred, even in a fucking court room, c'mon!

People can have the PC crap they want, but when you see some douche bag with his pants to his ankles and some fake ass gangsta speech pattern, you get annoyed. Not to a point where it actually bothers you, but you do give off that slight chuckle and acknowledgment of how pathetic it is. But perhaps Im just an ass hole!

But that all relates back to the trial i was a jury member on, where the dude was 100% guilty... so who gives a fuck.

Casey Anthony trial had more than enough evidence, circumstantial as it may have been, to convict.

We can bitch and moan about the legal system in this country, and believe me, i fucking hate it. but at the end of the day, in a non jury trial, a judge can get a hand job from his wife the night before and preside over a case of DUI and give the guy Probation and a Class... or his wife can turn him down for some ass the night before and that same DUI case goes to jail for a year or so (Unless you're Lindsay Lohan, then you get off scott free every time).

You can deny that all you want, you can say that our Legal System is full of checks and balances and in that, no innocent person will ever go to jail and no guilty person will ever go free, but that type of naivete is not advisable, because perhaps one day you will be on the opposite side of the law and you will get fucked in the ass.

(And before you make conclusions, the most serious offense I have to my credit is a Speeding Ticket... but I have seen a lot of injustices in my time all through the court system... this Casey Anthony thing is just the latest, but there will be many many more, and none with the national attention...)

If Casey Anthony truthfully didn't harm her child in any way, then yes, it is good she was found not guilty... but her behavior after her baby went missing PLUS the evidence (Again, circumstantial, but evidence none the less) put things near Casey Anthony that an innocent person would never have had around them... the jury had enough to convict, and they didn't.

I dont think Casey Anthony will be out there killing any one else, we arent dealing with a serial killer here, but she just did get away with murder.

Last edited by SkyNet; 07-10-2011 at 06:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-10-2011, 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
ya.. to every point Free made... I know you were trying to GET me, and make it seem like i was some ass hole who may or may not have sent an innocent dude to jail for 12 years all because of the way he dressed (Which believe me, he committed the crime... all im saying is had this dude presented himself better, that would have been taken into consideration... yes, in this country, where people have the free will to present themselves in any manner they choose, the way a person dresses will speak volumes to that persons character.. and when this person is in Court, fighting for their right for freedom... and they still can't present themselves respectably, yes, I (And the rest of society) will take that into consideration)

As for your points on Casey Anthony... if you didnt do something fishy, you dont lie when asked about it.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-10-2011, 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by free View Post
Actually, I don't doubt that the guy was a rapist. I don't know you, but I assume that you wouldn't convict someone solely due to his wardrobe. The problem I have is with this notion that because he didn't dress "like you're supposed to" it somehow infers that he's "more" guilty or that he deserves to have the charges trumped up on him.

See, John Q. Public has the right to judge someone based on how they look and speak. John Q. Juror, thought, swears an oath to judge solely on the facts presented in the case.



As for the Anthony trial, everything you bring up is circumstantial evidence. They couldn't even determine a cause of death. Personally, I do think she either killed her or helped to cover up her death, but our justice system is set up in such a way that the burden of proof in criminal cases is very high. The only thing that her partying and living it up while her child was missing/ dead proves is that she's a coldhearted bitch (borderline sociopath).
Watch the last scene in The Social Network with Mark and the chick lawyer. What she says is 100% true about juries. It matters what you look like and how you act in court.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 07-10-2011, 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Watch the last scene in The Social Network with Mark and the chick lawyer. What she says is 100% true about juries. It matters what you look like and how you act in court.
How does that explain the Anthony verdict though? No one on the jury liked, trusted or believed her.

Everyone here acknowledges that juries use personal prejudice; the argument is whether or not that's okay.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 07-11-2011, 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post
the argument is whether or not that's okay.
Oh, is that the argument? (im sure that sounds snarky, but it 100% isnt).. if that is the argument, than let me clarify, I dont think it is OKAY to toss someone in jail for the way they look when their is a lack of evidence... i was just simply saying that, that IS the way it is!

I'm a shaved head (Because I was balding) white guy with piercings in my ears and tongue and Libre (The Libre one is clear, never really wear an actual piercing in it)... im a big dude... if a jury saw me, they would throw the book at me, no doubt!

But also, if i ever went to court for any reason, I would dress professionally and present myself the same way, and even though it may not be RIGHT 100%... everyone will take personal appearance and the general way a person presents themselves in court into consideration when it is time to deliberate!

Also, i have never seen The Thin Blue Line.. so if you could throw up some Spoilers and let me know what it is about, and how it relates to what i wrote! Thanks dude!
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 07-11-2011, 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
Oh, is that the argument? (im sure that sounds snarky, but it 100% isnt).. if that is the argument, than let me clarify, I dont think it is OKAY to toss someone in jail for the way they look when their is a lack of evidence... i was just simply saying that, that IS the way it is!
I agree that's the way it is, and I also don't think it's right. Erroneous, though, seems to think people have the "right" to judge based on prejudice, and I think that's not okay.

Quote:
Also, i have never seen The Thin Blue Line.. so if you could throw up some Spoilers and let me know what it is about, and how it relates to what i wrote! Thanks dude!
The Thin Blue Line is a doc by Errol Morris that literally got an innocent man off death row in Texas. The man wrongly convicted was a scraggly, scary-looking drifter and the man who testified against him (and who was the actual killer) was a clean-cut All-American. The police never considered that the clean-cut guy could have done it. Yes, it's just one case, but I bring it up because this is what can happen when prejudices get in the way.

Every day, all day, I'd rather have a guilty person not in prison than an innocent person in prison.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 07-11-2011, 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post
How does that explain the Anthony verdict though? No one on the jury liked, trusted or believed her.

Everyone here acknowledges that juries use personal prejudice; the argument is whether or not that's okay.
It had more to do with Skynet's experience
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 07-11-2011, 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post



The Thin Blue Line is a doc by Errol Morris that literally got an innocent man off death row in Texas. The man wrongly convicted was a scraggly, scary-looking drifter and the man who testified against him (and who was the actual killer) was a clean-cut All-American. The police never considered that the clean-cut guy could have done it. Yes, it's just one case, but I bring it up because this is what can happen when prejudices get in the way.

Every day, all day, I'd rather have a guilty person not in prison than an innocent person in prison.
Im going to have to rent that, it sounds good. Kind of like Paradise Lost: The Child Murders At Robin Hood Hills (And it's Sequel Paradise Lost 2: Revelations) about the 3 kids who are currently in jail for murdering a child, and they are solely in jail because of the way they look and the music they listen to.

People are still trying to get them out, and I hope they get out sometime soon. huge injustice that has happened to those guys.


As for my case, let me clarify again... he was up for Rape 1 and Rape 2... Rape 1 was fairly obvious he didnt commit, because there wasn't any sort of physical assault present in any of the photos we were shown.. BUT it was obvious the dude did force this female to have sex with him in a High Schools baseball field near the tree line. Hence, he was guilty of Rape 2... and in that, he also got False Imprisonment and Reckless Endangerment, because if you are guilty of Rape at all, those other 2 charges go hand in hand.

My point was simply that, an innocent person doesn't present himself like a thug in court. If the dude was truly innocent and he dressed like he did, ya, the evidence would have found him not guilty, but because there was evidence there that he forced the girl to have sex with him.. i personally had no problem tossing Rape 1 on this piece of shit, but myself and the others that wanted Rape 1 on him had to be talked down so that the woman who wanted a straight not guilty could be talked up.

This guys demeanor in court could have told a different story, but in my eyes his demeanor was that of a person who didnt give a fuck that he was there and that if let out, would continue to do what he was doing, forcing chicks to have sex with him. So I had no problem throwing the book at this dude.

He wasn't innocent, and I would have liked to see him go to jail for far longer than he got, because no matter how you force a chick to have sex with you, its sick and wrong and you should go to jail for a super long time.

If he was innocent, than even his demeanor would not have had me voting Guilty on the dude, that was never in question. But the point is that no matter what the law says, and how a jury is SUPPOSED to do things... when you are in that room, you can do whatever the fuck you want and decide fates based on any sort of prejudices you hold.

It's like when you are in court, and the Prosecution says something, and the defense objects, and the Judge sustains that objection, that means that the Jury is supposed to simply FORGET they heard what the prosecution said... and i never understood that, how do you un-hear something?? Even though you are not allowed to bring it up in the deliberation room (Although you can, really, no one is in there with you except the other jurors, so unless one of the jurors is a HUGE stickler for the rules, you can sya what you want)... but you still heard it, that piece of information is still in your brain, and even though the Judge said that you can not use that information in your decision, you will, because you heard it in the court room. You can't un-hear information!

There are so many holes in our justice system it becomes laughable
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 07-11-2011, 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
My point was simply that, an innocent person doesn't present himself like a thug in court.
I just...I don't understand this. I just don't have words for this. By that logic, if you were on trial and a jury of "thugs" didn't like the way you dressed, they should convict you. That's what you're saying. A style I don't like = must be guilty.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 07-11-2011, 04:22 PM
No... but if I was on Trial, and the evidence against me was flimsy, but the Jury could make a strong case both for and against me, the way I was dressed in the court room COULD sway them one way or the other.

If the prosecution gives a strong case, and the defense presents a strong case, and when the jury is in the deliberation room and I am on the fence on whether or not the dude is guilty or innocent, I would 100% take into account the way this person presented himself in court. the way he dressed, the way he moved in his seat, the facial expressions I saw him make throughout the case.

If that means that in some of your eyes that I am what is wrong with the American judicial System, than I will take that... but we can all sit here and say we would never be prejudice against someone for the way they dress or act, but in reality we all would, and we all have.

Maybe I just dont get your point Ace... do you think that a person who was accused of a terrible crime, who knew the gravity of their situation, knew that the result of this case could determine whether this person spent the next 20 or 30 years of their life in jail, do you think this person should show up to court, in front of a judge and the lawyers and the jury that was selected by the prosecution AND defense, a jury made up of people of all walks of life, old white woman, young black woman, old black men, young black men, old white men, young white men and all other races and creeds, this person who is fighting for their life should show up to court still dressed like he might on the street? You are there to impress the jury, to allow the jury to SYMPATHIZE with you, for the jury to look at you and say "The evidence is kind of there, but look at the way he dresses, and the way he presents himself in court, this is a person who is obviously up to no good".. if both parties presented an equal case, the way this suspected criminal presents himself WILL play heavily in your final decision.

If the Prosecution & Defense both have equally strong cases and the suspected criminal is dressed respectable and presents himself in court with a degree of respectability, then while in the deliberation room, you will more than likely give the dude the benefit of the doubt.

If you can't comprehend the gravity of being in court fighting for your freedom, than if you are found innocent on any account (other than out and out innocence) chances are you will go out and again be a deviant to society because you obviously have no grasp of the repercussions to your deviant actions.

If you don't agree with that, that is cool, but that is the way i see it!!
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 07-11-2011, 05:20 PM
Not everybody that dresses like that is a thug. Because a style of clothing is different than what you're used to, it doesn't mean they are more likely to commit a crime.

Just because a person dresses a certain way doesn't mean they don't understand the severity of a trial. For them, it might be "the norm" and they don't see anything wrong with wearing that in court. Somebody could wear what they consider their dress clothes, that are very nice, and very expensive, and it may come across as "thug clothes" to you. If you're a juror it should have nothing to do with how you vote. The evidence that the prosecution presents is all you should be considering.

Here's a thought. If somebody is using the public defender, they probably can't afford to buy a suit for a trial. If we went by your line of thought, there would be a lot more poor people in jail.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-11-2011, 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
If the prosecution gives a strong case, and the defense presents a strong case, and when the jury is in the deliberation room and I am on the fence on whether or not the dude is guilty or innocent, I would 100% take into account the way this person presented himself in court. the way he dressed, the way he moved in his seat, the facial expressions I saw him make throughout the case.
I want to keep things civil (as you have) so don't take this the wrong way, but that just seems like bullshit to me. Neither you nor I nor 99.999% of jurors are capable of making legitimate judgements on someone based on how they dress, facial expressions, the way they moved in their seat, etc. If you are on the fence, the law says you MUST vote not guilty. That's how our system works, and it's the only hope for it to work at all. Not saying you're dumb or anything, but if there's doubt, you shouldn't be looking for reasons to sway you one way or the other. If there's doubt, it's a not guilty vote.

Quote:
You are there to impress the jury, to allow the jury to SYMPATHIZE with you, for the jury to look at you and say "The evidence is kind of there, but look at the way he dresses, and the way he presents himself in court, this is a person who is obviously up to no good".. if both parties presented an equal case, the way this suspected criminal presents himself WILL play heavily in your final decision.
But that's only allowing for your definition of what can induce sympathy. Is it impossible that the way the suspect in your case dressed and acted that it endeared him to some?

Quote:
If you can't comprehend the gravity of being in court fighting for your freedom, than if you are found innocent on any account (other than out and out innocence) chances are you will go out and again be a deviant to society because you obviously have no grasp of the repercussions to your deviant actions.
You simply cannot judge someone's grasp of the gravity of their case based on how they dress and act. You just can't. Maybe the suspect in your case was casual because he was innocent and believed the system would take care of him. Maybe not. But the moment he appeared in court you started leaning towards guilty. I'm not saying that's unusual, I just don't think that's good.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-11-2011, 05:27 PM
After knowing the details of the case featured in The Thin Blue Line, you have to realize that it's never right to judge somebody's guilt or innocence based on their appearance. It's wrong, and it's how innocent people get sent to jail. It's not even fair to take it into consideration, it should have no bearing on how a juror votes.

Don't judge a book by its cover is one of the first things you learn when it comes to social interaction, and it's never more true when it concerns somebody's freedom.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-11-2011, 06:10 PM
I just want to jump in here and try to sum up (the best I can) what is currently being discussed between AceD and Skynet:

Judging a book by its cover.


Amirite?

I know it's a bullshit thing, but let's face it: society as whole does it. Everyday. Every moment. It's sad but true. Society and the things that go on in it cause people to have certain "perceptions" on people.

Let's take "thugs," for instance. You've a group of people (could be white, black, hispanic, whatevs) that have given society the perception that every one of them steal, have guns, deal drugs, do drugs, fight, partake in gangs, et al. If you go to an urban area, what are you going to see? Most likely people that would resemble thugs. Usually thugs aren't the nicest people to be around...or the most welcome. But sometimes they can surprise you. The general concensus with "thugs" is that they do bad things, hence why people see them as "guilty," with whatever crime they want to attach them to. It's an appearance and general perception thing. It sucks. Society as a whole is to blame, but also the people they are looking at are to be equally blamed for casting such an image.

Just my $.02. I wasn't meaning for the above to sound demeaning or anything, but I hoped my input would clear some shit up.


I still think the bitch (Casey) had something to do with her daughters death.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 07-11-2011, 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post
If you are on the fence, the law says you MUST vote not guilty. That's how our system works, and it's the only hope for it to work at all.


.
Right... I agree with you, that is what the Law says! But my argument is that, even though that is how the law states it and what the Rules are... can we be so naive as to believe that is actually the way it goes down??

As for taking things the wrong way, no problem dude! I love conversations where I have 1 view and it differs from everyone elses (Although I would prefer at least ONE person agree with me!!!). It makes me see things from others views that I may not have!

And to Davey... you know, you are right, not everyone that dresses like a thug IS a Thug. But I am only saying that when you are in Court, where Appearances do in fact matter, perhaps step out of whatever comfort zone you have and dress appropriately. And im not saying go buy a new suit and tie.. all im saying is wear the clothes you already have, but instead of having your jeans or dickies halfway down you ass, pull them up to your waist! Wear a fucking belt, if you dont have a belt or cant afford one, gram a shoelace or something, SOMETHING that makes your pants not go down to your knee caps so you can look tough. (And lest i sound like a racist, this rule is for white and black, asian and mexican... anyone and everyone).

And perhaps the way he dressed did endear him to some... but on a Jury of 12, selected on by both Prosecution and Defense, would there be more than maybe 2 or 3 that would be endeared by that style? By the wannabe thug look?

And some of it has to do with my thought that unless you grew up in a true inner city setting, you have no need to dress like a wannabe gangsta or talk like one. It is thing people do to make themselves seem tougher than they are. And im sure your argument will be "How do you know?"... 50 years ago, no body talked or dressed like that, then rap came out and it was made by people that TRULY lived the life. People that had to act a certain way to survive. Yet when that style of music became mainstream, you saw people from the suburbs starting to walk and talk like that, and to me, they lost all credibility, because they were going with the trends and saw something they WANTED to be, and stopped being who they were. (And i know that makes me sound like an old curmudgeon, but i am only 26)!.. and I will say that Wannabe Thugs are one of my biggest pet peeves, and that does shape my argument here.

BUT... all I am saying is that, we can make a million and one common sense, and rule of law and by the book assessments of the judicial system we currently have in the U.S... BUT the point is that when it comes down to it, all of that CAN go out the window when the moment of truth finally arrives. Even though you are only supposed to take into account what you heard or saw (Evidence wise) in the court room, you will take into account so many other factors. that is why Lawyers bring out Character Witnesses... Witnesses who take the stand and sole purpose is to tell the jury what type of person the defendant is. These character traits have nothing to do with the case other than to show the Jury that this person, this person who is currently on trial for their life, even before this crime was committed (Possibly by them) was a detriment to society. Character and Demeanor are actual testimony that will be presented to show that the crime at hand could have been committed by the person in the court room because his character prior to the crime was that, in keeping with the type of character who would commit the crime. And YES, dress and appearance DOES come into play in those scenarios!
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 07-11-2011, 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the clever guy View Post
I know it's a bullshit thing, but let's face it: society as whole does it. Everyday. Every moment. It's sad but true. Society and the things that go on in it cause people to have certain "perceptions" on people.
That goes without saying, and it has been said a couple times already. Nobody is trying to say that it doesn't happen. We're just saying that just because something is common, doesn't mean we should just accept it. Eventually somebody had to step up and say "Okay, women and African Americans should have the same rights as us even though that goes against the societal norm."


Quote:
Originally Posted by the clever guy View Post
Let's take "thugs," for instance. You've a group of people (could be white, black, hispanic, whatevs) that have given society the perception that every one of them steal, have guns, deal drugs, do drugs, fight, partake in gangs, et al. If you go to an urban area, what are you going to see? Most likely people that would resemble thugs. Usually thugs aren't the nicest people to be around...or the most welcome. But sometimes they can surprise you. The general concensus with "thugs" is that they do bad things, hence why people see them as "guilty," with whatever crime they want to attach them to. It's an appearance and general perception thing. It sucks. Society as a whole is to blame, but also the people they are looking at are to be equally blamed for casting such an image.
That's called confusing appearance with a lifestyle. "Thugs" are people that commit crimes, not people who wear their pants below their butt. If you went to an urban area, thugs would NOT be the majority of what you'd see. You'd see a wide variety of people from many different backgrounds. A lot of people dress a certain way. Some of those people commit crimes, but they are in the minority. You're just associating the innocent people with all of the thugs because they dress similarly.

Just cause a lot of criminals wear a do-rag doesn't mean everybody who wears a do-rag is a criminal. As for the innocent people who wear a do-rag, it's your fault and your fault alone for perceiving that appearance to be synonymous with criminal activity or a thug lifestyle.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 07-11-2011, 10:25 PM
People who can't afford to update their wardrobe for court appearances are guilty. Period. The same goes for people with poor speaking skills and vocabulary. If you are going to court, you should find an etiquette coach and have a complete makeover. Otherwise, you are going to just look guilty. That's the way it works.

Far from it.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 07-12-2011, 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
People who can't afford to update their wardrobe for court appearances are guilty. Period. The same goes for people with poor speaking skills and vocabulary. If you are going to court, you should find an etiquette coach and have a complete makeover. Otherwise, you are going to just look guilty. That's the way it works.

Far from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
But I am only saying that when you are in Court, where Appearances do in fact matter, perhaps step out of whatever comfort zone you have and dress appropriately. And im not saying go buy a new suit and tie.. all im saying is wear the clothes you already have, but instead of having your jeans or dickies halfway down you ass, pull them up to your waist! Wear a fucking belt, if you dont have a belt or cant afford one, grab a shoelace or something, SOMETHING that makes your pants not go down to your knee caps so you can look tough. (And lest i sound like a racist, this rule is for white and black, asian and mexican... anyone and everyone).
.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump