Clerk Mistaken For Casey Anthony Attacked With Minivan

knightwithoutacause wrote:

I see what you are saying; it feels like the same when you are the victim's friend or family. At least it did for me. Perhaps it is a little too fresh for me to take things without emotional reaction. That's why I'm glad that the juries do not react on emotion but rather solid evidence.

You don't honestly believe that, do you? Jurors are human beings, after all. They don't have a switch that turns off emotions when it's convenient.

She can't be tried in criminal court for Caylee's death again. However, she could be tried in civil court for wrongful death, which is what happened to OJ.

knightwithoutacause wrote:

I see what you are saying; it feels like the same when you are the victim's friend or family. At least it did for me. Perhaps it is a little too fresh for me to take things without emotional reaction. That's why I'm glad that the juries do not react on emotion but rather solid evidence.

They're not supposed to, but lawyers do their absolute best to pick idiots.

Penguin wrote:

knightwithoutacause wrote:

I see what you are saying; it feels like the same when you are the victim's friend or family. At least it did for me. Perhaps it is a little too fresh for me to take things without emotional reaction. That's why I'm glad that the juries do not react on emotion but rather solid evidence.

They're not supposed to, but lawyers do their absolute best to pick idiots.

It really seems that way. The last time I got called for jury duty, the lawyers dismissed anyone with an advanced degree or any kind of significant post-secondary training (seminary, military, etc). The only folks left were the ones who were either playing stupid or were the genuine article (there were some people who honestly didn't seem to know how they were supposed to answer the question asking for name and occupation). I have never been so happy to be dismissed.

The last time I had jury duty I was dismissed on the fact that I knew the DPS trooper involved in the case and the assistant DA was a friend of mine. He wasn't working that case, but still, I knew him.
Now I'm pretty much exempt because I'm disabled.

karmyn31 wrote:

The last time I had jury duty I was dismissed on the fact that I knew the DPS trooper involved in the case and the assistant DA was a friend of mine. He wasn't working that case, but still, I knew him.
Now I'm pretty much exempt because I'm disabled.

Do you mean that as in, "I can ask to be exempted because the timetables, commuting etc. are incompatible with my disability" or "I get automatically exempted because people think my disability affects my judgement"?
Just wondering.

It means I'm can be exempted because the disabiltiy makes it difficult to get around, so it's a physical thing. My mental disability normally doesn't affect my judgement. Officially I was only declared disabled on a physical level for SSI.

karmyn31 wrote:

It means I'm can be exempted because the disabiltiy makes it difficult to get around, so it's a physical thing. My mental disability normally doesn't affect my judgement. Officially I was only declared disabled on a physical level for SSI.

Okay, thanks. I had thought it was the former but you never know how stupid the authorities can be, what with gays having their driving licence revoked and whatnot.

The Unoriginal wrote:

karmyn31 wrote:

It means I'm can be exempted because the disabiltiy makes it difficult to get around, so it's a physical thing. My mental disability normally doesn't affect my judgement. Officially I was only declared disabled on a physical level for SSI.

Okay, thanks. I had thought it was the former but you never know how stupid the authorities can be, what with gays having their driving licence revoked and whatnot.

Are you fucking serious?

Lady Anne wrote:

The Unoriginal wrote:

karmyn31 wrote:

It means I'm can be exempted because the disabiltiy makes it difficult to get around, so it's a physical thing. My mental disability normally doesn't affect my judgement. Officially I was only declared disabled on a physical level for SSI.

Okay, thanks. I had thought it was the former but you never know how stupid the authorities can be, what with gays having their driving licence revoked and whatnot.

Are you fucking serious?

I wish I wasn't. Lemme search if I can find anything in English.

Link

There's a bit more than just this - something to do with the military trying to get back at ya for dodging draft, in their viewpoint - but basically people who declared being homosexual during the draft medical visit were denied their driving license, years later, after the MoT and the MoD exchanged data. The first one had his licence revoked for "disturbs of the sexual identity" (sic), the second for "severe pathologies that may hinder driving safety".

Quote :

"She said that I was trying to hurt babies, I was killing babies and she was going to stop it before it happened again,"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

lemmingwriter wrote:

Penguin wrote:

knightwithoutacause wrote:

I see what you are saying; it feels like the same when you are the victim's friend or family. At least it did for me. Perhaps it is a little too fresh for me to take things without emotional reaction. That's why I'm glad that the juries do not react on emotion but rather solid evidence.

They're not supposed to, but lawyers do their absolute best to pick idiots.

It really seems that way. The last time I got called for jury duty, the lawyers dismissed anyone with an advanced degree or any kind of significant post-secondary training (seminary, military, etc). The only folks left were the ones who were either playing stupid or were the genuine article (there were some people who honestly didn't seem to know how they were supposed to answer the question asking for name and occupation). I have never been so happy to be dismissed.

James Randi once reprinted a letter he got from a man who was apparently dismissed from jury duty for thinking about a question and answering it accurately and thoughtfully.

(Recounted from memory, with dialogue paraphrased:)

It was a civil case, a "slip-and-fall" suit against a chain store. During voir dire, the members of the jury pool were being asked a list of questions: "Juror number one, have you ever shopped at Blahblahmart? Juror number two, have you ... " The LW was juror number seventeen. Eventually the question came up, "Have you ever just fallen down for no reason?"

"Juror number fifteen, have you ever just fallen down for no reason?"
"Sure."
"Juror number sixteen, have you ever just fallen down for no reason?"
"Yeah, I guess so."
"Juror number seventeen, have you ever just fallen down for no reason?"
"No, I haven't."
"Juror number eightee -- wait. Juror number seventeen, you're saying you've never in your life just fallen down for no reason?"
"Never. I've slipped on a rug, I've stepped on my own shoelaces, I've been falling-down drunk, I've tripped over a cocker spaniel puppy, I've even jumped out of perfectly good airplanes, but every time I've fallen down there was a reason."

Silence. Counsel for the defense and counsel for the prosecution murmured to each other in the middle of the room. They went up to the judge and there was more whispering. Then the judge said, "Juror number seventeen, gather your things and leave. Do not speak to anyone on the way out of the building. Your jury service is concluded."

Interesting. An obvious reason this guy would have given is "I was drunk" but he gets the boot for that?

On topic, it's really frightening what can happen when someone decides to take "justice" in their own hands like that.