Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on July 12, 2011, 09:31:02 AM
-
I've been summoned for jury duty the first two weeks of August. I noticed that being a full time teacher can help me postpone my time to serve, but I have to make a request.
Is it common for a request to excuse me from my summoning to go through?
We start back on August 8th, and I have a lot of work to do the week before. It will be a serious pain in the ass (like semester-long pain in the ass) if I have to be in a court room on those dates.
-
I've been summoned for jury duty the first two weeks of August. I noticed that being a full time teacher can help me postpone my time to serve, but I have to make a request.
Is it common for a request to excuse me from my summoning to go through?
We start back on August 8th, and I have a lot of work to do the week before. It will be a serious pain in the ass (like semester-long pain in the ass) if I have to be in a court room on those dates.
Unless they have a cases where they need a lot to strike from...you can usualy get deferred.
-
Just tell those motherfuckers that you can't wait to serve cause you can spot guilty people really quickly.
-
Like Jr said, a deferral is pretty easy to get. Multiple times even, depending on the court.
-
Tell them you are breastfeeding and need a quiet room with an easily acessible electrical outlet for your pump every two hours, plus a refrigerator and ice chest.
Works like a charm.
-
Unless they have a cases where they need a lot to strike from...you can usualy get deferred.
Thus proving my point that most juries are populated by idiots who have nothing better to do -- not even mow the grass -- and aren't savvy enough to get out of it.
-
Thus proving my point that most juries are populated by idiots who have nothing better to do -- not even mow the grass -- and aren't savvy enough to get out of it.
You actually nailed it here. You are 100% correct. Obviously, this doesn't speak for all of them, but it does represent the majority.
-
You actually nailed it here. You are 100% correct. Obviously, this doesn't speak for all of them, but it does represent the majority.
Which, in my mind, makes everyone bitching about a jury worthless to me. If you aren't willing to serve on jury duty. Stop bitching about the folks that are on it.
-
Thus proving my point that most juries are populated by idiots who have nothing better to do -- not even mow the grass -- and aren't savvy enough to get out of it.
No, most do their civic duty anyway.
-
No, most do their civic duty anyway.
Say what?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00996/460-oj-simpson-cour_996961c.jpg)
-
Which, in my mind, makes everyone bitching about a jury worthless to me. If you aren't willing to serve on jury duty. Stop bitching about the folks that are on it.
I agree with you only to an extent. I'm completely willing to serve, and I've never made an excuse to get out of jury duty. I've only been called twice, and I've never been selected. Apparently, I don't watch enough Oprah or The View. They also do not give you enough notice to make arrangements to serve without impacting your employment or family obligations. I've been astonished by the mix of folks called for jury duty. You'll have an executive or a small business owner sitting next to an unemployed street vagrant. Somehow, these people are peers? The system needs a little tweaking...
-
I served when called. And was proud to do so. I would be damned glad to have someone like me on a jury.
But we get too many bleeding hearts that are looking for someone to pay, or to pay out. Make the prosecutor prove their case. If they cannot, then do the right thing and vote not guilty.
Call and ask if you can serve two weeks early. They may have a heart attack, but they may just allow it.
-
No, most do their civic duty anyway.
Does that just mean they've shown up on time to make their roll call, or are you actually suggesting that most serve? That reminds me of the last time that I was called. This guy showed up wearing KKK garb. They excused him for obvious reasons, but he still made his roll call!
-
Last jury term here, there were several of the prospective jurors passing out Watchtower pamphlets to people in the Courthouse. None of them served. None of them were Jehovah's Witlesses.
-
No, most do their civic duty anyway.
Which is what I chose to do 3 weeks ago, instead of trying to weasel out. All of the folks on my jury had jobs and were pretty intelligent.
-
I have been struck every time I have been called. They're racist.
-
The one time I was called, I got to serve on a grand jury. That was actually pretty interesting, except the DA was a dumbass who talked down to us most of the time. The Assistant DA presented most of the cases and was competant. She ended up being appointed a judge a few weeks later.
I say that you ask to have it deferred. Not struck, but deferred.
-
I'm certainly no expert on juries, as was evident from my last trial, but I think that most who wind up serving are there because they want to be. Sure, they've been summoned but it's all too easy to get out of it. I've served twice and both times, the attorneys on both sides wanted me on there. Both were criminal cases and both sides knew that as an attorney, I should be better prepared to take emotion out of it and decide:
A. Did the prosecution prove the elements of the crime, or..
B. Did the defense prove otherwise or that there's reasonable doubt that they met the elements.
JR can tell you far better than I can because criminal defense is something I only did for a short time. Criminal prosecution pretty much boils down to intent and proving the elements of the crime as defined in the Code. Before and during voir dire, you have to do your due dilligence to try and get jurors who you perceive to have the ability to look at things and make their decisions based upon the evidence and the jury instructions given. Not based on emotion. Except in the case of the Casey Anthony trial, where the prosecution I'm sure knew full well that they couldn't meet their burden of proof but wanted jurors to look at the beautiful little girl in the picture and in turn, hate her mom.
-
Somehow, these people are peers? The system needs a little tweaking...
They're peers in the sense that they are both citizens of the local community. Essentially, when they tell a defendant that he/she is being judged by a jury of their peers, they just mean that they're being judged by citizens in the area. The purpose of getting potential jury members in for selection is not to get people who are similarly situated, but rather people who are a representative "cross-section" of the local community.
-
I'm certainly no expert on juries, as was evident from my last trial,
You've actually seen the inside of a court room?
-
You've actually seen the inside of a court room?
I thought he only needed to successfully plea one more for a set of steak knives?
-
I thought he only needed to successfully plea one more for a set of steak knives?
Where's his bat? He thinks better with his bat.
-
Where's his bat? He thinks better with his bat.
Oh, I forgot. You were sick the day they taught law at law school.
-
Oh, I forgot. You were sick the day they taught law at law school.
Do they still hang people from yardarms?
-
Do they still hang people from yardarms?
My client is an idiot. He was trying to buy a dime bag of oregano.
-
They're peers in the sense that they are both citizens of the local community. Essentially, when they tell a defendant that he/she is being judged by a jury of their peers, they just mean that they're being judged by citizens in the area. The purpose of getting potential jury members in for selection is not to get people who are similarly situated, but rather people who are a representative "cross-section" of the local community.
Blah, blah, blah... Once upon a time, it also meant that the "peers" were individuals of similar profession and socio-economic demographic. We've lost that over time, and the Constitution was only written to guarantee an impartial jury. There is no guarantee of a jury of your [TRUE] peers. It's been lost... This is one of the many reasons I hope to God that I'm never charged with a crime, especially a crime that I didn't commit.
-
Blah, blah, blah... Once upon a time, it also meant that the "peers" were individuals of similar profession and socio-economic demographic. We've lost that over time, and the Constitution was only written to guarantee an impartial jury. There is no guarantee of a jury of your [TRUE] peers. It's been lost... This is one of the many reasons I hope to God that I'm never charged with a crime, especially a crime that I didn't commit.
Yes, but when has that ever been the case? It's not something we lost over time. It's always been that way. If I'm on trial, I don't care if 1933 or 1967 or 2011...I would never be judged by 6 lawyers, 4 musicians and 2 guys who love to go deep sea fishing...all 45-50 years old and married for over 20 years with 2 kids. Are those not my peers? Would that not be who I would consider a fair and impartial jury?
You're always going to have a jury pool and the lawyers on each side are always going to try and select the ones that they think will help their case the most. If the jury is not fair and impartial, then most likely one of the lawyers didn't do his/her homework.
-
Yes, but when has that ever been the case? It's not something we lost over time. It's always been that way. If I'm on trial, I don't care if 1933 or 1967 or 2011...I would never be judged by 6 lawyer steriod users, 4 musicians queers and 2 guys who love to go deep sea fishing sip tea at Ms. Lucille...all 45-50 years old and married for over 20 years with 2 kids. Are those not my peers? Would that not be who I would consider a fair and impartial jury?
You're always going to have a jury pool and the lawyers on each side are always going to try and select the ones that they think will help their case the most. If the jury is not fair and impartial, then most likely one of the lawyers didn't do his/her homework.
Fixt!
-
Yes, but when has that ever been the case? It's not something we lost over time. It's always been that way. If I'm on trial, I don't care if 1933 or 1967 or 2011...I would never be judged by 6 lawyers, 4 musicians and 2 guys who love to go deep sea fishing...all 45-50 years old and married for over 20 years with 2 kids. Are those not my peers? Would that not be who I would consider a fair and impartial jury?
You're always going to have a jury pool and the lawyers on each side are always going to try and select the ones that they think will help their case the most. If the jury is not fair and impartial, then most likely one of the lawyers didn't do his/her homework.
Yeah... I should have clarified. This actually goes back further than that... But, even after the formation of the Union, many states still respected the practices of the original colonial laws that existed with respect to jurys as described above. Hunters were commonly tried/judged by hunters... Farmers were commonly tried/judged by farmers... Woodsmen were commonly tried/judged by woodsmen... That was the practice.
-
Does that just mean they've shown up on time to make their roll call, or are you actually suggesting that most serve? That reminds me of the last time that I was called. This guy showed up wearing KKK garb. They excused him for obvious reasons, but he still made his roll call!
Showing up is serving. You have no say in if you're actually picked to hear a case. The jury panel simply being present ready to hear cases causes cases to be settled. Being in the jury panel answering voir dire is serving.
Jurors wearing KKK garb, passing out religious pamphlets....there's been more "juror trying to get off shenanigans" reported in this thread than I've seen in 10 years of trial work.
Every jury week we have, we send notices to around 100 or so people depending on the docket, and cases. A few, maybe 25% are excused for various reasons, or just don't show up. Some legit work, medical, or family problems. Others are actually the sick, lame and lazy that most of you believe sit on juries...the people that draw a check, and have no life. They're the pieces of shit usually bucking to get out of service, and frankly I wouldn't want most anyway. The vast majority serve. And they are a good representative cross section of the county.
-
Fixt!
For him, they would never make it to a jury, because of summary judgment from his wife.........
-
Showing up is serving. You have no say in if you're actually picked to hear a case. The jury panel simply being present ready to hear cases causes cases to be settled. Being in the jury panel answering voir dire is serving.
Yeah... That's what I thought.
Jurors wearing KKK garb, passing out religious pamphlets....there's been more "juror trying to get off shenanigans" reported in this thread than I've seen in 10 years of trial work.
I'm not sure how it works in your area, but we don't even get to see the inside of a court room or any trial lawyers until we're selected from the pool. Most of those shenanigans occur before they are ever selected from the pool, and in the two times that I've been called, I've seen a lot.
Every jury week we have, we send notices to around 100 or so people depending on the docket, and cases. A few, maybe 25% are excused for various reasons, or just don't show up. Some legit work, medical, or family problems. Others are actually the sick, lame and lazy that most of you believe sit on juries...the people that draw a check, and have no life. They're the pieces of poop usually bucking to get out of service, and frankly I wouldn't want most anyway. The vast majority serve. And they are a good representative cross section of the county.
A good representative cross section of the country would also include an assortment of goofballs, morons and idiots of which most of us would not ordinarily associate. Just sayin'...
-
Yeah... That's what I thought.
I'm not sure how it works in your area, but we don't even get to see the inside of a court room or any trial lawyers until we're selected from the pool. Most of those shenanigans occur before they are ever selected from the pool, and in the two times that I've been called, I've seen a lot.
That's how it is in Birmingham, and I guess other large metro areas. In the counties I work, in, the venire comes directly to the courtroom, and they're there with all the lawyers, judge, clerk, and parties (except those in jail). When we voir dire, we voir dire from the entire panel, not just a selected number as they do in places like Bham.
A good representative cross section of the country would also include an assortment of goofballs, morons and idiots of which most of us would not ordinarily associate. Just sayin'...
And I'm arrogant and condescending?
-
And I'm arrogant and condescending?
I'm not going to hide my true position on this. I don't associate with people of lower moral or ethical character. You won't find drug addicts, crack whores or tax cheats on my speed dial. If you find that to be arrogant and condescending, so be it.
-
I don't associate with people of lower moral or ethical character.
I thought you were pals with Uncle Sani?
-
I'm not going to hide my true position on this. I don't associate with people of lower moral or ethical character. You won't find drug addicts, crack whores or tax cheats on my speed dial. If you find that to be arrogant and condescending, so be it.
I like how "goofballs, morons, and idiots" turned in to "people of lower moral or ethical character...drug addicts, crack whores or tax cheats ".
Fact is, you're coming off as arrogant as they come, and as if everybody that doesn't think like you is a goofball, moron, or idiot of low moral or ethical character.
-
I thought you were pals with Uncle Sani?
Nobody axed you...
-
I like how "goofballs, morons, and idiots" turned in to "people of lower moral or ethical character...drug addicts, crack whores or tax cheats ".
Fact is, you're coming off as arrogant as they come, and as if everybody that doesn't think like you is a goofball, moron, or idiot of low moral or ethical character.
Yeah... My word is final. What of it?
You know what I mean. There are certain individuals who might make a jury who you would not necessarily want to associate with as good friends. There's nothing wrong with that. They may be folks who consider themselves victims of everything, or they may be those folks who can't manage their finances and always need to borrow a few bucks.
-
Blah, blah, blah... Once upon a time, it also meant that the "peers" were individuals of similar profession and socio-economic demographic. We've lost that over time, and the Constitution was only written to guarantee an impartial jury. There is no guarantee of a jury of your [TRUE] peers. It's been lost... This is one of the many reasons I hope to God that I'm never charged with a crime, especially a crime that I didn't commit.
Well, in 1975 the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the constitutional guarantee of trial by an impartial jury required that the jury pool be a mirror image or microcosm of the eligible community population. Thus, they've determined that the Constitution indicates that we should attempt to obtain a cross-sectional ideal.
Now, whether their interpretation of the Constitution is right or wrong, that's up for debate. However, all I was pointing out is that by "peer," they don't mean someone similarly situated to you as far as socioeconomic standing, profession, etc.; they simply mean eligible citizens within your local community.
Prior to the 1968 Jury Selection and Service Act which instituted the cross-sectional ideal, jury commissioners typically solicited the names of "men of recognized intelligence and probity" from notables or "key men" of the community. The theory was that they needed jurors of above average intelligence. This obviously caused a variety of problems, which is why it was abandoned for the cross-sectional ideal. So prior to the cross-sectional ideal, they still weren't picking jurors based upon the fact that they shared similar professions and socioeconomic demographics with the defendant.
In the 1700s and 1800s? I don't know, they may have had a jury of woodsmen to judge woodsmen. But it certainly hasn't been done in a long time. But I don't know that this would necessarily lead to an impartial jury as the Constitution requires, which is probably why it was abandoned. If the trial was intricately tied to your profession, then those who work in your profession may sympathize with you and grant you a remedy or result that the law doesn't actually afford you.
-
Well, in 1975 the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the constitutional guarantee of trial by an impartial jury required that the jury pool be a mirror image or microcosm of the eligible community population. Thus, they've determined that the Constitution indicates that we should attempt to obtain a cross-sectional ideal.
Now, whether their interpretation of the Constitution is right or wrong, that's up for debate. However, all I was pointing out is that by "peer," they don't mean someone similarly situated to you as far as socioeconomic standing, profession, etc.; they simply mean eligible citizens within your local community.
I thought we already established that the 6th Amendment only guarantees an impartial jury, but thanks for confirming... I don't believe the term, peer, is even mentioned in the Constitution.
:dead: :dead: :dead:
In the 1700s and 1800s? I don't know, they may have had a jury of woodsmen to judge woodsmen. But it certainly hasn't been done in a long time. But I don't know that this would necessarily lead to an impartial jury as the Constitution requires, which is probably why it was abandoned. If the trial was intricately tied to your profession, then those who work in your profession may sympathize with you and grant you a remedy or result that the law doesn't actually afford you.
Perhaps, that's open to debate. Would a true peer juror's judgement be sympathetic, or would a true peer juror have a better appreciation of the situation or perceived circumstances? For instance, an undereducated juror may not have the capacity to understand the details of a complex tax issue for which the defendant is accused of violating. You could argue that the jury selection process should weed that person out of the pool, but what if the majority of your pool is made up of individuals like this?
-
I thought we already established that the 6th Amendment only guarantees an impartial jury, but thanks for confirming... I don't believe the term, peer, is even mentioned in the Constitution.
:dead: :dead: :dead:
No, but it's mentioned statutorily, as well as within the common law opinions of the Supreme Court which interprets the Constitution. Obviously, you don't require peers in order to have an impartial jury, but the easiest and most reliable way to obtain an impartial jury is by taking a cross-section of fellow citizens ("peers") within the area.
Perhaps, that's open to debate. Would a true peer juror's judgement be sympathetic, or would a true peer juror have a better appreciation of the situation or perceived circumstances? For instance, an undereducated juror may not have the capacity to understand the details of a complex tax issue for which the defendant is accused of violating. You could argue that the jury selection process should weed that person out of the pool, but what if the majority of your pool is made up of individuals like this?
In your example, such a juror may be problematic; it would depend upon whether their lack of knowledge on the subject would affect their judgment. Although the tax code is complex, claiming ignorance is not a defense. So if the uneducated juror says, "Well, shit, I didn't know that was the law either...how am I going to find this person guilty of something that I didn't even know existed? He probably didn't know it was illegal either."
This is why attorneys have to go through the process of voir dire to weed out those jurors who are going to make unreasonable decisions. It's also why the judge has to give jury instructions, detailing exactly what it is that the jury is ruling upon and how they are allowed to rule upon it.
Ultimately, the jury members' similarities to the defendant are irrelevant; there are laws that must be objectively and reasonably applied, at least as much as they can realistically be applied in an objective and reasonable manner. Someone in your profession could do this just as well as someone outside of your profession.
-
OK... You hooked me again. It's those crotchless panties you wear on Wednesdays...
In your example, such a juror may be problematic; it would depend upon whether their lack of knowledge on the subject would affect their judgment. Although the tax code is complex, claiming ignorance is not a defense. So if the uneducated juror says, "Well, poop, I didn't know that was the law either...how am I going to find this person guilty of something that I didn't even know existed? He probably didn't know it was illegal either."
I don't believe that claiming ignorance applies here. We're talking about capacity of understanding that would enable an objective and reasonable judgement.
Ultimately, the jury members' similarities to the defendant are irrelevant; there are laws that must be objectively and reasonably applied, at least as much as they can realistically be applied in an objective and reasonable manner. Someone in your profession could do this just as well as someone outside of your profession.
I don't completely agree with that, at least not in all cases. This might not matter for many or even most situations, but I don't believe that a true cross section of any community is capable of being objective and reasonable in all situations. Perhaps, it's the definition of impartial that requires clarification or tweaking... Thoughts?
-
OK... You hooked me again. It's those crotchless panties you wear on Wednesdays...
I don't believe that claiming ignorance applies here. We're talking about capacity of understanding that would enable an objective and reasonable judgement.
Well, it's the job of the attorney and judge to ensure that even the most complex of laws get explained so that your average person can understand it. Uneducated Joe may not know what a capital gain is, but someone can explain it to him and present evidence to show that income was fraudulently hidden.
So, unless the juror is uneducated/mentally deficient to the point that they simply are never going to be able to comprehend the concept, it can be explained to them without them having to be a tax whiz.
But, I'm a little confused as to what your point was in regard to this. If the defendant's uneducated, and if giving him a jury of uneducated people is fair because it allows him to be judged by "true" peers, and if these uneducated people are ultimately too stupid to grasp what's going on in the trial, then...isn't that an example of why obtaining a jury of your "true" peers is not the best way to go? Wouldn't a random selection from the community give you different view points, and thus tend to represent the "average" standards of reasonableness within the community?
I don't completely agree with that, at least not in all cases. This might not matter for many or even most situations, but I don't believe that a true cross section of any community is capable of being objective and reasonable in all situations. Perhaps, it's the definition of impartial that requires clarification or tweaking... Thoughts?
Well, the issue is that if you start hand picking the entire jury because you have a concept of what's reasonable and you want only those who meet your expectations, then you're going to get results that are skewed toward your points of view. I would venture to say that our "reasonable man" standard is based upon your average person. If you get a random cross-section of the community, then you're likely to get a fair amount of average people.
Now, there will still be those radicals that fall on one end of the spectrum or the other; there are always those people who are just out of touch with reality and don't understand how justice and objectivity within the legal system operates. But, those people can be stricken from the jury, which is why we don't blindly rely upon the cross-sectional ideal to be perfect by itself.
-
OK... You hooked me again. It's those crotchless panties you wear on Wednesdays...
I don't believe that claiming ignorance applies here. We're talking about capacity of understanding that would enable an objective and reasonable judgement.
I don't completely agree with that, at least not in all cases. This might not matter for many or even most situations, but I don't believe that a true cross section of any community is capable of being objective and reasonable in all situations. Perhaps, it's the definition of impartial that requires clarification or tweaking... Thoughts?
He likes teh wikis.
-
He likes teh wikis went to law school.
Fixed.
-
So, unless the juror is uneducated/mentally deficient to the point that they simply are never going to be able to comprehend the concept, it can be explained to them without them having to be a tax whiz.
For most cases, this is probably true...
But, I'm a little confused as to what your point was in regard to this. If the defendant's uneducated, and if giving him a jury of uneducated people is fair because it allows him to be judged by "true" peers, and if these uneducated people are ultimately too stupid to grasp what's going on in the trial, then...isn't that an example of why obtaining a jury of your "true" peers is not the best way to go? Wouldn't a random selection from the community give you different view points, and thus tend to represent the "average" standards of reasonableness within the community?
You lost me... If "stupid" people standing judgement over "stupid" people is deemed as a problem, then why would "stupid" people standing judgement over a more complex situation not also be a problem? In fact, why wouldn't "average" people standing judgement over more complex situations not result in the same sort of issue?
Well, the issue is that if you start hand picking the entire jury because you have a concept of what's reasonable and you want only those who meet your expectations, then you're going to get results that are skewed toward your points of view. I would venture to say that our "reasonable man" standard is based upon your average person. If you get a random cross-section of the community, then you're likely to get a fair amount of average people.
Yep... And, back to the point, is an average person capable of being reasonable and objective on issues that extend beyond their capacity to understand and rationalize? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we need a new Amendment to the Constitution. I would still defend our legal system over those that exist everywhere else. However, this situation has always concerned me. I think some of the jury interviews after many of these high profile cases illustrate some level of risk.
-
You lost me... If "stupid" people standing judgement over "stupid" people is deemed as a problem, then why would "stupid" people standing judgement over a more complex situation not also be a problem? In fact, why wouldn't "average" people standing judgement over more complex situations not result in the same sort of issue?
This is essentially the purpose of the judge's ability to set aside jury verdicts. The main purpose of the jury is to be the fact finder. Based on the evidence presented, which side do you think is telling the truth beyond a reasonable doubt? I think that this is a relatively simple task that even "stupid" people can perform.
Of course, the jury also has to apply the truth that they determine to the letter of the law. But, if the jury comes to the wrong decision due to a misunderstanding of the law, or if they simply find someone guilty despite clear evidence to the contrary, then the judge has the ability to set aside that verdict.
Because the judge is (in theory) a legal expert on what is being adjudicated, he has the means to correct a jury verdict that may have been reached incorrectly for one reason or another.
-
Fixed.
So did most of Congress...whats your point?
-
So did most of Congress...whats your point?
BANG!!! :pwnd:
-
BANG!!! :pwnd:
You don't talk to me that way. I'm a division manager. People are scared of me.
I drive a Dodge Stratus.
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/0LOD7ELvfoudvgxtZVdafYOAo1_500.jpg)
-
So did most of Congress...whats your point?
That when it comes to very basic knowledge of the workings of the legal system, someone who's been to law school is going to be able to explain it to you without resorting to teh wikis.
-
That when it comes to very basic knowledge of the workings of the legal system, someone who's been to law school is going to be able to explain it to you without resorting to teh wikis.
No offense to the many barristers here, but I've had about fucking enough of the "I went to law school, so I know..." bullshit.
Lawyers, motherfucker, work FOR ME. They do what I tell them to do. I keep three in my fucking pocket at all times. And you know what? If I ask each of them the same fucking question I'm most likely to get three different answers. For the most part they offer THEIR OPINION on how x, y and z are interpreted.
I can figure most of that shit out myself. I use lawyers for one primary reason. To protect me from other fucking lawyers. And that's fucking pathetic.
Some of the dullest, most obstinate, least ethical and least intelligent people I've ever met in my life have been lawyers.
Present company (with some possible exceptions) excluded, of course.
-
No offense to the many barristers here, but I've had about fucking enough of the "I went to law school, so I know..." bullshit.
Lawyers, motherfucker, work FOR ME. They do what I tell them to do. I keep three in my fucking pocket at all times. And you know what? If I ask each of them the same fucking question I'm most likely to get three different answers. For the most part they offer THEIR OPINION on how x, y and z are interpreted.
I can figure most of that shit out myself. I use lawyers for one primary reason. To protect me from other fucking lawyers. And that's fucking pathetic.
Some of the dullest, most obstinate, least ethical and least intelligent people I've ever met in my life have been lawyers.
Present company (with some possible exceptions) excluded, of course.
Sorry, but with this particular topic, there is not going to be three different interpretations.
In Alabama, if you are convicted of three DUIs within five years, it's a class C felony. That's explicit within the criminal code. If three different attorneys give you three different "opinions" on that, then you need to fire at least two of them, if not all three.
Similarly, when it comes to how juries are chosen, there's a process with defined rules. These rules aren't "interpreted" by attorneys, so you're not going to get three different "opinions" on how juries are chosen. Federal law clearly states that juries are to be selected from a "fair cross-section of the community," so you're not going to get an "opinion" on how jury pools are selected. The Supreme Court has given its reasoning as to why this cross-sectional ideal complies with the concept of having an impartial jury, so while someone may disagree with the Supreme Court, the law itself is very clear and there is no need for "opinion."
Now, if we were discussing something that depended upon subjective variables, such as the outcome of a particular case based upon evidence presented, or a judge's ruling on an objection that is premised upon the probative value of testimony not outweighing the detrimental effect it will have against the defendant, then yes, you're going to get opinions from attorneys as to how that will turn out.
But, in general, when it comes to rules, procedures, and definitive items within statutes, an attorney should know (or be able to quickly find out) the answer to your question. And this answer should align with other attorneys' answers. If it doesn't, then you've made a poor choice in choosing your attorneys, so you better hope that you can accurately "figure most of that shit out" for yourself in order to determine which of those three don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
-
Sorry, but with this particular topic, there is not going to be three different interpretations.
In Alabama, if you are convicted of three DUIs within five years, it's a class C felony. That's explicit within the criminal code. If three different attorneys give you three different "opinions" on that, then you need to fire at least two of them, if not all three.
Similarly, when it comes to how juries are chosen, there's a process with defined rules. These rules aren't "interpreted" by attorneys, so you're not going to get three different "opinions" on how juries are chosen. Federal law clearly states that juries are to be selected from a "fair cross-section of the community," so you're not going to get an "opinion" on how jury pools are selected. The Supreme Court has given its reasoning as to why this cross-sectional ideal complies with the concept of having an impartial jury, so while someone may disagree with the Supreme Court, the law itself is very clear and there is no need for "opinion."
Now, if we were discussing something that depended upon subjective variables, such as the outcome of a particular case based upon evidence presented, or a judge's ruling on an objection that is premised upon the probative value of testimony not outweighing the detrimental effect it will have against the defendant, then yes, you're going to get opinions from attorneys as to how that will turn out.
But, in general, when it comes to rules, procedures, and definitive items within statutes, an attorney should know (or be able to quickly find out) the answer to your question. And this answer should align with other attorneys' answers. If it doesn't, then you've made a poor choice in choosing your attorneys, so you better hope that you can accurately "figure most of that shit out" for yourself in order to determine which of those three don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
I can read.
I know where books are.
I know how to look things up.
That makes me a lawyer.
I do figure shit out for myself and then present my findings to the lawyers.
I think they steal what I discover and try to pretend they thought of it.
-
I can read.
I know where books are.
I know how to look things up.
That makes me a lawyer.
I do figure shit out for myself and then present my findings to the lawyers.
I think they steal what I discover and try to pretend they thought of it.
So, let me get this straight...your attorneys work "for you," yet you do the work and present it to them? And then, after learning that they were too incompetent/lazy to figure things out on their own, you still keep them in your "fucking pocket at all times?" And you expect this type of incompetency/laziness to somehow protect you?
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a391/BigBadJojo/are-you-that-stupid.jpg)
Maybe you've had some bad experiences with the handful of attorneys you've dealt with, but the fact that you assume that most of us don't know what we're doing or that we're posing theories and opinions the majority of the time just goes to show that you haven't spoken with many attorneys and don't know a whole lot about the profession.
-
:facepalm:
Typical. Don't know shit, but doesn't stop the pontification.
I've had lawyers on retainer since 1990. Worked with some of the best firms in Montgomery, Birmingham and Tuscaloosa.
Lawyers serve one purpose for me: They protect me from other lawyers. That's sad and pathetic, but it's the reality. I pay them to do the mundane monkey shit of filing the paperwork and responding to the paperwork that our asinine legal system mandates.
Over the years I've learned that if I ask a question, 95% of the time they're going to have to look it up and study it. And the grubbing fucks bill me in 15 minute increments for that research. I have little control over how much time they think it takes.
Well, fuck a mighty. I can read myself. I know what I want to do and what I want them to protect me from. So I look it up myself (or get my administrative assistant to do the research) figure out whether what I want to do is going to get me crossways.
Then I call them and explain what I'm going to do. I explain why I'm going to do it. I tell them so that if something does come up, they know what legal precedents I'm using to support what I'm doing.
I write my own contracts. I allow the lawyers to review them but I'm 100% confident that what I write is better than anything they could come up with.
When we go to meetings and I need them there (usually because the other party has them) I don't let them talk except to me.
I'm not downing lawyers in general because for much of my life I thought it was something I'd like to pursue as a hobby. Was going to go to law school back in the day before family, kids and life intervened.
I just know that the condescending bloviating I've seen in this thread and others from people who throw the law degree around like it's some kind of magic golden egg is unwarranted.
-
:facepalm:
Typical. Don't know shit, but doesn't stop the pontification.
I've had lawyers on retainer since 1990. Worked with some of the best firms in Montgomery, Birmingham and Tuscaloosa.
Lawyers serve one purpose for me: They protect me from other lawyers. That's sad and pathetic, but it's the reality. I pay them to do the mundane monkey shit of filing the paperwork and responding to the paperwork that our asinine legal system mandates.
Over the years I've learned that if I ask a question, 95% of the time they're going to have to look it up and study it. And the grubbing fucks bill me in 15 minute increments for that research. I have little control over how much time they think it takes.
Well, fuck a mighty. I can read myself. I know what I want to do and what I want them to protect me from. So I look it up myself (or get my administrative assistant to do the research) figure out whether what I want to do is going to get me crossways.
Then I call them and explain what I'm going to do. I explain why I'm going to do it. I tell them so that if something does come up, they know what legal precedents I'm using to support what I'm doing.
I write my own contracts. I allow the lawyers to review them but I'm 100% confident that what I write is better than anything they could come up with.
When we go to meetings and I need them there (usually because the other party has them) I don't let them talk except to me.
I'm not downing lawyers in general because for much of my life I thought it was something I'd like to pursue as a hobby. Was going to go to law school back in the day before family, kids and life intervened.
I just know that the condescending bloviating I've seen in this thread and others from people who throw the law degree around like it's some kind of magic golden egg is unwarranted.
Its because they wrote the overly complicated legal system and tax code that exists today. You know, so only they can understand it. A lot of "they" being the Executive and Legislative Branches. And yes it is sad K.
So VV, you went to law school. Congrats. Nothing wrong with that. But your "I'm a lawyer" ego goes beyond this thread and the topic of jurisprudence. You want to tout your JD as reasoning that you know your stuff concerning topics in this thread. Fine. That's great, you probably know the law to the letter. But apparently it's also given you enough narcissism to be the foremost expert on every other topic as well. Including topics some of us MIGHT be a little more knowledgable about than you. I have an MBA, I own a business....but I don't throw it out there every time an economics/small business topic comes up. I'm willing to listen and change my stances and perspective as I learn new things. I've certainly stood corrected before against the face of common sense. You learn from real world experience. Not a book, not a college, not a certificate saying you know a lot about something. Those are tools.
I think what GarMan and Kaos try to inflect here is THE real world common sense knowledge that you can ONLY get from having "been there, done that" or owning a business, etc. I don't 100% agree with either of them on all topics. But that really isn't a reason to flex your own perceived superiority in intelligence because you "went to law school". Pride can be your enemy. Try having a perspective on things, that doesn't originate from a legal book point of view. Not everything is black and white. Not everything is finite. Maybe in your world, at your profession it is. But outside of the legal world and mathemetics, things just aren't. There is nothing wrong with using common sense or saying "hey, thats a good point. I didn't really think about it that way" instead of saying "I'm right, you're wrong. I'm a lawyer, but thanks for playing". That's just how you come across to people.
Let me ask you this. Have you ever SERVED on a jury? Have you experienced BEING a juror? Just curious.
-
Typical. Don't know shit, but doesn't stop the pontification.
My response was based on the fact that you stated that you had to present something to your attorneys. That suggests that they are incompetent, and your reliance on that incompetency is not sound. Incompetent lawyers who can't do their own work aren't going to protect you from other lawyers.
Speaking of which, lawyers don't sue people, just like guns don't shoot people. Clients sue people, just like gun owners shoot people. Unless, of course, you're actually being sued by an attorney representing himself.
Over the years I've learned that if I ask a question, 95% of the time they're going to have to look it up and study it. And the grubbing fucks bill me in 15 minute increments for that research. I have little control over how much time they think it takes.
Mistake #1: You hired an attorney that bills in 15 minute increments. If you've known as many attorneys as you claim, then surely you've met one that bills in 6 minute increments, as that's the industry standard from what I've seen.
Mistake #2: You hired an attorney who has to look up the answers to 95% of your questions. You either hired a general practice attorney, or a retard. If you hire a DUI attorney for your DUI charge, he's not going to have to "look up" 95% of your questions. If you hire a tax attorney for your tax issues, he's not going to have to "look up" 95% of your questions. If you've known as many attorneys as you claim, then surely you've met some attorneys who practice specific areas and would be able to answer most of your questions in that area.
Unless, of course, your legal needs are so complex and novel that this is a case of first impression, and thus the attorney would have to research the question in order to find comparable situations that might identify a rule which would potentially apply to your case. But that's pretty doubtful.
I write my own contracts. I allow the lawyers to review them but I'm 100% confident that what I write is better than anything they could come up with.
When we go to meetings and I need them there (usually because the other party has them) I don't let them talk except to me.
So...you're 100% confident that your contracts are iron clad, yet you allow an attorney review them, but based on your previous comments, he doesn't know what he's doing 95% of the time? Either you trust your attorney(s) to be competent or you don't. If you don't, then you shouldn't pay him for being incompetent or for being lazy. If you do, then I don't know the purpose of your diatribe about your attorneys being idiots.
I'm not downing lawyers in general because for much of my life I thought it was something I'd like to pursue as a hobby. Was going to go to law school back in the day before family, kids and life intervened.
I just know that the condescending bloviating I've seen in this thread and others from people who throw the law degree around like it's some kind of magic golden egg is unwarranted.
The only reason I referenced the fact that I went to law school was because of a snide comment made about using the internet to find information. I spent three years in law school poring over those basic principles and the theories behind them; I don't need the fucking internet to inform me of something about our legal system that is as basic as jury selection, so any attempts at implying as much is rather insulting.
-
You pore.
I don't have to. I just look it up. Can I cite chapter and verse off the top of my head? Nope. But if you give me just a little time to do the research I'm confident I can find everything I need.
Your reading lacks a little, too.
I didn't say I didn't trust my lawyers. I trust them to protect my interests when I do what I'm going to do anyway. That's why I let them review the contracts. So they can see what they might have to defend. Sometimes they make suggestions. Sometimes I take them.
They know the bullshit monkey stuff about how a contract has to "look" in terms of the whereas and wherefore nonsense. That has some value.
And for the record I just assume they bill in 15 minute increments, I really don't know. It might be five minutes. I just know that if I send them a joke in an email I get a bill for $85. Guess I'm not that funny.
And don't worry about the bloviating bulldog thing. Others around here have been accused of the same.
-
Never turn your back on a gay lawyer, they'll stick it to you while you're not looking.
-
Never turn your back on a gay lawyer, they'll stick it to you while you're not looking.
I am not a lawyer, but I will be staying in a Holiday inn express over labor day. ( in Auburn)
-
I am not a lawyer, but I will be staying in a Holiday inn express over labor day. ( in Auburn)
:homo:
-
:homo:
No, just poor.
-
No, just poor.
I be hearing VV gives good rates.
-
I be hearing VV gives good rates.
6 mins at a time. More on the weekends in the redlight district.
-
So VV, you went to law school. Congrats. Nothing wrong with that. But your "I'm a lawyer" ego goes beyond this thread and the topic of jurisprudence. You want to tout your JD as reasoning that you know your stuff concerning topics in this thread. Fine. That's great, you probably know the law to the letter.
Here's the deal:
This is the only time at which I have ever stated that I know something because I'm a lawyer. And the reason I stated it was because you made a wisecrack about using Wikipedia.
The topic at hand is jury selection. More specifically, it's about the manner in which juries are selected and what they mean by "peer."
This is basic shit that is covered during your first year of law school and utilized over and over in subsequent courses the following two years. I'm not claiming to know everything about the law, nor am I stating that my knowledge from law school covers everything conceivable within the legal field, but something this basic?
It's rather insulting to have someone think that an attorney, of all people, would have to result to scouring the internet to answer a simple legal question like that. You might as well accuse Saniflush of Googling "How to load a gun" and then bitch at him when he reminds you that he was in the military.
But apparently it's also given you enough narcissism to be the foremost expert on every other topic as well. Including topics some of us MIGHT be a little more knowledgable about than you. I have an MBA, I own a business....but I don't throw it out there every time an economics/small business topic comes up. I'm willing to listen and change my stances and perspective as I learn new things. I've certainly stood corrected before against the face of common sense. You learn from real world experience. Not a book, not a college, not a certificate saying you know a lot about something. Those are tools.
I think what GarMan and Kaos try to inflect here is THE real world common sense knowledge that you can ONLY get from having "been there, done that" or owning a business, etc. I don't 100% agree with either of them on all topics. But that really isn't a reason to flex your own perceived superiority in intelligence because you "went to law school". Pride can be your enemy. Try having a perspective on things, that doesn't originate from a legal book point of view. Not everything is black and white. Not everything is finite. Maybe in your world, at your profession it is. But outside of the legal world and mathemetics, things just aren't. There is nothing wrong with using common sense or saying "hey, thats a good point. I didn't really think about it that way" instead of saying "I'm right, you're wrong. I'm a lawyer, but thanks for playing". That's just how you come across to people.
First, never have I said that I'm an attorney, and therefore must be right on every topic. Sorry, but I have a legal education, so when a basic legal question is posed, I don't need the internet to inform me.
Second, the majority of debates that I have on this forum are political, moral, or philosophical in nature. There is no "right or wrong" that education or experience is going to validate for those debates. I'll defend my opinion until I'm blue in the face, and I'll even tell people that their reasoning they used to reach their conclusion is wrong if I can show it's wrong. But if someone can show me something legitimate, I'll consider their point. But if your mere response is, "Blah blah blah, I've had more experience with X than you, go fuck yourself," then I'm not going to accept your word for it when I've found something that tells me otherwise.
Example: The LED fiasco. I get the shit end of the stick because I point out the fact that these new LEDs don't contain anything different than current LEDs, and there was nothing put forth to refute that. Meanwhile, GarMan claims that he owned LED backlit laptops before they were produced, and nobody bats a fucking eye. I guess he also used his experience to develop the flux capacitor and buy laptops from the future.
Third, I'm not having debates with myself on here. You and others are just as adamantly trying to prove your own points, or otherwise disprove mine. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so don't try to single me out as some sort of narcissistic argumentative nutbag when you and others are just as actively participating and advocating your stance as correct. You guys give me shit as if I follow you, GarMan, and others around on the board just trying to argue with them when, in reality, this is not the case.
Remember the thread regarding repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy? I posted my general thoughts on the topic without replying to anyone in particular, and who responds telling me I'm wrong? GarMan. And his opinion on this social topic conflicted with every single military member of this board who posted in the same thread, yet you think that I should be reminded that experience can give people knowledge?
So no, it's not just me running around trying to tell everyone they're wrong; many of you are acting in no differently of a manner than I am, yet you have this skewed perception that I'm always telling you that you're wrong.
Let me ask you this. Have you ever SERVED on a jury? Have you experienced BEING a juror? Just curious.
No, I haven't, but let me ask you this: How does serving on a jury give you any knowledge as to what the definition of "peer" is when they say that you will be judged by a jury of your peers?
In case you haven't been reading the posts, that's what the whole discussion was about.
-
You pore.
I don't have to. I just look it up. Can I cite chapter and verse off the top of my head? Nope. But if you give me just a little time to do the research I'm confident I can find everything I need.
I pored. Past tense. So that I don't have to look up every basic legal question that comes into my mind.
Additionally, the education acclimates me to legal standards and language. Unlike a lay person, I won't have to skip from statute to statute in order to get this definition or that definition, or to look up case law to determine jurisdictional standards for courts.
This isn't to say that a lay person won't be able to find this information on their own, but my three years of poring allows me to either already know that information or be able to more quickly find it and decipher it.
Your reading lacks a little, too.
I didn't say I didn't trust my lawyers. I trust them to protect my interests when I do what I'm going to do anyway. That's why I let them review the contracts. So they can see what they might have to defend. Sometimes they make suggestions. Sometimes I take them.
They know the bullshit monkey stuff about how a contract has to "look" in terms of the whereas and wherefore nonsense. That has some value.
Well, if I had three lawyers and each of them gave me different advice based upon the same question, then I wouldn't trust at least two of them, that's for sure. Again, unless you're presenting them with some off the wall cases of first impression, or unless you're asking them questions which have various subjective variables such as a judge's discretion in rendering certain rulings, then there's no reason for each of them to have a different answer from the next.
I also wouldn't trust/use an attorney if he has to look up 95% of my questions. But to each his own, I guess...
-
6 mins at a time. More on the weekends in the redlight district.
Oh, you can get more than six minutes at a time. I just offer a six minute minimum so that I can get more customers into my mouth as the night progresses.
-
Its because they wrote the overly complicated legal system and tax code that exists today. You know, so only they can understand it. A lot of "they" being the Executive and Legislative Branches. And yes it is sad K.
So VV, you went to law school. Congrats. Nothing wrong with that. But your "I'm a lawyer" ego goes beyond this thread and the topic of jurisprudence. You want to tout your JD as reasoning that you know your stuff concerning topics in this thread. Fine. That's great, you probably know the law to the letter. But apparently it's also given you enough narcissism to be the foremost expert on every other topic as well. Including topics some of us MIGHT be a little more knowledgable about than you. I have an MBA, I own a business....but I don't throw it out there every time an economics/small business topic comes up. I'm willing to listen and change my stances and perspective as I learn new things. I've certainly stood corrected before against the face of common sense. You learn from real world experience. Not a book, not a college, not a certificate saying you know a lot about something. Those are tools.
I think what GarMan and Kaos try to inflect here is THE real world common sense knowledge that you can ONLY get from having "been there, done that" or owning a business, etc. I don't 100% agree with either of them on all topics. But that really isn't a reason to flex your own perceived superiority in intelligence because you "went to law school". Pride can be your enemy. Try having a perspective on things, that doesn't originate from a legal book point of view. Not everything is black and white. Not everything is finite. Maybe in your world, at your profession it is. But outside of the legal world and mathemetics, things just aren't. There is nothing wrong with using common sense or saying "hey, thats a good point. I didn't really think about it that way" instead of saying "I'm right, you're wrong. I'm a lawyer, but thanks for playing". That's just how you come across to people.
Let me ask you this. Have you ever SERVED on a jury? Have you experienced BEING a juror? Just curious.
Just a small point...the thread was a basic question about jury duty and getting deferred. A question I gave a "common sense" and experienced answer to. It was the non-lawyers that took it a different direction.
This may come as a shock, but lawyers do know more law than the average layman. There are some people that work in specialized areas, like Wench for instance in the oil biz, who know a shitload more oil law than the average lawyer that doesn't do oil law. Kaos probably has some specialized knowledge of a particular area of law based on what he does. I don't know diddly pooh about IT shit, and it wouldn't offend me if an IT guy let me know it if I popped off with some ignorant IT bullshit. Many, however, think they know shit about things they're very ignorant or misinformed about. They quite often pop off with ignorant shit too. Sometimes about crap they've seen on TV, or sometimes it may even be based on one particular anecdotal experience of theirs, and they think because they saw it on TV, or since they witnessed it, it happens all the time.
If you got a medical problem because of the whore you paid for last week, you go see a doctor.
If your computer is fucked up because you got viruses out the ass from your porn downloads, you go see a computer guy.
If your 4 burrito 12 Beer dinner clogs your toilet the next morning, you call a plumber.
If your in a legal pickle because of the booze whores and porn...you fucking call a lawyer, or maybe a team of them!
Just sayin'.
-
Just a small point...the thread was a basic question about jury duty and getting deferred. A question I gave a "common sense" and experienced answer to. It was the non-lawyers that took it a different direction.
This may come as a shock, but lawyers do know more law than the average layman. There are some people that work in specialized areas, like Wench for instance in the oil biz, who know a shitload more oil law than the average lawyer that doesn't do oil law. Kaos probably has some specialized knowledge of a particular area of law based on what he does. I don't know diddly pooh about IT shit, and it wouldn't offend me if an IT guy let me know it if I popped off with some ignorant IT bullshit. Many, however, think they know shit about things they're very ignorant or misinformed about. They quite often pop off with ignorant shit too. Sometimes about crap they've seen on TV, or sometimes it may even be based on one particular anecdotal experience of theirs, and they think because they saw it on TV, or since they witnessed it, it happens all the time.
If you got a medical problem because of the whore you paid for last week, you go see a doctor.
If your computer is fucked up because you got viruses out the ass from your porn downloads, you go see a computer guy.
If your 4 burrito 12 Beer dinner clogs your toilet the next morning, you call a plumber.
If your in a legal pickle because of the booze whores and porn...you fucking call a lawyer, or maybe a team of them!
Just sayin'.
I never get spyware from porn. Kaspersky is the shit.
-
Example: The LED fiasco. I get the poop end of the stick because I point out the fact that these new LEDs don't contain anything different than current LEDs, and there was nothing put forth to refute that. Meanwhile, GarMan claims that he owned LED backlit laptops before they were produced, and nobody bats a effing eye. I guess he also used his experience to develop the flux capacitor and buy laptops from the future.
You're going to pull me back into this???
This is what chaps my ass about the know-it-all twirps in here. You've never even specified diodes or LEDs in a design or field application, but you're somehow more of an expert on the phucking subject than me, and everyone else for that matter. I bet you even have trays of diodes and LEDs just like me in your electronics kit, and you've specified their use in one of your previous careers or employment opportunities, similar to me. BTW, I don't think I ever shared that little tidbit with you in that thread, but it was fun letting you pontificate on schit that you knew little about, short of your googling, wiki-regurgitation and whatever popular soundbites that you may have recycled in your rants. Yeah Mr. Know-Every-Phucking-Thing, in recent years, I do get a new laptop every couple of years and sometimes more frequently. I've been with my current employer less than 4 years, and I'm on my third laptop with them. My last 3 laptops were/are LED backlit, and most of the flatscreens in my home are LED backlit as well. I make one incorrect statement, and that seems to invalidate everything in your feeble mind and make you the defacto winner, cuz you know more about every-damn-thing than everyone else.
As mentioned in the thread, they pulled the same damn thing with the CFLs, yet you failed to acknowledge that little happen-stance. And as I also mentioned, lead based paint and asbestos were even safe for consumer use in the past, but they were later proven to be a hazard and the source of several serious health issues. By the way, these substances were used in a variety of applications for decades prior to them being identified as a hazard in certain scenarios. After decades of mass use in the global population, the World Health Organization is now claiming that cell phones are "possibly" carcinogenic. Of course, they were perfectly safe prior to that recent discovery... Somehow, I'm expected to identify the potential risks of LEDs used in mass application as lighting sources before these devices have even been adopted. How much more unreasonable could you be?
The point here... Everything prior to your birth is irrelevant. Anything that you didn't learn along the way to adulthood is heresy... And, just about everything the mainstream morons spew, you defend to the n-th phucking degree. You are the epitome of Dunning-Kruger. As they say, it's sometimes better to remain silent, than remove all doubt...
-
You're going to pull me back into this???
This is what chaps my ass about the know-it-all twirps in here. You've never even specified diodes or LEDs in a design or field application, but you're somehow more of an expert on the phucking subject than me, and everyone else for that matter. I bet you even have trays of diodes and LEDs just like me in your electronics kit, and you've specified their use in one of your previous careers or employment opportunities, similar to me. BTW, I don't think I ever shared that little tidbit with you in that thread, but it was fun letting you pontificate on schit that you knew little about, short of your googling, wiki-regurgitation and whatever popular soundbites that you may have recycled in your rants. Yeah Mr. Know-Every-Phucking-Thing, in recent years, I do get a new laptop every couple of years and sometimes more frequently. I've been with my current employer less than 4 years, and I'm on my third laptop with them. My last 3 laptops were/are LED backlit, and most of the flatscreens in my home are LED backlit as well. I make one incorrect statement, and that seems to invalidate everything in your feeble mind and make you the defacto winner, cuz you know more about every-damn-thing than everyone else.
As mentioned in the thread, they pulled the same damn thing with the CFLs, yet you failed to acknowledge that little happen-stance. And as I also mentioned, lead based paint and asbestos were even safe for consumer use in the past, but they were later proven to be a hazard and the source of several serious health issues. By the way, these substances were used in a variety of applications for decades prior to them being identified as a hazard in certain scenarios. After decades of mass use in the global population, the World Health Organization is now claiming that cell phones are "possibly" carcinogenic. Of course, they were perfectly safe prior to that recent discovery... Somehow, I'm expected to identify the potential risks of LEDs used in mass application as lighting sources before these devices have even been adopted. How much more unreasonable could you be?
The point here... Everything prior to your birth is irrelevant. Anything that you didn't learn along the way to adulthood is heresy... And, just about everything the mainstream morons spew, you defend to the n-th phucking degree. You are the epitome of Dunning-Kruger. As they say, it's sometimes better to remain silent, than remove all doubt...
Bold is a microcosm of my point.
-
don't expect a guy who goes both ways to appreciate the basic function of a diode, but would a rectifier fix him?
-
don't expect a guy who goes both ways to appreciate the basic function of a diode, but would a rectifier fix him?
Oh, you mean like a pacifier for his rect...
-
This is what chaps my ass about the know-it-all twirps in here. You've never even specified diodes or LEDs in a design or field application, but you're somehow more of an expert on the phucking subject than me, and everyone else for that matter. I bet you even have trays of diodes and LEDs just like me in your electronics kit, and you've specified their use in one of your previous careers or employment opportunities, similar to me.
Actually, if you must know, I have more experience with electronics than you think. I've built my own computers since high school; I've got one torn down in my bedroom right now. My brother and I repaired CB and HAM radios when we were younger.
Do I have more experience than you? Probably not. But, of course, I don't need first hand experience with specifying uses for diodes, capacitors, transistors, heatsinks, or anything else in order to learn something about them. I merely pointed out what was (and what was not) in an LED when compared to these "new" LEDs, and I asked what the new variable was that would pose a threat.
I never got a satisfactory response to that, other than you comparing it to CFLs, which contain mercury. In my mind, that's not an acceptable comparison, because there is clearly a new variable in that lighting source. With the LED bulbs, their chemical makeup is the same as LEDs which we already use in everyday applications.
Sure, maybe 50 years down the road we'll learn that something within all LEDs is dangerous, but you failed to acknowledge my point: If you or anyone else is so damned worried about the hazardous effects of LED bulbs, then shouldn't you also be worried about the hazardous effects of all LEDs? You might as well claim that gas go-karts are dangerous to the environment, but that all other gasoline engines are fine.
I make one incorrect statement, and that seems to invalidate everything in your feeble mind and make you the defacto winner, cuz you know more about every-damn-thing than everyone else.
My issue was not specifically with your incorrect statement; my issue was with the fact that it's apparently a new trend amongst a certain group of you to follow me around the forums and complain about how I argue with every person on every topic without knowing anything about the topic...and they choose to do so on a fucking legal topic. Meanwhile, no one bats an eye about the fact that you made an incorrect statement. No, it's obviously me who never knows what he's talking about and makes incorrect statements... :taunt:
-
Actually, if you must know, I have more experience with electronics than you think. I've built my own computers since high school; I've got one torn down in my bedroom right now. My brother and I repaired CB and HAM radios when we were younger.
Do I have more experience than you? Probably not. But, of course, I don't need first hand experience with specifying uses for diodes, capacitors, transistors, heatsinks, or anything else in order to learn something about them. I merely pointed out what was (and what was not) in an LED when compared to these "new" LEDs, and I asked what the new variable was that would pose a threat.
I never got a satisfactory response to that, other than you comparing it to CFLs, which contain mercury. In my mind, that's not an acceptable comparison, because there is clearly a new variable in that lighting source. With the LED bulbs, their chemical makeup is the same as LEDs which we already use in everyday applications.
Sure, maybe 50 years down the road we'll learn that something within all LEDs is dangerous, but you failed to acknowledge my point: If you or anyone else is so damned worried about the hazardous effects of LED bulbs, then shouldn't you also be worried about the hazardous effects of all LEDs? You might as well claim that gas go-karts are dangerous to the environment, but that all other gasoline engines are fine.
My issue was not specifically with your incorrect statement; my issue was with the fact that it's apparently a new trend amongst a certain group of you to follow me around the forums and complain about how I argue with every person on every topic without knowing anything about the topic...and they choose to do so on a fucking legal topic. Meanwhile, no one bats an eye about the fact that you made an incorrect statement. No, it's obviously me who never knows what he's talking about and makes incorrect statements... :taunt:
Without bothering to read the previous five pages, I'm just curious as to what the fuck this has to do with jury duty?
-
Without bothering to read the previous five pages, I'm just curious as to what the fuck this has to do with jury duty?
By not bothering to read the previous five pages, you've missed the posts in which it was claimed that I think I know everything simply because I'm a lawyer.
-
By not bothering to read the previous five pages, you've missed the posts in which it was claimed that I think I know everything simply because I'm a lawyer.
You're no Johnnie Cochran my friend.
-
You're no Johnnie Cochran my friend.
Never claimed to be. But for whatever reason, when I make an argumentative or informative post, I'm apparently implying that I know everything about everything. Meanwhile, those people making similar responses to my posts are doing no such thing. They're perfect little angels.
-
Lots of (http://images.txtagif.com/thumbs/h8ApSOmoYFY.gif) and in this thread.
-
Lots of (http://images.txtagif.com/thumbs/h8ApSOmoYFY.gif) and in this thread.
And now we move on to the next logical step, 4chan rage faces.
-
Never claimed to be. But for whatever reason, when I make an argumentative or informative post, I'm apparently implying that I know everything about everything. Meanwhile, those people making similar responses to my posts are doing no such thing. They're perfect little angels.
You're no Charles Salvagio my friend.
-
You're no Charles Salvagio my friend.
That's because I drink to much. And to other things, but mostly to much.
-
That's because I drink to much. And to other things, but mostly to much.
It's "too much" lawyerfag.
-
It's "too much" lawyerfag.
No shit, limp dick. Obviously you didn't see Salvagio's DUI posters in various bars. Nor were you apparently able to infer that from my second sentence.
-
No shit, limp dick. Obviously you didn't see Salvagio's DUI posters in various bars. Nor were you apparently able to infer that from my second sentence.
My only knowledge of Charles Salvagio is his appearance on the local news after the death of Michael Jackson. It is pretty much impossible to make inferences without subjecting myself to these infamous rathskeller of which you speak.
-
My only knowledge of Charles Salvagio is his appearance on the local news after the death of Michael Jackson. It is pretty much impossible to make inferences without subjecting myself to these infamous rathskeller of which you speak.
I don't know where all he had them up at. I recall seeing them at Cafe Firenze, Innisfree, and maybe Blackwell's. I believe they're gone now, but they said something along the lines of, "Drink to much tonight? Call Charles Salvagio."
That's why I stated that I also drink "to other things."
-
I don't know where all he had them up at. I recall seeing them at Cafe Firenze, Innisfree, and maybe Blackwell's. I believe they're gone now, but they said something along the lines of, "Drink to much tonight? Call Charles Salvagio."
That's why I stated that I also drink "to other things."
The you can see my point that without prior knowledge to the aforementioned poster, a rational person would assume that you must have confused your "to, too, and twos." I therefore retract my previous statement in which I pointed out this purposeful error. I will point out that you should err on the side of caution when making inside jokes in regards to the literature that you read when attending the various public restrooms you seem to attend. Cross me once more and I shall surely put you in your place, you rapscallion!
-
The you can see my point that without prior knowledge to the aforementioned poster, a rational person would assume that you must have confused your "to, too, and twos." I therefore retract my previous statement in which I pointed out this purposeful error. I will point out that you should err on the side of caution when making inside jokes in regards to the literature that you read when attending the various public restrooms you seem to attend. Cross me once more and I shall surely put you in your place, you rapscallion!
My bad. He refers to himself as "THE Alabama DUI guy," so I had assumed that these posters were in places other than Birmingham. Not to mention that about five other X'ers have seen the posters, but I guess it never made its way here.
Joke fail.
But if you do decide to put me in my place, be gentle and use baby oil.
-
Actually, if you must know...
I never got a satisfactory response...
Sure, maybe 50 years down the road...
I don't understand why you're being so hard-headed on this. I have no idea if LEDs pose a hazard, and nobody has any idea if they're truly a viable alternative to standard incandescent lighting. I'll never be able to provide you with a satisfactory response, because you're not open to reason or logic. Even though diodes and LEDs have been used for decades in a variety of applications, their usage profile has been significantly different than broadbased illumination. Nothing else needs to be said... That's it. Again, I'm somehow expected to identify the potential risks of LEDs used in mass application as lighting sources before these devices have even been adopted. How much more unreasonable could you be?
My issue was not specifically with your incorrect statement; my issue was with the fact that it's apparently a new trend amongst a certain group of you to follow me around the forums and complain about how I argue with every person on every topic without knowing anything about the topic...and they choose to do so on a effing legal topic. Meanwhile, no one bats an eye about the fact that you made an incorrect statement. No, it's obviously me who never knows what he's talking about and makes incorrect statements...
It's fun to play devil's advocate from time-to-time to rattle cages, but you make a habit of it. If you were to ask me, I'd say that you're the one following others around flexing your e-superiority over everyone, like were a bunch of ignorant hicks. In fact, you're typically the one responding to our posts taking an obstinate position of disagreement or defiance. I don't mind the alternative view or the banter at all, but your know-everything attitude is beyond annoying.
-
I don't understand why you're being so hard-headed on this. I have no idea if LEDs pose a hazard, and nobody has any idea if they're truly a viable alternative to standard incandescent lighting. I'll never be able to provide you with a satisfactory response, because you're not open to reason or logic. Even though diodes and LEDs have been used for decades in a variety of applications, their usage profile has been significantly different than broadbased illumination. Nothing else needs to be said... That's it. Again, I'm somehow expected to identify the potential risks of LEDs used in mass application as lighting sources before these devices have even been adopted. How much more unreasonable could you be?
It's fun to play devil's advocate from time-to-time to rattle cages, but you make a habit of it. If you were to ask me, I'd say that you're the one following others around flexing your e-superiority over everyone, like were a bunch of ignorant hicks. In fact, you're typically the one responding to our posts taking an obstinate position of disagreement or defiance. I don't mind the alternative view or the banter at all, but your know-everything attitude is beyond annoying.
Burn.
-
Burn.
Penicillin will clear that up...
-
I don't understand why you're being so hard-headed on this. I have no idea if LEDs pose a hazard, and nobody has any idea if they're truly a viable alternative to standard incandescent lighting. I'll never be able to provide you with a satisfactory response, because you're not open to reason or logic. Even though diodes and LEDs have been used for decades in a variety of applications, their usage profile has been significantly different than broadbased illumination. Nothing else needs to be said... That's it. Again, I'm somehow expected to identify the potential risks of LEDs used in mass application as lighting sources before these devices have even been adopted. How much more unreasonable could you be?
LED bulbs aren't manufactured in a drastically different way to produce light. The chemicals that you find in standard LEDs are found in LED bulbs. And as far as the mass application as lighting sources, they're already being used for that purpose. They are the source of lighting for virtually every electronic device with a backlit screen.
Sure, a light bulb emits more light, but without any sort of indication that the light is dangerous, or that the manner in which the light is created is dangerous, then I don't know why you were advocating that more research be done on LED bulbs before they're mass manufactured to produce light.
My main point was that it makes no sense to state that these LED bulbs might be dangerous, yet at the same time not even remotely consider that LEDs in monitors and screens which are made to emit light also might be dangerous.
Either they both are, or neither of them are; you can't scrutinize one just because it's being used in a new, slightly different application when, in actuality, both of them contain the same types of materials and operate in the same general manner.
It's fun to play devil's advocate from time-to-time to rattle cages, but you make a habit of it. If you were to ask me, I'd say that you're the one following others around flexing your e-superiority over everyone, like were a bunch of ignorant hicks. In fact, you're typically the one responding to our posts taking an obstinate position of disagreement or defiance. I don't mind the alternative view or the banter at all, but your know-everything attitude is beyond annoying.
I follow people around? You're the one who responded to my post in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" thread, and then continued to respond. You're the one who responded to my post in the LED thread, and then proceeded to steer the discussion toward some theory that LED bulbs might be dangerous. I try to have a discussion with people in a religious forum, and nobody with which I'm talking seems to have a problem, except for GH, who comes in after not having been involved in the ongoing discussion for days and decides to randomly berate me for being a know it all just as he did in this thread.
And then, of course, there's the hypocrisy element of it all. You and others want to preach to me about how I should keep my mouth shut unless I've experienced something, yet you want to argue that allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military would decrease efficiency when former military officers who commanded openly homosexual members tell you that it didn't decrease efficiency? You complain about the fact that I quote articles, surveys, studies, experts, and other sources when speaking about something with which I have no personal experience, yet you refer to legal analysts who made comments on the legal aspects of the Casey Anthony trial?
Pffft. Cry me a river. If you're not going to play by your own rules, then don't expect anyone else to.
-
My main point was that it makes no sense to state that these LED bulbs might be dangerous, yet at the same time not even remotely consider that LEDs in monitors and screens which are made to emit light also might be dangerous.
Either they both are, or neither of them are; you can't scrutinize one just because it's being used in a new, slightly different application when, in actuality, both of them contain the same types of materials and operate in the same general manner.
You continue to miss the point, and you continue to be unreasonable. I'm not wasting anymore of my time on this...
I follow people around? You're the one... You're the one... and then... I try to have a discussion... and decides to randomly berate me...
Stop whining... Most of the time, you're not discussing anything. You're pontificating and lecturing.
And then, of course, there's the hypocrisy element of it all. You and others want to preach to me about how I should keep my mouth shut unless I've experienced something, yet you want to argue that allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military would decrease efficiency when former military officers who commanded openly homosexual members tell you that it didn't decrease efficiency? You complain about the fact that I quote articles, surveys, studies, experts, and other sources when speaking about something with which I have no personal experience, yet you refer to legal analysts who made comments on the legal aspects of the Casey Anthony trial?
You continue to completely miss the point on this as well. I've never told you to shut up... And since DADT has been dumped, some of our concerns that you and others refuted have become new issues for the military. One such example is the latest request for the extension of benefits to the partners of gay service members. More social engineering... As for the legal aspects of the Casey Anthony trial, did you honestly review the details of the case before jumping into the discussion to provide your legal expertise? You didn't, and as you frequently do, you jumped into the thread taking the obstinate position of disagreement with that group of stalking bullies that you complained about earlier.
Pffft. Cry me a river.
That's exactly it! Everybody's picking on you... Boohoohoooo... Perhaps, that wouldn't be an issue if you knew how to carry a discussion without pontificating and lecturing to all o' us ignorant hicks out here.
-
And now we move on to the next logical step, 4chan rage faces.
(http://images.txtagif.com/thumbs/h8ApSOmoYFY.gif)
(http://i46.tinypic.com/2q23acn.jpg)
(http://gifattack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/computer-angry.gif)
-
Stop whining... Most of the time, you're not discussing anything. You're pontificating and lecturing.
Riiight. Because you're not "pontificating" when you discuss something with which you have no personal experience, but I am. You're not lecturing when you repeatedly respond to my posts and others' posts telling me I'm wrong (or that we're f-tards, or that we're ignorant, or that we're too young to know anything, etc.), but I am if I do the same. Pot, kettle, goose, gander, and all that jazz.
I've never told you to shut up...
Not expressly, but this bitch fest about the nature of my posts pretty much implies that.
And since DADT has been dumped, some of our concerns that you and others refuted have become new issues for the military. One such example is the latest request for the extension of benefits to the partners of gay service members. More social engineering...
The original topic was whether repealing DADT would result in inefficiency within the military. The fact that they are now asking for new rights does not show that there is military inefficiency due to openly-serving homosexuals.
As for the legal aspects of the Casey Anthony trial, did you honestly review the details of the case before jumping into the discussion to provide your legal expertise? You didn't, and as you frequently do, you jumped into the thread taking the obstinate position of disagreement with that group of stalking bullies that you complained about earlier.
You might as well ask me if I know what Michael Jackson died from. The shit was all over the news. Aside from that, yes, I did go and read various articles to make sure that I wasn't missing something. Because from what I and several others had understood, there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of what she was charged. And sure enough, that was the case.
Meanwhile, you pontificated over a legal topic that you have little knowledge of...yet you see nothing wrong with that. You jumped into a legal debate regarding a guy who shot an unconscious robber five times with a second gun, and you had never seen the surveillance video until JR posted it...yet you see nothing wrong with that. And then you proceeded to adamantly defend the moron against all reason just so that you could continue a lecture about how we don't know shit. Hypocrisy at its finest.
That's exactly it! Everybody's picking on you... Boohoohoooo... Perhaps, that wouldn't be an issue if you knew how to carry a discussion without pontificating and lecturing to all o' us ignorant hicks out here.
I'm not the one who came in with tear-guns blazing about how Vandy Vol made me butt sore.
-
Sup?
-
Sup?
My penis.
-
My penis.
AWK in the same room with you huh?
-
Riiight. Because you're not "pontificating" when you discuss something with which you have no personal experience, but I am. You're not lecturing when you repeatedly respond to my posts...
Now, you got it.
...and others' posts telling me I'm wrong (or that we're f-tards, or that we're ignorant, or that we're too young to know anything, etc.), but I am if I do the same.
No HoneyBunch, you don't do the same. There's the difference.
Not expressly, but this bitch fest about the nature of my posts pretty much implies that.
You seem to be missing the point again. Seems to be a frequent issue with you...
The original topic was whether repealing DADT would result in inefficiency within the military. The fact that they are now asking for new rights does not show that there is military inefficiency due to openly-serving homosexuals.
Another hard-headed response... You wanted to introduce another social experiment into the military. Now that they've permitted homosexuals in the military, the military must address all of the social issues that this social group brings along with them. As the military must now deal with these new distractions, whether it be the establishment of new policies or the expenses associated with responding, defending, providing or subsidizing additional benefits and accommodations to account for this new social baggage, the military undoubtedly becomes diluted and less efficient.
You might as well ask me if I know what Michael Jackson died from. The poop was all over the news. Aside from that, yes, I did go and read various articles to make sure that I wasn't missing something. Because from what I and several others had understood, there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of what she was charged. And sure enough, that was the case.
Yeah... All over the news... And, you were glued to your TV screen. Seriously, when you jumped in and started posting, did you really analyze all of the facts, all of the evidence and all of the witness testimony prior to taking your defiant position? I don't believe it.
Meanwhile, you pontificated over a legal topic that you have little knowledge of...yet you see nothing wrong with that. You jumped into a legal debate regarding a guy who shot an unconscious robber five times with a second gun, and you had never seen the surveillance video until JR posted it...yet you see nothing wrong with that. And then you proceeded to adamantly defend the moron against all reason just so that you could continue a lecture about how we don't know poop. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Ummm... I believe that the surveillance video was linked within the article that I had originally posted at the start of that thread. To further clarify, I did watch the video prior to making my original post. I also did NOT adamantly defend the person who shot the thug. I sympathized with his postion. That was not pontificating on the legal merits of the case. As I explained, I've been involved in a few potentially armed conflicts. I sympathize with the situation and potential state-of-mind of the victim. I don't believe the video adequately establishes the intent of the victim to murder someone. It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback and believe that a reasonable person would behave in a level-headed manner, but when you're thrown into a situation like that, keeping a level-head is about the hardest thing to do. With that video alone, you could speculate all sorts of horrible ideas and intentions by the person who was ultimately convicted, but you really don't know what was going through his mind at the time. BTW, thtop following me around to pick on me, you big bully!
I'm not the one who came in with tear-guns blazing about how Vandy Vol made me butt sore.
Sugar, your immense noodle couldn't make my ear sore...
-
Smooches!!!!! I <3 your penis.
Look, all I'm saying is that it's silly that I'm being singled out as if all I do is follow people around when, in actuality, there are several threads in which others responded to my posts and told me that I was wrong; I'm not always the instigator, and even when I am, it's not a one-way street.
Another hard-headed response... You wanted to introduce another social experiment into the military. Now that they've permitted homosexuals in the military, the military must address all of the social issues that this social group brings along with them. As the military must now deal with these new distractions, whether it be the establishment of new policies or the expenses associated with responding, defending, providing or subsidizing additional benefits and accommodations to account for this new social baggage, the military undoubtedly becomes diluted and less efficient.
The military has a process which breaks down people and rebuilds them. Felons are a particular social group with issues that may pose problems in the military, but they're allowed into the Army and Marines, and it apparently works.
Now as far as any "social issues" that homosexuals may or may not bring to the table later down the road, such as demanding more rights, additional benefits, etc., that's simply a slippery slope argument. Just because you grant them the ability to openly serve in the military doesn't mean that you also have to grant them X, Y and Z when they ask for it.
And, again, as much as you may think this is a "hard-headed response," your slippery slope arguments about new benefits and the funding for those benefits were not part of the initial discussion. What was focused upon was whether the presence of openly homosexual servicemen would affect the efficiency of the military. You brought up issues about heterosexuals feeling uncomfortable in foxholes, medical issues regarding HIV/AIDS, and generally how the mere presence of homosexuals (not the benefits that they may subsequently request) would affect the military.
Yeah... All over the news... And, you were glued to your TV screen.
They have the interwebs nowadays. It's a system of tubes in which I can read news articles that interest me when I want, as opposed to having to be glued to a TV in order to catch what it is that I want to see at a specific time of day that may be ideal for me.
Seriously, when you jumped in and started posting, did you really analyze all of the facts, all of the evidence and all of the witness testimony prior to taking your defiant position? I don't believe it.
I didn't just "jump in" and lecture anyone about how they were wrong. THS asked if any attorneys thought the jury instructions affected the verdict.
Did you go senile and forget what my first substantive post stated? I referenced the fact that there was no DNA on the duct tape, no DNA from blood in the trunk, only witness testimony regarding a smell in the trunk vs. an expert on bodily decomposition saying that a body could not have decomposed in the trunk, and no cause of death. On that lack of evidence alone, you can't convict her of murder, manslaughter, negligence, or abuse, which I also stated in my initial post.
Did I investigate every piece of evidence? Of course not...I don't need to know every minute detail of the trial to tell you that there wasn't enough evidence for a murder conviction. No cause of death? No DNA linking you to the body? No eyewitness testimony of the death, or of you with the body, or of anyone with the body? No time of death to compare with your alibi(s)? Sorry, but that alone pretty much prevents a murder conviction.
And I don't believe that you reviewed all of the evidence either, so unless you're going to willingly admit that you're a hypocrite who thinks it's okay for you to take part in discussions when you haven't reviewed every single detail, but that it's not okay for others, then I don't see what the big deal is.
Ummm... I believe that the surveillance video was linked within the article that I had originally posted at the start of that thread.
I wouldn't know; you just posted the text of the article.
To further clarify, I did watch the video prior to making my original post.
I wouldn't know; JR asked you if you had seen the video and you never answered his question.
I also did NOT adamantly defend the person who shot the thug. I sympathized with his postion. That was not pontificating on the legal merits of the case. As I explained, I've been involved in a few potentially armed conflicts. I sympathize with the situation and potential state-of-mind of the victim. I don't believe the video adequately establishes the intent of the victim to murder someone. It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback and believe that a reasonable person would behave in a level-headed manner, but when you're thrown into a situation like that, keeping a level-head is about the hardest thing to do.
Well, I think that's where the problem lies: you were speaking with attorneys, and you suggested to us what it is that a "reasonable person" would or should do. There's a legal standard for reasonableness when it comes to self defense. It's not really a bright line statutory rule (except in some instances, such as states with Castle Doctrine statutes and similar laws which spell out exactly when you can use deadly force), but it's detailed enough in various common law opinions that there's a pretty solid idea there.
So, when you tell us that the video wasn't enough to show intent to murder, and that his actions seemed "reasonable" to you, you're throwing down a lot of legal jargon that sets off alarms in our head. You may personally think what he did was reasonable, but according to the law it wasn't. You may not think that the video showed an intent to use deadly force which would likely result in death, but according to the law it did.
Sugar, your immense noodle couldn't make my ear sore...
AWK thinks differently, and his butthole is huuuuuugggeeee.
-
This is the least informative thread about jury duty ever.
-
This is the least informative thread about jury duty ever.
I forgot about this thread.
They excused me August 8th-15th, but I have to be there the first week of August.
Fuckers.
-
I like how the shortened title of this thread is TL/DR.
-
I like how the shortened title of this thread is TL/DR.
I still don't know what a diode is.
-
This is the least informative thread about jury duty ever.
Who the fuck wants to know about jury duty anyhow? You fucking pansy...
-
I like how the shortened title of this thread is TL/DR.
Obviously you're not a reader. No Shakespeare plays for you.
-
I like how the shortened title of this thread is TL/DR.
Obviously you're not a reader. No Shakespeare plays for you.
I thought you gays got along with thespians?
-
Who the fuck wants to know about jury duty anyhow? You fucking pansy...
Apparently Townhallsavoy had a quick question about jury duty. I'm not entirely sure how someones interest in jury duty correlates to being a pansy though, but I'm no lawyer.
-
but I'm no lawyer.
There ya go! :poke:
-
Obviously you're not a reader. No Shakespeare plays for you.
I thought you gays got along with thespians?
No, we just use them for sex.
-
Look, all I'm saying is that it's silly that I'm being singled out as if all I do is follow people around when, in actuality, there are several threads in which others responded to my posts and told me that I was wrong; I'm not always the instigator, and even when I am, it's not a one-way street.
You're not getting it again... I thought you'd be able to figure it out by now.
The military has a process...
Now as far as any "social issues" that...
And, again, as much as you may think this is a "hard-headed response," your slippery slope arguments about new benefits and the funding for those benefits were not part of the initial discussion. What was focused upon was whether the presence of openly homosexual servicemen would affect the efficiency of the military. You brought up issues about heterosexuals feeling uncomfortable in foxholes, medical issues regarding HIV/AIDS, and generally how the mere presence of homosexuals (not the benefits that they may subsequently request) would affect the military.
You've completely missed the point again... Seriously... The bulk of my responses were very much related to the accommodations associated with permitting homosexuals to serve in the military. Healthcare, latrines, showers, bunks, benefits, etc. are all very much a part of that. Thlippery thloap be damned!
I didn't just "jump in" and lecture anyone about how they were wrong. THS asked if any attorneys thought the jury instructions affected the verdict.
Did you go senile and forget what my first substantive post stated? I referenced the fact...
Most of your original rants on the topic = TL;DR... You just don't seem to get it... You appeared to jump to very stern and staunch position based on a cursory analysis of the case.
And I don't believe that you reviewed all of the evidence either, so unless you're going to willingly admit that you're a hypocrite who thinks it's okay for you to take part in discussions when you haven't reviewed every single detail, but that it's not okay for others, then I don't see what the big deal is.
Wait a minute... We can discuss this issue without having to review everything about it. As I said above, the difference is you seemed to quickly jump to a very stern position without reviewing enough of the facts. It goes with that know-everything theme of yours...
I wouldn't know; you just posted the text of the article.
I wouldn't know; JR asked you if you had seen the video and you never answered his question.
I didn't have to respond as the answer should have been obvious...
Well, I think that's where the problem lies: you were speaking with attorneys, and you suggested to us what it is that a "reasonable person" would or should do. There's a legal standard for reasonableness when it comes to self defense. It's not really a bright line statutory rule (except in some instances, such as states with Castle Doctrine statutes and similar laws which spell out exactly when you can use deadly force), but it's detailed enough in various common law opinions that there's a pretty solid idea there.
So, when you tell us that the video wasn't enough to show intent to murder, and that his actions seemed "reasonable" to you, you're throwing down a lot of legal jargon that sets off alarms in our head. You may personally think what he did was reasonable, but according to the law it wasn't. You may not think that the video showed an intent to use deadly force which would likely result in death, but according to the law it did.
I started the thread. It was my opinion based on the information that I understood at the time, and I was pretty clear about that from the beginning. It was the lawyers who jumped into that thread swinging their cocks around and beating their chests while telling everybody the way it's supposed to be. More of that know-everything attitude again...
AWK thinks differently, and his butthole is huuuuuugggeeee.
There's hope. I understand the military will soon be giving away free sphincteroplasty procedures for gay recruits. Barney Frank is going to personally observe and test every single one of them.
(http://images.radcity.net/5159/4754779.jpg)
-
The bulk of my responses were very much related to the accommodations associated with permitting homosexuals to serve in the military. Healthcare, latrines, showers, bunks, benefits, etc. are all very much a part of that.
I recall you repeating that we would be allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military "at the expense of others." This is a vague statement that might refer to an actual expense incurred by the taxpayers, but then you went on to make statements about their presence affecting efficiency, people not being comfortable in foxholes, people being afraid to touch an injured homosexual, etc. You even expressly stated that we would be "[forcing] things on others without regard for their personal values," and that "it's like forcing a Muslim to sleep with pigs." These statements don't indicate a stance that is premised upon the economic aspect of accommodating a social group into the military.
Wait a minute... We can discuss this issue without having to review everything about it. As I said above, the difference is you seemed to quickly jump to a very stern position without reviewing enough of the facts. It goes with that know-everything theme of yours...
And as I said above, my very first post cited enough facts about the case to show that a not guilty verdict on charges of murder, manslaughter, and abuse was warranted.
I started the thread. It was my opinion based on the information that I understood at the time, and I was pretty clear about that from the beginning. It was the lawyers who jumped into that thread swinging their cocks around and beating their chests while telling everybody the way it's supposed to be. More of that know-everything attitude again...
Like I said, you were throwing around legal jargon, intentionally or not; our bad for letting it trigger us. That will tend to happen when someone brings up a legal topic, utilizes legal jargon, and comes to a conclusion that is not legally sound. This is especially the case when you say things that suggest you believe the conviction was legally improper, such as "I disagree with the prosecution on this," and "[t]he local municipality made an example of him."
-
(http://www.gifsforum.com/images/image/up%20in%20this%20thread/grand/skeletor_up_in_this_motherfuker.jpg)
-
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q57/carebear71184/Animal%20hilarity/funny-pictures-thundercats-scream.jpg)
-
(http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-08-02/motherfucking_20eggs.jpg)
-
Appreciate the laughs!
-
I recall you repeating that we would be allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military "at the expense of others." This is a vague statement that might refer to an actual expense incurred by the taxpayers, but then you went on to make statements about their presence affecting efficiency, people not being comfortable in foxholes, people being afraid to touch an injured homosexual, etc. You even expressly stated that we would be "[forcing] things on others without regard for their personal values," and that "it's like forcing a Muslim to sleep with pigs." These statements don't indicate a stance that is premised upon the economic aspect of accommodating a social group into the military.
Sure, I threw all of that out there, but again, the bulk of my responses were very much related to the accommodations associated with permitting homosexuals to serve in the military. You, along with others, dismissed those concerns. Now, here they come...
And as I said above, my very first post cited enough facts about the case to show that a not guilty verdict on charges of murder, manslaughter, and abuse was warranted.
You forgot your omnipotence...
Like I said, you were throwing around legal jargon, intentionally or not; our bad for letting it trigger us. That will tend to happen when someone brings up a legal topic, utilizes legal jargon, and comes to a conclusion that is not legally sound. This is especially the case when you say things that suggest you believe the conviction was legally improper, such as "I disagree with the prosecution on this," and "[t]he local municipality made an example of him."
Yeah... Omnipotence... You were too busy espousing your superior wisdom to understand the points of the discussion. I still believe that this conviction was HORSE SQUEEZE, especially with the local hyphenated American community claiming that he was a racist who murdered an unarmed black man. Nevermind the fact that he was committing a robbery at the time...
-
(http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-08-02/mothereffing_20eggs.jpg)
Fail...
-
Fail...
That shit is funny.
-
That shit is funny.
(http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/q-lolcats-galloping-galloway-private-polling-trashcat.jpg)
-
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/12/129104992755667065.jpg)
-
YAWN!
(http://www.funnyanimalsite.com/pictures/Yawn_Cat.jpg)
-
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/12/129104992755667065.jpg)
(http://www.innocentenglish.com/cute-pictures/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/cute-lolcat-ears-hear-you.jpg)
-
I should have asked this the other day -
I was excused from jury service for the week of August 8-13 because I'm a teacher and we'll be starting school that week. However, I was told I would still need to check to see when and where I would need to report for August 1-5.
When I checked my reporting instructions on Friday July 29th at 5:00pm, it said to report at 8:15am on August 8th.
I've tried to contacting the folks via email and phone, but I've gotten no answer. Obviously they were all gone for the weekend at 5pm on a Friday, so I don't know why they had me checking my reporting instructions at that time.
So one again, quick question - Since I've been excused for the week of August 8th, do I just need to ignore my reporting instructions?
And because I was told I was still on call for August 1st, am I screwed because I'm not going there this morning?
-
I should have asked this the other day -
I was excused from jury service for the week of August 8-13 because I'm a teacher and we'll be starting school that week. However, I was told I would still need to check to see when and where I would need to report for August 1-5.
When I checked my reporting instructions on Friday July 29th at 5:00pm, it said to report at 8:15am on August 8th.
I've tried to contacting the folks via email and phone, but I've gotten no answer. Obviously they were all gone for the weekend at 5pm on a Friday, so I don't know why they had me checking my reporting instructions at that time.
So one again, quick question - Since I've been excused for the week of August 8th, do I just need to ignore my reporting instructions?
And because I was told I was still on call for August 1st, am I screwed because I'm not going there this morning?
Federal pound you in the ass prison.
That's your future.
-
That's what I'm expecting.
This doesn't seem like it should be difficult. I applied for an excuse. I was granted the excuse. I shouldn't be schedule...actually, the exact word was "rescheduled" for the week I was excused.
And of course, no one there answers phone calls or emails.
-
Finally got an answer -
They rescheduled all court cases for next week. I've been excused from jury service until a later date. :pb: