It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Jury Duty because I'm a Republican ?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Ok, the headline is a little dramatic, but it is pretty accurate.

I showed up for Jury Duty today, and I was called into a courtroom for a civil trial. A family vs. a hospital for wrongful death and neglect. The plaintiff family was black.

After the usual questions were asked and answered, and a few people removed. They started the specific line of questioning. To my surprise, the plaintiff's lawyer asked people what type of T.V. they liked to watch. Several people spoke up, and said everything from American Idol to News shows. The atty zeroed in on those that said news shows, and started asking what type of news shows, what channels, what anchors, etc.

Pretty soon, he had checked off everyone who watched FOX news. He obviously did not want them on his jury!

I was quiet, so he specifically asked me about my preference. I told him I preferred to not watch T.V. He said hypothetically, if I watched the news, what channel would I turn to first. I told him CNN and FOX. He asked what I liked about FOX in particular, so on and so on, am I Conservative or Liberal, do I have any racist views, have I had any racial problems, how do I feel about Affirmative Action, have I ever felt like a victim of Affirmative Action. He also spread similar questions to other members that were not American Idol watchers!.

I'll skip to the end and then give some more detail. At the end of the day, the Jury was made up of entirely Liberal jurors, who love reality TV, do Social Work, or work in schools with "challenged" kids. The typical PC answers like "I don't see color" were driving the intelligent part of the jury pool insane. There was a lot of eye rolling and confused glances exchanged.

What kind of idiot doesn't see color?

Now, I was more infuriated (glad I wasn't chosen) by the lack of the defendants lawyer to counter this attack at all. She seemed perfectly happy with the same liberally biased and not very honest jury?!?! Is this because they are easier to manipulate?

The plaintiffs agenda was clear. He wanted a black, liberal, uneducated jury, that felt victimized in the past. That made sense. But the Hospital's attorney should have wanted business people, logical thinkers, educated folks who would comprehend the expert testimony. Why did she choose to follow a similar line of questioning, and not object to his irrelavent questions? Even the judge spoke up a couple of times and shut down each attorney as they delved deeper into our political views?!

I did not really want to serve, but I was offended that me and many others were ruled out because of a stereo-type that conservatives are racists, and that intelligent people that use logic, read, and occasionally watch the news make bad jurors!

I have had black girlfriends, and I have almost a 50/50 split in my close guy friends. I am even a Republican that voted for Obama! (Lessor of two evils, I had hoped.)

A math teacher got the boot. Several students in scientific fields got the boot (the Sociology and Music Majors were picked though). A couple of business men got the boot, but a retired social worker, an educational administrator for challenged youths, and a janitor for a middle school got picked.

Ironically, no body asked me if I had any dealings with the hospital in question. I was actually quite mad at that particular hospital for not following my wishes, and not releasing medical files timely when it came to my premature baby. The plaintiff should have loved that info!

Rant and conjecture over, but I am left with a burning questions:

Has our country, and our legal system in particular, come to the point where they prefer uninformed, liberal, victimized citizens to represent the community as a whole?

Is this really a "cross-section" of the population, or a jury of our peers?

Does the fact that I flip between news channels to find the middle ground make me a racist? Or the fact that I prefer gardening, hiking, and sports over American Idol mean I am unfit to render an impartial opinion. Should I have done my proper "training" with the Mass Media Monster?

If a math teacher uses the word "logical" does mean she isn't able to make good decisions?


Note to MODs. I don't know how to use BTS, and I don't know if this belongs there or not. It may even belong in Politics. Please move it if necessary.




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Oh boy, you said you were a republican, now ats as a whole hates you.....oh boy. prepare for ridicule from them.

Hey, at first glance it's a good thing screw jury duty.

Then you notice the system is broken, and we are not judged by peers, but seemingly naive people.

The law system is becoming more and more crippled.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
If both attorneys followed the same course of action, then logic dictates they wanted the same outcome.

Jurors who do not think "too much".

btw, everyone should read this pamphlet on Jury rights.

You have an obligation as an American to understand your rights on a jury, because the judge and attorneys will not tell them to you.





[edit on 17-7-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
They have to get rid of the scientists and engineers.

They tend to analyze the evidence and come to a logical conclusion. Not only that but they can be persuasive with they're arguments when the jury is deliberation. The last thing they want in the jury room is someone who can put two and two together and say that the suit is baseless and should be thrown out.

I think that they were also trying to rule out anyone who might realize that if the lawsuit is a success it will translate into higher medical costs to pay for additional malpractice insurance. Sometimes, you just have to
Otherwise you'll go crazy.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08
Oh boy, you said you were a republican, now ats as a whole hates you.....oh boy. prepare for ridicule from them.

Hey, at first glance it's a good thing screw jury duty.

Then you notice the system is broken, and we are not judged by peers, but seemingly naive people.

The law system is becoming more and more crippled.


Ya, I revealed far too much!


I'm a Republican, and I voted for Obama. Now everyone hates me!

I'm going to a Tea Party meeting Saturday! Does that get me any points?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Your a republican and voted obama.... Oh boy it gets even worse!

What have you done!!! NOOO!!!

The tea party gets you no points, because ats is split on it! So you've found a neutral zone!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
It appears that you misunderstand the Jury Selection process.

When you are pulled from the database for Jury Duty this is establishing a jury pool that is a reasonably random cross-section of the community.

Then, the selected jurors are generally subjected to a system of examination whereby both the attorneys for the plaintiff, and the attorneys for the defense can object to a juror. This is known as voir dire. Voir dire can include both general questions asked of an entire pool of prospective jurors, answered by means such as a show of hands, and questions asked of individual prospective jurors and calling for a verbal answer.

Both the attorneys for the plaintiff and the attorneys for the defense have a set number of peremptory challenges, this allows them to stack half the jury in a way that they feel better serves the interests of their client. This is done so that a jury can not be one-sided or partial towards one party or the other. No basis or reason needs to be given in the United States Court system for dismissal.

So, basically stating a preference for Fox News made you the kind of juror that would have not been in the best interest of the plaintiff, so the plaintiff's attorneys used one of their peremptory challenges to dismiss you. Likewise, the defendant's attorney may have dismissed a number of jurors for liking Obama.

That's how fair juries of one's peers are selected.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
This time they didn't want you on the jury because you're a republican, but next time it's a case of lets say an airliner vs a Joe normal, they'd be fighting to get you on because you would probably favor the airline over the dead passenger.

Just depends on the case...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Sundancer
 


That's a silly thing to say



I've heard about math teachers and logical thinking being ejected. Apparently that happens all across the United States during jury selection.

My guess would be that they don't want a jury that is able to recognize a logical fallacy.

Or their case is based more on "emotional grounds," rather than something you can quantify and express in exact terms (IE. Person X stole $500 from me. I want it back. Ergo, I'm suing for $500). If the case is more like "they scared me emotionally for life. I want compensation. Ergo, I'm suing for $50,000,000." Nobody in their right mind is going to be able to figure out why it's $50 million, and not $49 million, or $30 million, or even $99 dollars. How do you come up with the amount of money they deserve? Well, you can't, but if the jury is sympathetic enough to the victim, then they're more likely to award a larger sum of money.

Maybe people who watch American Idol are more willing to "help out" people who are down on their luck. In this case, helping them out translates to awarding more money.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I was in a court room once and the last time, and while I was setting there the Judge made a statement to the room! And it is something I will never forget.
He stated to the Jury that it was not a matter of the Truth ,but a matter of the Law and that is how they would have to make there decision.

When I left that day I never have been able to look at the courts and the law the same way again.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


Hi Frat,

I agree, and I was aware of the selection process. What confused me is that both sides were seeking the same thing? I totally understood the plaintiffs position, but the defendant should have wanted business owners, and people who could understand their case. They have the more technical role in defending the doctor's actions, and business owner's have a vested interest in keeping frivolous lawsuits down and insurance premiums low.

Plus, I don't understand why it was only this political and idealogical questioning. If the plaintiff attorney had asked broader questions, he would have found out that I had a bad experience with that hospital, and that I had to transfer my newborn son away from there! The fact that I watch FOX news once in a blue moon, doesn't factor nearly as high in my priorities as almost losing a child!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Perhaps neither lawyer can mount a compelling logical argument?

It is sort of like market segmentation. Unskilled salesmen only sell to stupid people, because stupid people buy more stuff.

American Idol viewers would possibly qualify for that title.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiote
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Perhaps neither lawyer can mount a compelling logical argument?

It is sort of like market segmentation. Unskilled salesmen only sell to stupid people, because stupid people buy more stuff.

American Idol viewers would possibly qualify for that title.


That is kind of what I was thinking.
I am just glad I wasn't a party to either side. I would be pretty upset if my attorney preferred to argue emotions instead of facts. Or if they preferred airheads in the seats instead of logical thinkers.

Maybe I should go to law school?!?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
LOL....sorry.

OT (kinda) but i saw your thread title, and at first glance i thought it said
" No jury service because i'm a reptillian?"...

Need to rest the mince pies i think.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


It doesn't suprise me that the attnys wanted people with mushy minds. Why would they want logical thinkers? That might make too much sense. They want people who will believe anything they are told, remember nothing about the case except for maybe one or two details that struck them, and can't mount a useful argument with their peers if they tried. Each side wants only 1 leader in that jury to sway the other 11 jurors. If they can manage to pick the 1 person that is more persuasive than the oppositions preferred juror, then they are sitting pretty.

Unfortunately its not about justice, it's about winning.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


thank you for posting the link to the pamplet.
i will print a copy out when i get a chance.

-subfab



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
You know, you might want to look in to the laws of the land you're in. I don't think he can get away with that kind of thing, and you might have a lawsuit on your hands for some sort of discrimination.

But it sounds like a typical intolerant lieberal to me.

Tolerance is a sham.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08
Oh boy, you said you were a republican, now ats as a whole hates you.....oh boy. prepare for ridicule from them.

Hey, at first glance it's a good thing screw jury duty.

Then you notice the system is broken, and we are not judged by peers, but seemingly naive people.

The law system is becoming more and more crippled.


He also said he voted for obama, doesn't get much worse than that and I don't hate him. We all make mistakes and/or get "suckered" no shame in that if we learn from our mistakes, and by his signature he obviously has.

Obviously they were looking for pliable people that would easily be manipulated (works for both sides) as opposed to people able to reason and use logic, looks like they succeeded.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Card carrying members of the GOP & DNC should be disqualified from everything for publicly admitting, willingly, participation in the essence of insanity by voting for un-apologetic 2 party traitors / proto-fascists.

No jury duty, no drivers license, no nothing.. . Bad karma too and... no pets or Idiocracy-like contamination of the gene pool with little future repukes and derpocrap cults members either..

Maybe after a solid year of sane behavior,... a plant... or goldfish. Get a Fern, call it Romney, Newt or Ronnie.. it'll have the same personality as your beloved party leader de jure.
edit on 12-4-2012 by GovtFlu because: add / made bad into good



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join