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.

 

Juror booted out for naughty T-shirt

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
How ironic. I've never actually been able to GET ON a jury and it is a shame because I can spot a guilty person just by looking at them.


I really hope you're making a joke..




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by SpeedBump
reply to post by tezzajw
 




If I ever get called for jury duty, I know what I'll be wearing!


Its good to know you won't be on my jury if I ever get dragged before the courts.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I had to go to court one day.

The case in front of mine was a teenager who showed up for court with pants below his undies, lots of piercings tats etc.

I don't know what transpired before I sat down.

But the judge said something to the effect that the defendant had showed no respect for the court and the judge was ready to incarcerate him for like a year.

You should have seen the change in attitude from the teenager. He was basically begging for a second chance. So the judge said something to the effect that the defendant is basically unemployable dressing and covered with his ridiculousness body mods. The judge postponed the case for six weeks. He gave the defendant a contact for free tattoo removal, and told him that he would see him in six weeks at which time he would not be waring any piercings, he would be dressed in khaki pants pulled up and belted at his waste, a plain shirt with a collar and that his visible tattoos would have to be in the process of being removed and he needed to have a job, otherwise he's going to jail.

The kid, had lost all his attitude and was agreeing to all the conditions.

That was reality biting him in the butt.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I had to go to court one day.

The case in front of mine was a teenager who showed up for court with pants below his undies, lots of piercings tats etc.

I don't know what transpired before I sat down.

But the judge said something to the effect that the defendant had showed no respect for the court and the judge was ready to incarcerate him for like a year.

You should have seen the change in attitude from the teenager. He was basically begging for a second chance. So the judge said something to the effect that the defendant is basically unemployable dressing and covered with his ridiculousness body mods. The judge postponed the case for six weeks. He gave the defendant a contact for free tattoo removal, and told him that he would see him in six weeks at which time he would not be waring any piercings, he would be dressed in khaki pants pulled up and belted at his waste, a plain shirt with a collar and that his visible tattoos would have to be in the process of being removed and he needed to have a job, otherwise he's going to jail.

The kid, had lost all his attitude and was agreeing to all the conditions.

That was reality biting him in the butt.





The judge sounds like a complete idiot. Probably has a Hitler poster on his wall.

"Conform or Die" "You will dress how we tell you to dress" "present yourself the way we tell you to" "tattoos? Only your barcode, silly human"

No ability to think for themselfs, silly sheep. Just cogs in the totalitarian system.

Judges on the whole are conceited a*sholes. Got into an argument with one earlier, swore on the oathe with one hand in my pocket(didn't do taht on purpose, was nervous, of course). She told me to reread it with my hand not in my pocket and show some respect. Told her to where to go. Christian fundamentalist lunatic was lucky I even accepted to read that piece of garbage once. I only agreed to it the first time so not to offend the religious lunatic judges
Cheek of some of these judges.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solofront

I'd rather send a guilty man free than an innocent man to jail.




If they represent big business, politics or organized crime - better to shoot both and let god work it out.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mogget
The girl was an idiot to wear a t-shirt like that. How stupid can someone get?


It seems according to some around here, she should have been able to chew gum, hang her boobs out, drink beer, smoke and listen to headphones in court. Because it's just so inane to abide by a dress code in a court of law.

It's as if the sky is falling because a judge did what any judge would do.

Oh well, these poor souls will have a terrible time coping with life in general, always thumbing their noses and poking holes in the air... What a stress..




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HeavenlyDivine
 


Really? You think so?

Strange how people can read the same piece of writing and draw two completely opposite conclusions isn't it.

I imagine the judge was trying to do the kid a favour.

Knowing full well the kid would more than likely be in and out of court and prison like a yo-yo, if he carried on the same road he was traveling, and decided to give him a kick up the backside, as a wake up call, hoping the little he could do, would be enough to set him on the path of the 'straight and narrow'.

I think it was quite a nice thing to do for the kid personally.

Different strokes for different folks i s'pose.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by HeavenlyDivine
 


Really? You think so?

Strange how people can read the same piece of writing and draw two completely opposite conclusions isn't it.

I imagine the judge was trying to do the kid a favour.

Knowing full well the kid would more than likely be in and out of court and prison like a yo-yo, if he carried on the same road he was traveling, and decided to give him a kick up the backside, as a wake up call, hoping the little he could do, would be enough to set him on the path of the 'straight and narrow'.

I think it was quite a nice thing to do for the kid personally.

Different strokes for different folks i s'pose.



That's because you assosciate baggy jeans and tattoos with criminals. I don't lol.

You're assuming the kid was some sort of repeat offender destined to end up a hardended criminal on the back of how he dresses and the fact he has a few tattoos?

Maybe he is, but we don't know that. The member i responded to didn't say that. So we have no reason to believe that.

I've met so many people like the judge in question, a ton of old conservative types who think everyone should dress and behave a certain way.

I remember some crazy old dude attacking me on the bus for wearing a hat 'indoors'. I imagine he used to be a judge



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
You cannot disrespect a court.

You can either treat them the way they DESERVE to be treated (contemptibly), or you can become a submissive slave and take it up the rear.

Me? I won't cross the bar. I am not qualified. I refuse to my death to cross that line.

Never walk through the floodgates.

Once you pass the floodgates you have no rights anymore.

I would rather show contempt and refuse to recognize their authority as they have relinquished this authority by BREAKING THE SOCIAL CONTRACT.
en.wikipedia.org...

These courts are a total sham and a abomination against freedom and justice everywhere.

Courts do not serve Justice. No, they only serve their own selfish interests!

Therefore I do not recognize their authority, they have none any longer. They are merely tyrants at this point. Totally illegitimate in every way.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I had to go to court one day.

The case in front of mine was a teenager who showed up for court with pants below his undies, lots of piercings tats etc.

I don't know what transpired before I sat down.

But the judge said something to the effect that the defendant had showed no respect for the court and the judge was ready to incarcerate him for like a year.

You should have seen the change in attitude from the teenager. He was basically begging for a second chance. So the judge said something to the effect that the defendant is basically unemployable dressing and covered with his ridiculousness body mods. The judge postponed the case for six weeks. He gave the defendant a contact for free tattoo removal, and told him that he would see him in six weeks at which time he would not be waring any piercings, he would be dressed in khaki pants pulled up and belted at his waste, a plain shirt with a collar and that his visible tattoos would have to be in the process of being removed and he needed to have a job, otherwise he's going to jail.

The kid, had lost all his attitude and was agreeing to all the conditions.

That was reality biting him in the butt.





Kid should have gotten a lawyer. That is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Yes, you can be told how to dress in court. But forcing tattoo removal is going too far. That is highly invasive, not only as a free speech issue but also as a medical issue.

Yes, he should have taken his piercings out or put spacers in for court. Yes, he should have tried to cover his tattoos as best he can. Yes, he should have dressed appropriately and pulled his pants up. But no, absolutely NO judge should be able to tell you that he's going to throw you in jail if you don't remove your tattoos.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
about 15 years ago i had a court date for a misuse of plates infraction , it was not my first offense for misuse of plates, I was young and didnt have the money for registration that was stupid of me and i was Wrong i will not deny that...but..

while i was waiting in the courtroom for my name to be called i sat quietly with my girlfriend at the time . after about an hour and a half the bailiff called my name. as i was standing up my girlfriend gave me a kiss on the CHEEK for good luck..

well the judge thought this was a huge disrepect to him and his courtroom, threatened me with contempt of court and berated me for 10 minutes in front of a full courtroom about my obscene display of public affection. i bowed my head took the scolding and apologized to the judge and his court.(some battles are just not winnable)

the point is that even though you may think that what you are wearing or how you are behaving is perfectly acceptable..
once you walk into that courtroom the JUDGE is KING,right or wrong this is how it is.

on a side note i havent been back to court since and i dont plan on it.


thanks for the thread op

~meathead



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by Mogget
The girl was an idiot to wear a t-shirt like that. How stupid can someone get?


It seems according to some around here, she should have been able to chew gum, hang her boobs out, drink beer, smoke and listen to headphones in court. Because it's just so inane to abide by a dress code in a court of law.

It's as if the sky is falling because a judge did what any judge would do.

Oh well, these poor souls will have a terrible time coping with life in general, always thumbing their noses and poking holes in the air... What a stress..



Dress code lover eh?

I hope the Muslims come and impose Sharia dress codes on YOU.

Then we will see who is a fan of forced Dress Codes.

Sorry for the low blow, but you had it coming lol.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I should have wore that shirt when I was doing jury duty a few weeks ago - what a great way to get out of the annoyance!

EDIT:

In the particular case that I was in, the "f-bomb" was used many times. The prosecutor even attempted to lead a witness to say it, but the judge interrupted, saying that if the word comes out naturally, it's okay, but the prosecutor should not attempt to make a witness say it. This was the only time that the judge, however, became involved with the use of curses in the courtroom. I guess these old judges can't keep up with the lingo nowadays!

[edit on 25-6-2010 by they see ALL]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
By this time I guess we know the two positions. Some of you are so totally into doing whatever you want to that you resent the judge's authority here. Further, you are of the opinion that the judicial system sucks. End of story. Others of you believe decorum, particularly in a courtroom, is a civilized thing to do. I wonder if you think you have the right to wear the same shirt to work, particularly if you work before the public. I suspect if you insisted you would get fired. Think of being a juror as a temporary low-paid job. If you insist on wearing something like that, you get fired. If you still insist, then start your own business and see how many customers you get. It's been done. Find your niche. Be a rap star or something and profit by obscenity. Knock yourself out.

OK. I get it. I'd like to give you just a tiny bit of history here and suggest this conversation address 'jury nullification' as an issue. It's related; I don't think it is off-topic considering the sentiments here.

The modern jury system has its roots with King Henry II of England. I believe he was the great grandson of William the Conqueror. He has been made the villian because of St. Thomas Beckett and is famous for uttering the words, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" So Beckett became a martyr and then someone did a movie about it all and here we are. But there's more to the story and, as in many areas of history we are taught, there is some question of who the bad guy was in this case.

Henry was a reformer. Beckett was a traditionalist and resisted Henry's changes. Beckett took the side of the Catholic Church; Henry wanted to lessen its power. This was a struggle of generations and wasn't accomplished until Henry VIII finally got rid of the Pope. Both were part of the same struggle to break the back of the Holy Roman Empire. You see, the Roman Empire never actually fell. That's another historical lie.

One of the things Henry II did was invent the jury. Prior to this disputes were settled first by the Lord of the Manor, effectively the rich landowner for whom everyone toiled. He made the decisions and arbitrated disputes. These were usually of a minor nature, what we might call misdemeanors today. BTW there is no indication that justice at this level was entirely arbitrary and capricious. The Lord of the Manor was trying to keep the peace. He was, in fact, a Justice of the Peace.

The next layer was a traveling judge who handled more serious crimes. Basically people were arrested by the local magistrate and thrown in jail until the circuit judge traveled by again. The judge ruled in the name of the King and he had the power to sentence people to death. The serfs had no say in these matters and there was a certain amount of grumbling.

So Henry II invented the jury trial and incorporated local citizens as jurors who were to sit in judgement of their peers. This was not entirely a magnaminous decision on the part of Henry. In effect a jury trial deflected the blame for a verdict from the King to the local populace. The King could then say, "Hey, I'm not the one who convicted this guy. You did. It's your responsibility." This was a very astute and deft stroke by Henry; we live by it to this day.

If you look into the history of jurisprudence in this country you will find that one of the justifications for its existence is as a check on state power. THIS is where, in my view, things have gone awry as judges attempt to take control of the jury and insist that jurors vote according to the evidence and the laws on the books, that it is their duty to follow a judge's instructions.

But the jury is more powerful than that. This is where the concept of jury nullification comes in. This is essentially the jurors' right to refuse to convict someone despite the fact thay are technically guilty. At its extreme, this even means serious crimes. For example, there's a guy in Seattle who is on trial for killing a cop in cold blood. He's an educated man, half Black, and he advocates jury nullification for crimes like his own because he says Blacks have been exploited and the judicial system is weighted against them, so even if a Black murders someone, he should get off because he is Black.

Sorry, I can't go there, but what about victimless crimes? Should someone actually go to the state pen for posessing marijuana? Should someone be made a felon because he exercised his second amendment rights to keep and bear arms, but a state law unconstitutionally says he cannot? These are areas where jurors can make a difference if they know their rights.

Just to bring it back around to the topic, in my county just recently the judge made a woman spectator put a coat on because she had a T-shirt on that said, "Jury nullification is your right!"

Judges are scared to death of this because it challenges their power and puts it in the hands of ordinary citizens.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Defending her is as tacky as she was.

Good people respect others. They don't go into public with obscenities on their clothing. In fact I've never known a person who would do that, that was not a disgusting person in all aspects of their personalities.

19 is old enough to have outgrown such childish actions and that action was most certainly the action of an immature child. That is the sort of thing adolescents find funny and giggle about as snot blows out their noses.

The Judge was right. Who would want such a person on a Jury? A person not even mature or rational enough to not wear the "F" Bomb on a shirt in court.

We don't not use some offensive words in public because of the words, it's out of respect for others. People who have no respect for others, never do grow up in my experience.

Reality is she wanted attention and got it. Another infantile act for someone that old.

My sympathies to her Parents.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


Sad that a judge had to do what his Parents should have done before he got in such trouble. It really is. At least he will be able to earn a living after the Judge straightens him out. Better than living in cardboard boxes because no employer would touch him. Better than a life of food stamps and begging or leaching off family and friends. Better than a coffin.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces

How ironic. I've never actually been able to GET ON a jury and it is a shame because I can spot a guilty person just by looking at them.


If you think you can spot a guilty person just by looking at them, I dont want you on a jury.

I have pretty good judgment of people too, but I am not foolish enough to think it is an infallible skill. The jury has to decide based on evidence, in any case, not what their "gut" is telling them. Its their duty to do that.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
[m. So the next time you get jury duty, wear an outrageous tee shirt, you won't even make it through voir dire. Brilliant!



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
By this time I guess we know the two positions. Some of you are so totally into doing whatever you want to that you resent the judge's authority here.


Righteous and just authority is sensible and reasonable.

Freaking out over someone's shirt, shows how absurd and out of touch this system has really become.

It was suppose to be a Court of LAW, not a court of OPINION and SUBJECTIVE OPPRESSION!

As long as you actually WEAR cloths like a reasonable human being, it does not matter what message is printed on it. This is a entire 100% absurd notion to think it has ANYTHING to do with JUST LAW.

I am NOT against a righteous, fair, and just authority.

That is what I want.

Authority is a tool and can be used for good or bad. I want it used for good, not in these misguided and inappropriate/ pointless manners.

People should exercise their Right to Ignore the other persons's writing on their shirt.

I am amazed this isn't obvious to others yet...



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


Sad that a judge had to do what his Parents should have done before he got in such trouble. It really is. At least he will be able to earn a living after the Judge straightens him out. Better than living in cardboard boxes because no employer would touch him. Better than a life of food stamps and begging or leaching off family and friends. Better than a coffin.


The government has no place teaching manners.

The opinions of Citizens should be doing this. NOT the LONG arm of the LAW!

It has nothing to do with protecting Liberty. That is the only purpose of the government to protect it's people from abuse of liberty. That is the main point of the Constitution.

A just LAW is one that defends liberty. This is oppression. Not tolerance.

I don't want a nanny state, where the Judge teaches people manners based on "their subjective opinion".

The Constitution was designed to protect a person's opinion from repression; but what is this case a perfect example of?

Was a mere word on a shirt enough to warrant such drastic actions and controversy? Is it really worth clamping down on?

What are the priorities of this 'legal system' anyway???

To be my mom?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join