 | | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Nope, I'd accept that - I mean like calling someone and asking them to come over, shooting them, then going out front and kicking in the door to make it look like a burglary. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) By the way--no lawyer worth his shinola would allow you to remain on that jury, of course. (...) So you are in fact advocating the falsification of a crime scene? I trust, than, that if you get into a fistfight and accidentally kill your (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) If you were foolish enough to actually *say* that during jury selection. I think I have the whole "sheep" thing down (or so I think), along with the "maneuver one's self to be the foreman once deliberations start" which is also very useful, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) That's funny larry. I do the same thing. Most of my coworkers have always wanted schemes to get out of jury duty...but I always thought that was easy and irresponsible. I've always answered everything neutrally so that I would stay. (...) How (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) That's not my problem ;-) (...) There'd be no need - if I killed someone in a fistfight, it would be equal force as defense. And if I killed them, they couldn't argue about who started it. Not that I'd get involved in a fistfight, I've pretty (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Well I hear it usually is up to the jury to decide who the foreman is using whatever mechanism they decide on, I understand being foreman is perceived as being a bit more work, so I have heard that people will happily go along with it if one (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Doesn't this demand that each member of the jury be conversant with the (possibly very obscure) laws? How can one's "peers" be expected at any time, for instance, to be trusted to interpret the particulars of laws they might never previously (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Nope. The Founder Fathers thought they could trust the average venireman to judge both facts and law, no complicated understanding was supposed to be needed -- and if it were, perhaps it was not a very good law such that people could (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) It doesn't require apriori knowledge, just willingness to examine the law, and decide if it's a just law or not. (...) Defacto you are correct, in most cases this is what happens. Dejure you are wrong, common law (and case law if you can find (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
