Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?
Where did I say jury nullification should done “in general”?
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
Juries freak me out because the general intelligence level of "my peers" leaves much to be desired. 100% of the agreements I draft have a clause that stipulates that any dispute we have will be heard by a judge and waive jury.
Still, once we agree on what our institutions are, we have to honor them and give them a chance to work. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the slave argument, because I'm not the historian in this group, it seems that this consistent rejection of social structures in the name of libertarian philosophy can lead us down a slippery slope toward political nihilism, which is fun to kick around in the classroom but shitty to live with.
If you find yourself in a fundamentally unjust society, then all bets are off and you join some revolt to overthrow it. But until then, while you're in it, I am skeptical of the individual who goes around playing king, largely for the same reasons I am skeptical of juries to begin with. For every thoughtful dissenter, there are 1,000 dipshits, and worse, 10,000 Sledogs - biased simpletons who quixotically think they know what's best for society ... the purveyors of what's "normal". We're better off when we're all trying to do our best than giving everyone a reject button. That cuts all over the place and you have chaos, which is worse than an imperfect or even flawed system.
Curious. Why didn't Lincoln have jurisdiction over the southern states? Jurisdiction for what?
Beyond jurisdiction, I thought the Confederacy declared war on the Union. If that's the case, wasn't it Lincoln's jerb to prosecute that fight against the traitorous goons?
I've told the story before of the jury that ruled in favor of the doctor who diagnosed my Dad's appendicitis as bronchitis so I agree that calling a jury a crap shoot is giving them too much credit
One time in all my years we ended up in a huge administrative hearing on a construction claim. We were the sub on the Muckleshoot gym and center and there were issues that cause an almost complete floor failure. Sorry @Swaye
Anyway we all meet in the conference room and the GC presents their claim which included their need to buy an new Audi because the floor failed. I am not making this up . We present our side then the judge calls a break to mull it over. Our lawyer was watching porn on his lap top. He also told us the settlement was already reached and this was just a show. Insurance and bonding paid it off
Not sure what the point is other than if you are an aspiring half brain lawyer you should consider construction law because you can watch porn at work
Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?
Where did I say jury nullification should done “in general”?
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
Juries freak me out because the general intelligence level of "my peers" leaves much to be desired. 100% of the agreements I draft have a clause that stipulates that any dispute we have will be heard by a judge and waive jury.
Still, once we agree on what our institutions are, we have to honor them and give them a chance to work. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the slave argument, because I'm not the historian in this group, it seems that this consistent rejection of social structures in the name of libertarian philosophy can lead us down a slippery slope toward political nihilism, which is fun to kick around in the classroom but shitty to live with.
If you find yourself in a fundamentally unjust society, then all bets are off and you join some revolt to overthrow it. But until then, while you're in it, I am skeptical of the individual who goes around playing king, largely for the same reasons I am skeptical of juries to begin with. For every thoughtful dissenter, there are 1,000 dipshits, and worse, 10,000 Sledogs - biased simpletons who quixotically think they know what's best for society ... the purveyors of what's "normal". We're better off when we're all trying to do our best than giving everyone a reject button. That cuts all over the place and you have chaos, which is worse than an imperfect or even flawed system.
Curious. Why didn't Lincoln have jurisdiction over the southern states? Jurisdiction for what?
Beyond jurisdiction, I thought the Confederacy declared war on the Union. If that's the case, wasn't it Lincoln's jerb to prosecute that fight against the traitorous goons?
The last jury I was on I was foreman. 10 people said he’s guilty, let’s get this over with in 5 minutes and go home. Not so fast my friend. 2 days later we acquitted. Not quite as dramatic as 12 angry men, our guy actually did what he was accused of. The fact he was charged was bullshit.
Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?
Where did I say jury nullification should done “in general”?
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
Juries freak me out because the general intelligence level of "my peers" leaves much to be desired. 100% of the agreements I draft have a clause that stipulates that any dispute we have will be heard by a judge and waive jury.
Still, once we agree on what our institutions are, we have to honor them and give them a chance to work. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the slave argument, because I'm not the historian in this group, it seems that this consistent rejection of social structures in the name of libertarian philosophy can lead us down a slippery slope toward political nihilism, which is fun to kick around in the classroom but shitty to live with.
If you find yourself in a fundamentally unjust society, then all bets are off and you join some revolt to overthrow it. But until then, while you're in it, I am skeptical of the individual who goes around playing king, largely for the same reasons I am skeptical of juries to begin with. For every thoughtful dissenter, there are 1,000 dipshits, and worse, 10,000 Sledogs - biased simpletons who quixotically think they know what's best for society ... the purveyors of what's "normal". We're better off when we're all trying to do our best than giving everyone a reject button. That cuts all over the place and you have chaos, which is worse than an imperfect or even flawed system.
Curious. Why didn't Lincoln have jurisdiction over the southern states? Jurisdiction for what?
Beyond jurisdiction, I thought the Confederacy declared war on the Union. If that's the case, wasn't it Lincoln's jerb to prosecute that fight against the traitorous goons?
That's what I implied, but you have put it in philosopher king prose. TYFYS.
The Constitution was silent on succession, which is why some think Lincoln and the North had no right to compel the South to stay in the Union by force.
Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?
Where did I say jury nullification should done “in general”?
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
Juries freak me out because the general intelligence level of "my peers" leaves much to be desired. 100% of the agreements I draft have a clause that stipulates that any dispute we have will be heard by a judge and waive jury.
Still, once we agree on what our institutions are, we have to honor them and give them a chance to work. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the slave argument, because I'm not the historian in this group, it seems that this consistent rejection of social structures in the name of libertarian philosophy can lead us down a slippery slope toward political nihilism, which is fun to kick around in the classroom but shitty to live with.
If you find yourself in a fundamentally unjust society, then all bets are off and you join some revolt to overthrow it. But until then, while you're in it, I am skeptical of the individual who goes around playing king, largely for the same reasons I am skeptical of juries to begin with. For every thoughtful dissenter, there are 1,000 dipshits, and worse, 10,000 Sledogs - biased simpletons who quixotically think they know what's best for society ... the purveyors of what's "normal". We're better off when we're all trying to do our best than giving everyone a reject button. That cuts all over the place and you have chaos, which is worse than an imperfect or even flawed system.
Curious. Why didn't Lincoln have jurisdiction over the southern states? Jurisdiction for what?
Beyond jurisdiction, I thought the Confederacy declared war on the Union. If that's the case, wasn't it Lincoln's jerb to prosecute that fight against the traitorous goons?
The last jury I was on I was foreman. 10 people said he’s guilty, let’s get this over with in 5 minutes and go home. Not so fast my friend. 2 days later we acquitted. Not quite as dramatic as 12 angry men, our guy actually did what he was accused of. The fact he was charged was bullshit.
I was the foreman on our jury as well. But our case was a civil suit and the applicable law was just and not controversial.
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?
Where did I say jury nullification should done “in general”?
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
Juries freak me out because the general intelligence level of "my peers" leaves much to be desired. 100% of the agreements I draft have a clause that stipulates that any dispute we have will be heard by a judge and waive jury.
Still, once we agree on what our institutions are, we have to honor them and give them a chance to work. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the slave argument, because I'm not the historian in this group, it seems that this consistent rejection of social structures in the name of libertarian philosophy can lead us down a slippery slope toward political nihilism, which is fun to kick around in the classroom but shitty to live with.
If you find yourself in a fundamentally unjust society, then all bets are off and you join some revolt to overthrow it. But until then, while you're in it, I am skeptical of the individual who goes around playing king, largely for the same reasons I am skeptical of juries to begin with. For every thoughtful dissenter, there are 1,000 dipshits, and worse, 10,000 Sledogs - biased simpletons who quixotically think they know what's best for society ... the purveyors of what's "normal". We're better off when we're all trying to do our best than giving everyone a reject button. That cuts all over the place and you have chaos, which is worse than an imperfect or even flawed system.
Curious. Why didn't Lincoln have jurisdiction over the southern states? Jurisdiction for what?
Beyond jurisdiction, I thought the Confederacy declared war on the Union. If that's the case, wasn't it Lincoln's jerb to prosecute that fight against the traitorous goons?
We have 1,000,000 to many creepy attorneys in this nation filling lawsuits to destroy it and everyone in it.
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
I've told the story before of the jury that ruled in favor of the doctor who diagnosed my Dad's appendicitis as bronchitis so I agree that calling a jury a crap shoot is giving them too much credit
One time in all my years we ended up in a huge administrative hearing on a construction claim. We were the sub on the Muckleshoot gym and center and there were issues that cause an almost complete floor failure. Sorry @Swaye
Anyway we all meet in the conference room and the GC presents their claim which included their need to buy an new Audi because the floor failed. I am not making this up . We present our side then the judge calls a break to mull it over. Our lawyer was watching porn on his lap top. He also told us the settlement was already reached and this was just a show. Insurance and bonding paid it off
Not sure what the point is other than if you are an aspiring half brain lawyer you should consider construction law because you can watch porn at work
I sure wish you'd told me that story when we first encountered one another. I still had tim to switch at that point. Thanks!
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
As I've explained to you before, I don't litigate. I know that from your arm chair watching re-runs you think all lawyers are either prosecutors or defense attorneys, or more charitably, you think they all try cases in court.
As if I needed moar evidence, your narrow view of the legal profession matches the narrow view you have of everything else. You've never been near the level of commerce necessary to understand the role of counsel, and so you don't know it exists.
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
As I've explained to you before, I don't litigate. I know that from your arm chair watching re-runs you think all lawyers are either prosecutors or defense attorneys, or more charitably, you think they all try cases in court.
As if I needed moar evidence, your narrow view of the legal profession matches the narrow view you have of everything else. You've never been near the level of commerce necessary to understand the role of counsel, and so you don't know it exists.
I asked my dad the lawyer once why he wasn't as cool as Judd for the Defense and why don't we live on the ocean with a neat convertible
He said, son, most criminals don't have any money when they get caught
Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?
Where did I say jury nullification should done “in general”?
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
Juries freak me out because the general intelligence level of "my peers" leaves much to be desired. 100% of the agreements I draft have a clause that stipulates that any dispute we have will be heard by a judge and waive jury.
Still, once we agree on what our institutions are, we have to honor them and give them a chance to work. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the slave argument, because I'm not the historian in this group, it seems that this consistent rejection of social structures in the name of libertarian philosophy can lead us down a slippery slope toward political nihilism, which is fun to kick around in the classroom but shitty to live with.
If you find yourself in a fundamentally unjust society, then all bets are off and you join some revolt to overthrow it. But until then, while you're in it, I am skeptical of the individual who goes around playing king, largely for the same reasons I am skeptical of juries to begin with. For every thoughtful dissenter, there are 1,000 dipshits, and worse, 10,000 Sledogs - biased simpletons who quixotically think they know what's best for society ... the purveyors of what's "normal". We're better off when we're all trying to do our best than giving everyone a reject button. That cuts all over the place and you have chaos, which is worse than an imperfect or even flawed system.
Curious. Why didn't Lincoln have jurisdiction over the southern states? Jurisdiction for what?
Beyond jurisdiction, I thought the Confederacy declared war on the Union. If that's the case, wasn't it Lincoln's jerb to prosecute that fight against the traitorous goons?
The last jury I was on I was foreman. 10 people said he’s guilty, let’s get this over with in 5 minutes and go home. Not so fast my friend. 2 days later we acquitted. Not quite as dramatic as 12 angry men, our guy actually did what he was accused of. The fact he was charged was bullshit.
Due process I assume? Good, you did the right thing. I don't see that as you undermining the process. I see it as you actually exercising mental discipline to do the right thing w/in the system even if you personally would have liked to do otherwise with Mr. Guilty.
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
As I've explained to you before, I don't litigate. I know that from your arm chair watching re-runs you think all lawyers are either prosecutors or defense attorneys, or more charitably, you think they all try cases in court.
As if I needed moar evidence, your narrow view of the legal profession matches the narrow view you have of everything else. You've never been near the level of commerce necessary to understand the role of counsel, and so you don't know it exists.
My view isn't narrow. I have lawyers in the family. 3 of them. I've known several. I normally deal with DA's and Fed's when I worked a major narcotics task force. Some good some bad. Local DA's were sometimes problematic as they never really wanted to have to take anything to trial. Creates certain problems on the LE end. Feds were generally ok. Some DA offices had strange practices in other counties. It was a problem with informants.
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
As I've explained to you before, I don't litigate. I know that from your arm chair watching re-runs you think all lawyers are either prosecutors or defense attorneys, or more charitably, you think they all try cases in court.
As if I needed moar evidence, your narrow view of the legal profession matches the narrow view you have of everything else. You've never been near the level of commerce necessary to understand the role of counsel, and so you don't know it exists.
My view isn't narrow. I have lawyers in the family. 3 of them. I've known several. I normally deal with DA's and Fed's when I worked a major narcotics task force. Some good some bad. Local DA's were sometimes problematic as they never really wanted to have to take anything to trial. Creates certain problems on the LE end. Feds were generally ok. Some DA offices had strange practices in other counties. It was a problem with informants.
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
As I've explained to you before, I don't litigate. I know that from your arm chair watching re-runs you think all lawyers are either prosecutors or defense attorneys, or more charitably, you think they all try cases in court.
As if I needed moar evidence, your narrow view of the legal profession matches the narrow view you have of everything else. You've never been near the level of commerce necessary to understand the role of counsel, and so you don't know it exists.
My view isn't narrow. I have lawyers in the family. 3 of them. I've known several. I normally deal with DA's and Fed's when I worked a major narcotics task force. Some good some bad. Local DA's were sometimes problematic as they never really wanted to have to take anything to trial. Creates certain problems on the LE end. Feds were generally ok. Some DA offices had strange practices in other counties. It was a problem with informants.
Of course defense attorneys were the funest.
Criminals representing themselves hilarious!
So, do you believe in the adversary system or don't you? Do you not think it's important for everybody to be defended in court against the state by competent counsel? And my competent, i don't mean what you, as a Cop, would like to see in a lawyer. I mean someone who can put the state to their mandate of meeting their burden proof.
You have me all wrong. I have no problem with anyone being a Cop. We need the police. My problem is with a Cop who thinks all we need is Cops and who don't understand or care about the larger system of which they are only a part.
You can be a Cop and have the mental agility necessary to understand why the system, flawed as it may be like everything else, needs to work the way it works, and why even guilty ass people should have competent counsel who zealously represents their interest. Cops who can't comprehend that are what I have a problem with.
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
As I've explained to you before, I don't litigate. I know that from your arm chair watching re-runs you think all lawyers are either prosecutors or defense attorneys, or more charitably, you think they all try cases in court.
As if I needed moar evidence, your narrow view of the legal profession matches the narrow view you have of everything else. You've never been near the level of commerce necessary to understand the role of counsel, and so you don't know it exists.
My view isn't narrow. I have lawyers in the family. 3 of them. I've known several. I normally deal with DA's and Fed's when I worked a major narcotics task force. Some good some bad. Local DA's were sometimes problematic as they never really wanted to have to take anything to trial. Creates certain problems on the LE end. Feds were generally ok. Some DA offices had strange practices in other counties. It was a problem with informants.
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
As I've explained to you before, I don't litigate. I know that from your arm chair watching re-runs you think all lawyers are either prosecutors or defense attorneys, or more charitably, you think they all try cases in court.
As if I needed moar evidence, your narrow view of the legal profession matches the narrow view you have of everything else. You've never been near the level of commerce necessary to understand the role of counsel, and so you don't know it exists.
My view isn't narrow. I have lawyers in the family. 3 of them. I've known several. I normally deal with DA's and Fed's when I worked a major narcotics task force. Some good some bad. Local DA's were sometimes problematic as they never really wanted to have to take anything to trial. Creates certain problems on the LE end. Feds were generally ok. Some DA offices had strange practices in other counties. It was a problem with informants.
Of course defense attorneys were the funest.
Criminals representing themselves hilarious!
So, do you believe in the adversary system or don't you? Do you not think it's important for everybody to be defended in court against the state by competent counsel? And my competent, i don't mean what you, as a Cop, would like to see in a lawyer. I mean someone who can put the state to their mandate of meeting their burden proof.
You have me all wrong. I have no problem with anyone being a Cop. We need the police. My problem is with a Cop who thinks all we need is Cops and who don't understand or care about the larger system of which they are only a part.
You can be a Cop and have the mental agility necessary to understand why the system, flawed as it may be like everything else, needs to work the way it works, and why even guilty ass people should have competent counsel who zealously represents their interest. Cops who can't comprehend that are what I have a problem with.
The system is kind of screwed up but I always back the system. Our current love affair with civil litigation is our of control.
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
As I've explained to you before, I don't litigate. I know that from your arm chair watching re-runs you think all lawyers are either prosecutors or defense attorneys, or more charitably, you think they all try cases in court.
As if I needed moar evidence, your narrow view of the legal profession matches the narrow view you have of everything else. You've never been near the level of commerce necessary to understand the role of counsel, and so you don't know it exists.
My view isn't narrow. I have lawyers in the family. 3 of them. I've known several. I normally deal with DA's and Fed's when I worked a major narcotics task force. Some good some bad. Local DA's were sometimes problematic as they never really wanted to have to take anything to trial. Creates certain problems on the LE end. Feds were generally ok. Some DA offices had strange practices in other counties. It was a problem with informants.
Of course defense attorneys were the funest.
Criminals representing themselves hilarious!
So, do you believe in the adversary system or don't you? Do you not think it's important for everybody to be defended in court against the state by competent counsel? And my competent, i don't mean what you, as a Cop, would like to see in a lawyer. I mean someone who can put the state to their mandate of meeting their burden proof.
You have me all wrong. I have no problem with anyone being a Cop. We need the police. My problem is with a Cop who thinks all we need is Cops and who don't understand or care about the larger system of which they are only a part.
You can be a Cop and have the mental agility necessary to understand why the system, flawed as it may be like everything else, needs to work the way it works, and why even guilty ass people should have competent counsel who zealously represents their interest. Cops who can't comprehend that are what I have a problem with.
The system is kind of screwed up but I always back the system. Our current love affair with civil litigation is our of control.
I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.
Gee I wonder why.
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?
As I've explained to you before, I don't litigate. I know that from your arm chair watching re-runs you think all lawyers are either prosecutors or defense attorneys, or more charitably, you think they all try cases in court.
As if I needed moar evidence, your narrow view of the legal profession matches the narrow view you have of everything else. You've never been near the level of commerce necessary to understand the role of counsel, and so you don't know it exists.
My view isn't narrow. I have lawyers in the family. 3 of them. I've known several. I normally deal with DA's and Fed's when I worked a major narcotics task force. Some good some bad. Local DA's were sometimes problematic as they never really wanted to have to take anything to trial. Creates certain problems on the LE end. Feds were generally ok. Some DA offices had strange practices in other counties. It was a problem with informants.
Of course defense attorneys were the funest.
Criminals representing themselves hilarious!
So, do you believe in the adversary system or don't you? Do you not think it's important for everybody to be defended in court against the state by competent counsel? And my competent, i don't mean what you, as a Cop, would like to see in a lawyer. I mean someone who can put the state to their mandate of meeting their burden proof.
You have me all wrong. I have no problem with anyone being a Cop. We need the police. My problem is with a Cop who thinks all we need is Cops and who don't understand or care about the larger system of which they are only a part.
You can be a Cop and have the mental agility necessary to understand why the system, flawed as it may be like everything else, needs to work the way it works, and why even guilty ass people should have competent counsel who zealously represents their interest. Cops who can't comprehend that are what I have a problem with.
The system is kind of screwed up but I always back the system. Our current love affair with civil litigation is our of control.
Well, then we ended this on a good note.
I'm easy. This is the Tug. Some seem confused on that poont.
Comments
Juries freak me out because the general intelligence level of "my peers" leaves much to be desired. 100% of the agreements I draft have a clause that stipulates that any dispute we have will be heard by a judge and waive jury.
Still, once we agree on what our institutions are, we have to honor them and give them a chance to work. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the slave argument, because I'm not the historian in this group, it seems that this consistent rejection of social structures in the name of libertarian philosophy can lead us down a slippery slope toward political nihilism, which is fun to kick around in the classroom but shitty to live with.
If you find yourself in a fundamentally unjust society, then all bets are off and you join some revolt to overthrow it. But until then, while you're in it, I am skeptical of the individual who goes around playing king, largely for the same reasons I am skeptical of juries to begin with. For every thoughtful dissenter, there are 1,000 dipshits, and worse, 10,000 Sledogs - biased simpletons who quixotically think they know what's best for society ... the purveyors of what's "normal". We're better off when we're all trying to do our best than giving everyone a reject button. That cuts all over the place and you have chaos, which is worse than an imperfect or even flawed system.
Curious. Why didn't Lincoln have jurisdiction over the southern states? Jurisdiction for what?
Beyond jurisdiction, I thought the Confederacy declared war on the Union. If that's the case, wasn't it Lincoln's jerb to prosecute that fight against the traitorous goons?
One time in all my years we ended up in a huge administrative hearing on a construction claim. We were the sub on the Muckleshoot gym and center and there were issues that cause an almost complete floor failure. Sorry @Swaye
Anyway we all meet in the conference room and the GC presents their claim which included their need to buy an new Audi because the floor failed. I am not making this up . We present our side then the judge calls a break to mull it over. Our lawyer was watching porn on his lap top. He also told us the settlement was already reached and this was just a show. Insurance and bonding paid it off
Not sure what the point is other than if you are an aspiring half brain lawyer you should consider construction law because you can watch porn at work
The Constitution was silent on succession, which is why some think Lincoln and the North had no right to compel the South to stay in the Union by force.
As if I needed moar evidence, your narrow view of the legal profession matches the narrow view you have of everything else. You've never been near the level of commerce necessary to understand the role of counsel, and so you don't know it exists.
He said, son, most criminals don't have any money when they get caught
Of course defense attorneys were the funest.
Criminals representing themselves hilarious!
You have me all wrong. I have no problem with anyone being a Cop. We need the police. My problem is with a Cop who thinks all we need is Cops and who don't understand or care about the larger system of which they are only a part.
You can be a Cop and have the mental agility necessary to understand why the system, flawed as it may be like everything else, needs to work the way it works, and why even guilty ass people should have competent counsel who zealously represents their interest. Cops who can't comprehend that are what I have a problem with.