Languish.org

SF has this awful jury duty system where they tell you that you might have to come in one week.  Everyday at 4:30 you can look online to see whether or not you will have to come in the next day. The past few days I've been holding my breath as the webpage loads and then sighing in relief when not picked.  Today, I just got the notice that I need to report at 8:45am tomorrow. :(

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2FRandom%2520forum%2520crap%2Fsimpsons_nelson_haha2-1.jpg&hash=13b6bc53ac7fa3200bafdee30b1d5fa5b158da79)

I enjoyed jury duty.  I got to argue with bleeding heart fruits, shout them down, and put a drunk nigger in prison.  :)

I enjoyed my jury duty.  Both lawyers sounded like bad high school debaters.

Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 06:40:07 PM
SF has this awful jury duty system where they tell you that you might have to come in one week.  Everyday at 4:30 you can look online to see whether or not you will have to come in the next day. The past few days I've been holding my breath as the webpage loads and then sighing in relief when not picked.  Today, I just got the notice that I need to report at 8:45am tomorrow. :(

:w00t:

Remember - the prosecution is always right. 

Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2009, 06:53:39 PM
I enjoyed jury duty.  I got to argue with bleeding heart fruits, shout them down, and put a drunk nigger in prison.  :)

:huh: Fireblade?

Quote from: Habbaku on June 16, 2009, 07:07:22 PM
:huh: Fireblade?

I don't think Fireblade would argue with bleeding heart fruits.

I'd like to be summoned for jury duty.

So would I... :shifty:

I would undoubtedly be rejected as a juror.

I'm going to claim financial hardship. My company only pays for 5 days.

There's always the time-tested approach of storming into the jury selection room and demanding to know whether a nigger, a chink, a pollack, or a guinea (or a fag, if you're feeling ironic, G ;) ) set you up for duty. :D

Quote from: Habbaku on June 16, 2009, 07:07:22 PM

Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2009, 06:53:39 PM
I enjoyed jury duty.  I got to argue with bleeding heart fruits, shout them down, and put a drunk nigger in prison.  :)

:huh: Fireblade?

Nah, in this case it was some HOTT Irish nurse who immediately started with the whole "black people are oppressed" bullshit at the beginning of deliberations.  I'm like "I'm pretty sure oppression doesn't make Jamaicans drive the wrong way down a one way street, hit parked cars, and fail field sobriety tests."  She seemed annoyed.  Then she gave me a ride home and got even more annoyed when I asked her to tell me tales of St. Brendan the Navigator.  :blush:

I always get the summons, and then they realize that they never want me.  Not sure if I should feel so rejected, but dammit I get stood up each time.

Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2009, 07:31:24 PMNah, in this case it was some HOTT Irish nurse who immediately started with the whole "black people are oppressed" bullshit at the beginning of deliberations.  I'm like "I'm pretty sure oppression doesn't make Jamaicans drive the wrong way down a one way street, hit parked cars, and fail field sobriety tests."  She seemed annoyed.  Then she gave me a ride home and got even more annoyed when I asked her to tell me tales of St. Brendan the Navigator.  :blush:

Yeah, I think you missed that I was talking about your gratuitous use of the racial epithet.

I believe that I use it sparingly enough.  :)

Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2009, 08:03:35 PM
I believe that I use it sparingly enough.  :)

I don't.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 16, 2009, 08:05:51 PMI don't.

I'm in charge and what I say goes.  :cool:

This is for you: http://captainoftheussinevitable.ytmnd.com/ (http://captainoftheussinevitable.ytmnd.com/)

Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2009, 08:10:48 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 16, 2009, 08:05:51 PMI don't.

I'm in charge and what I say goes.  :cool:

This is for you: http://captainoftheussinevitable.ytmnd.com/ (http://captainoftheussinevitable.ytmnd.com/)

Except I'm in charge, and I don't like blacks.

Can't you fight it? 

Quote from: Monoriu on June 16, 2009, 08:43:57 PM
Can't you fight it?

Fight what jury duty or racial epithets?

Quote from: sbr on June 16, 2009, 09:03:20 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 16, 2009, 08:43:57 PM
Can't you fight it?

Fight what jury duty or racial epithets?

Make up excuses on why he can't do jury duty.  Religion, race, can't speak English etc.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 16, 2009, 09:27:59 PM
Make up excuses on why he can't do jury duty.  Religion, race, can't speak English etc.

Hi, I can't serve jury duty as I'm black. :lol:

Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 10:08:19 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 16, 2009, 09:27:59 PM
Make up excuses on why he can't do jury duty.  Religion, race, can't speak English etc.

Hi, I can't serve jury duty as I'm black. :lol:

In Hong Kong, someone who works in the medical field is exempted.  Can you claim the same?

Or can you claim that you are illiterate (a long shot for a Stanford graduate, I know)

What about the religion angle?  Say you believe in some obscure religion that forbids jury duty?

What about some disease that can't be proven?  Say you have severe back pain or headache or something.  Doing jury duty will harm your health, or something.

What about you have to attend so-and-so's wedding/funeral on [insert date of trial]?

Quote from: Monoriu on June 16, 2009, 10:15:04 PM
In Hong Kong, someone who works in the medical field is exempted.  Can you claim the same?

Or can you claim that you are illiterate (a long shot for a Stanford graduate, I know)

What about the religion angle?  Say you believe in some obscure religion that forbids jury duty?

Like I said, I think my best angle is that being picked would be an undue financial hardship.  As my employer won't pay, I wouldn't be able to afford my apartment/car/food on the $15/day stipend they hand out.

Oh and the brochure they gave me said that you can't asked to be excused on the basis of any identity thing like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Additionally it said that you don't really need to have a great grasp of English to be a juror.

I love you, Mono.   :lol:

Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 10:20:57 PM
you don't really need to have a great grasp of English to be a juror.

:lol:

Quote from: HVC on June 16, 2009, 10:24:56 PM
:lol:

I suppose I was a bit liberal. It says that you need to understand common, everyday English but that you do not need to be fluent at speaking English.

Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 10:20:57 PM
Oh and the brochure they gave me said that you can't asked to be excused on the basis of any identity thing like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Additionally it said that you don't really need to have a great grasp of English to be a juror.

What about comments like "we should try them before we hang them" or "the US judicial system is run by international megacorporations?"

Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 06:40:07 PM
SF has this awful jury duty system where they tell you that you might have to come in one week.  Everyday at 4:30 you can look online to see whether or not you will have to come in the next day. The past few days I've been holding my breath as the webpage loads and then sighing in relief when not picked.  Today, I just got the notice that I need to report at 8:45am tomorrow. :(

You know what to do.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelifefiles.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Fjury.jpg&hash=6ffa2d71550de230a95ceecec28571f6ca85412b)

And don't forget to claim you're heavily prejudiced against all straight people.

Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 06:40:07 PM
SF has this awful jury duty system where they tell you that you might have to come in one week.  Everyday at 4:30 you can look online to see whether or not you will have to come in the next day.

Maybe a stupid question, but what does someone without internet have to do to know if they are picked?

Quote from: BVN on June 17, 2009, 06:52:01 AM
Maybe a stupid question, but what does someone without internet have to do to know if they are picked?

There is a phone number that they can call that has a recording.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 16, 2009, 10:16:28 PM
What about some disease that can't be proven?  Say you have severe back pain or headache or something.  Doing jury duty will harm your health, or something.

What about you have to attend so-and-so's wedding/funeral on [insert date of trial]?

I don't think lying in a court is a particularly prudent thing to do.

Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2009, 10:01:53 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 16, 2009, 10:16:28 PM
What about some disease that can't be proven?  Say you have severe back pain or headache or something.  Doing jury duty will harm your health, or something.

What about you have to attend so-and-so's wedding/funeral on [insert date of trial]?

I don't think lying in a court is a particularly prudent thing to do.

So you suggest that he should go down without a fight?

Quote from: Monoriu on June 17, 2009, 10:10:20 AMSo you suggest that he should go down without a fight?

Personally, I suggest keeping one's integrity and dignity, and neither lie outright nor fake some kind of lack of capacity.  If you're picked, then so be it.

I'm sitting a room, doing work and posting on Languish. It feels like being at work but not being at work...

Jury video: One juror's statement on being a juror - I was scared, I didn't know what to do. I brought a book, so...it wasn't that bad.

:lol:

I have to go back in tomorrow. :weep:

I was proud to serve my country in that capacity.  SHAME ON YOU GARBON  :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foscarsfever.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Fmm1.jpg&hash=c5b9d420c01d126b5cad8ea7961a6cf1abee8d34)

I wouldn't mind if I was getting paid...and it wasn't the end of the quarter (meaning that any work I don't get done during the day must get done at night).

I got paid $10 a day.  :lol:

Oh I meant if my company was paying me.  I don't count the stipend as actual pay as I can't live on that. :P

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2009, 07:08:21 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on June 16, 2009, 07:07:22 PM
:huh: Fireblade?

I don't think Fireblade would argue with bleeding heart fruits.

Look, I might be liberal as hell, but I'm always up for sending a nigger to prison.

I had jury duty in July. I never got picked. I suspect it was because I had a college degree.  :lol:

Quote from: Fireblade on September 14, 2009, 11:33:10 PM
Look, I might be liberal as hell, but I'm always up for sending a nigger to prison.

You're welcome. :smoke:

I always get disqualified for juries because my stepfather works for the DA. I want to put niggers in prison too!  :(

Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 10:20:57 PM
Oh and the brochure they gave me said that you can't asked to be excused on the basis of any identity thing like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Additionally it said that you don't really need to have a great grasp of English to be a juror.

I think that is incorrect as far as religion goes. The church I was raised in forbids jury duty and I would have heard if it couldn't be excused in California or anywhere else in North America

Quote from: Maximus on September 15, 2009, 08:03:37 AM
The church I was raised in forbids jury duty

Only God may judge. :yes: :)

Quote from: Maximus on September 15, 2009, 08:03:37 AM
The church I was raised in forbids jury duty

This communist anti-justice religion must be bloodily purged from our shores!

Quote from: Caliga on September 15, 2009, 08:16:02 AM
Only God may judge. :yes: :)

Trial by ordeal! :w00t:

I got a registration notice the other day. Ticked the "lawyer" box and sent it back.  :D

Why shouldn't a lawyer serve on a jury?  That whole pesky "knowledge of the law" thing?  :huh:

Quote from: Caliga on September 15, 2009, 08:26:14 AM
Why shouldn't a lawyer serve on a jury?  That whole pesky "knowledge of the law" thing?  :huh:

I think the fear is that other members of the jury would be unduly influenced by the professional.

Having served on a jury I can tell you that anyone with a brain can 'unduly influence' the other members.  :cool:

Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2009, 08:17:54 AM

Quote from: Maximus on September 15, 2009, 08:03:37 AM
The church I was raised in forbids jury duty

This communist anti-justice religion must be bloodily purged from our shores!

Why would you equate justice with any process that involves a jury?

Quote from: Neil on September 15, 2009, 08:36:38 AM
Why would you equate justice with any process that involves a jury?

If it was good enough for my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great Saxon Grandfather it should be good enough for Max's religion :angry:

I for one am glad for living in an oppressive totalitarian state where we have no juries, and court rulings are handed down from on high by unelected wisemen.  :cool:

Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2009, 08:44:23 AM
I for one am glad for living in an oppressive totalitarian state where we have no juries, and court rulings are handed down from on high by unelected wisemen.  :cool:

Hans is now frothing in fury at your unelected god-emperors.

Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2009, 08:48:15 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2009, 08:44:23 AM
I for one am glad for living in an oppressive totalitarian state where we have no juries, and court rulings are handed down from on high by unelected wisemen.  :cool:

Hans is now frothing in fury at your unelected god-emperors.

It's actually a copy of the German model, so Hans should be happy with it.

Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2009, 08:49:44 AM
It's actually a copy of the German model, so Hans should be happy with it.

Oh I see.  It is not unelected God-Emperorness when Germans do it.

Quote from: Malthus on September 15, 2009, 08:32:06 AM

Quote from: Caliga on September 15, 2009, 08:26:14 AM
Why shouldn't a lawyer serve on a jury?  That whole pesky "knowledge of the law" thing?  :huh:

I think the fear is that other members of the jury would be unduly influenced by the professional.

The rule no longer exists in the US (or at least in the federal juries).

the thinking is that lawyers are so poorly regarded now that they aren't at risk of influencing anyone.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
The rule no longer exists in the US (or at least in the federal juries).

the thinking is that lawyers are so poorly regarded now that they aren't at risk of influencing anyone.

Isn't there a danger of a lawyer being too knowledgeable for his own good?  If I were on a jury in a suit involving car crash in New York, the possibility of fraud and crooked chiropractors would weigh strongly on my mind, and I would likely mention that in the deliberations.  I don't think it should be on my mind, unless one side make an argument to that effect in court, but how can I help myself given what I know from my field?  I imagine lawyers would be in a similar kind of position.  Then again, maybe that's exactly what voir dire is for.

Quote from: Malthus on September 15, 2009, 08:32:06 AM

Quote from: Caliga on September 15, 2009, 08:26:14 AM
Why shouldn't a lawyer serve on a jury?  That whole pesky "knowledge of the law" thing?  :huh:

I think the fear is that other members of the jury would be unduly influenced by the professional.

Maybe it's also that a lawyer knows the law, the ins and outs, the technicalitys so may be influenced, or know the legal gambits, of what he/she knows goes on with a court's proceedings?

Perhaps there is a fear of possible jury nullification if a laywer were present. :mellow:

Oh, I get to go back at the end of november. Apparently you only get excused on financial hardship if you have no paid days left. :mellow:

My six months of being in the jury pool ended on the 14th.  Once again the City of Laramie failed me and I did not get to condemn anyone to death.

Quote from: Maximus on September 15, 2009, 08:03:37 AM
I think that is incorrect as far as religion goes. The church I was raised in forbids jury duty and I would have heard if it couldn't be excused in California or anywhere else in North America

The church you were raised in forbids voting, thereby alleviating any chance of someone from the church being asked to be on a jury.

Lawyers are excused from juries because JDs wrote the rules on jury selection.

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 06:21:31 PM

Quote from: Maximus on September 15, 2009, 08:03:37 AM
I think that is incorrect as far as religion goes. The church I was raised in forbids jury duty and I would have heard if it couldn't be excused in California or anywhere else in North America

The church you were raised in forbids voting, thereby alleviating any chance of someone from the church being asked to be on a jury.

Untrue.  The jury rolls also pull driver's licenses and the like, at least in Georgia; registering to vote does not improve your jury chances.

Quote from: ulmont on September 15, 2009, 06:26:06 PM

Untrue.  The jury rolls also pull driver's licenses and the like, at least in Georgia; registering to vote does not improve your jury chances.

That seems odd since you have to be an American citizen to serve on a jury and lots of immigrants have drivers' licenses. My understanding was that's why they use voter registration to pick from for jury duty.  :unsure:

Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2009, 08:44:23 AM
I for one am glad for living in an oppressive totalitarian state where we have no juries, and court rulings are handed down from on high by unelected wisemen.  :cool:

They are insufficiently Anglo-Saxon to be gods.

I am glad Martinus lives far, far away too.

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 06:30:39 PM
That seems odd since you have to be an American citizen to serve on a jury and lots of immigrants have drivers' licenses. My understanding was that's why they use voter registration to pick from for jury duty.  :unsure:

Massachusetts pulls licenses.

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 06:21:31 PM
The church you were raised in forbids voting, thereby alleviating any chance of someone from the church being asked to be on a jury.

That may solve their problem in the US, but I know of people who have been called up in Canada. They required evidence that this was really their religion and not something made up to get out of jury duty: character witnesses, religious literature, quizzing on their beliefs, etc.

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 06:30:39 PM

Quote from: ulmont on September 15, 2009, 06:26:06 PM

Untrue.  The jury rolls also pull driver's licenses and the like, at least in Georgia; registering to vote does not improve your jury chances.

That seems odd since you have to be an American citizen to serve on a jury and lots of immigrants have drivers' licenses.

Non-citizens can get called, but can exempt out for the obvious reason.

Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2009, 06:57:24 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 06:30:39 PM
That seems odd since you have to be an American citizen to serve on a jury and lots of immigrants have drivers' licenses. My understanding was that's why they use voter registration to pick from for jury duty.  :unsure:

Massachusetts pulls licenses.

As does Michigan and Georgia (at a minimum).

Quote from: ulmont on September 15, 2009, 07:13:47 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2009, 06:57:24 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 06:30:39 PM
That seems odd since you have to be an American citizen to serve on a jury and lots of immigrants have drivers' licenses. My understanding was that's why they use voter registration to pick from for jury duty.  :unsure:

Massachusetts pulls licenses.

As does Michigan and Georgia (at a minimum).

Here's what California says:
Jurors are summoned randomly from countywide lists maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles and the local registrar of voters.

Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2009, 07:17:23 PM

Here's what California says:
Jurors are summoned randomly from countywide lists maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles and the local registrar of voters.

Must just be a Midwest thing, then. In Iowa and Illinois, they pull them from the voter registration lists.

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 10:37:08 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2009, 07:17:23 PM

Here's what California says:
Jurors are summoned randomly from countywide lists maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles and the local registrar of voters.

Must just be a Midwest thing, then. In Iowa and Illinois, they pull them from the voter registration lists.

A quarter of your population isn't illegal aliens.

Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 10:37:08 PMMust just be a Midwest thing, then. In Iowa and Illinois, they pull them from the voter registration lists.

I haven't been called for jury duty here yet, but that could be because I live in a county with virtually no crime. :cool:

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 16, 2009, 07:16:10 PM
There's always the time-tested approach of storming into the jury selection room and demanding to know whether a nigger, a chink, a pollack, or a guinea (or a fag, if you're feeling ironic, G ;) ) set you up for duty. :D

Whats a Guinea? :unsure:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbioweb.uwlax.edu%2Fbio203%2Fs2008%2Fnickel_sara%2Fguinea-pig.jpg&hash=e9d612f1d3e415669a191c517fd8921195f0d97d)

guinea = Italian.

If I ever get called my strategy is to be overly optimistic & keep telling everyone that I can that I hope that they pick me. That I am really impartial, I never the watch news or listen to the radio and that everyone is guilty.

Hopefully the defense will kick me out.

It's funny in that people always talk about what they'll do if they get questioned as part of voir dire, etc.

I never even had this opportunity.  When I served on a jury, in the selection process they gave me a one-page questionnaire asking general questions (age, occupation, criminal record, etc.) and then they asked us if we knew either the defendant or any of the withnesses.  They pulled one or two people aside to ask further questions in some other room, but I was never questioned individually and was quickly impaneled.

I wouldn't have pulled some shit like "hey I'm racist so I can't be impartial", but I almost wished they'd questioned people along those lines.  Once the case went to the jury, this crazy Irish bitch immediately started rambling about police brutality and racism, even though there was no evidence that had gone on and the defense didn't even insinuate it (NB: the defendant was a Jamaican and the arresting cop was a white townie).

Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 07:09:27 AM
guinea = Italian.

I...see....
Never heard that one, thought they were just wops.


My angle...hmm....I'm an anarchist and so I don't believe in prison hence he is innocent from the very moment I walk in.

Quote from: Tyr on September 16, 2009, 07:24:20 AM
My angle...hmm....I'm an anarchist and so I don't believe in prison hence he is innocent from the very moment I walk in.

I'm not sure if using that obviously BS line would work.

I'm really not sure why everyone is so eager to avoid jury duty.  :huh:  I was proud to have done my civic duty, and at least under US law you can't be fired or anything for missing work while serving, though employers can opt to not pay you.

I enjoyed the actual jury duty, but the aimless sitting around while other people are getting their shit together drove me nuts.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 07:31:54 AM
I enjoyed the actual jury duty, but the aimless sitting around while other people are getting their shit together drove me nuts.

That did suck, but ten years later I can now amuse myself with my Blackberry.  :cool:

Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 07:29:34 AM

Quote from: Tyr on September 16, 2009, 07:24:20 AM
My angle...hmm....I'm an anarchist and so I don't believe in prison hence he is innocent from the very moment I walk in.

I'm not sure if using that obviously BS line would work.

I'm really not sure why everyone is so eager to avoid jury duty.  :huh:  I was proud to have done my civic duty, and at least under US law you can't be fired or anything for missing work while serving, though employers can opt to not pay you.

me personally? I'd rather not sit in hard wooden chairs and be around lawyers.

Yeah, but my trial lasted three days and they bought me lunch all three.  :cool:

I'm exempt since I'm in a state education program with strict attendance requirements. :contract:

Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 07:29:34 AM
I'm really not sure why everyone is so eager to avoid jury duty.  :huh:  I was proud to have done my civic duty, and at least under US law you can't be fired or anything for missing work while serving, though employers can opt to not pay you.

I don't think dipping into my savings is my civic duty.

Someone at my work just got picked for grand jury. He has to go in once a week for 13 months. :o

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2009, 10:42:40 AM
Someone at my work just got picked for grand jury. He has to go in once a week for 13 months. :o

Huh I only had to go in once a month for six months.

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2009, 10:42:14 AM
I don't think dipping into my savings is my civic duty.

Well, to be fair, the Founding Fathers only wanted rich people to be involved in government.  :)

Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 10:47:05 AM
Well, to be fair, the Founding Fathers only wanted rich people to be involved in government.  :)

"Fortunately there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy"

"Perhaps not. But don't forget that most men without property would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor.  That is why they will follow us!"

Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2009, 06:31:14 AM
A quarter of your population isn't illegal aliens.

Nowhere in the states is it that bad, but Illinois is near the top per capita.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm_percap-number-illegal-immigrants-per-capita (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm_percap-number-illegal-immigrants-per-capita)

Here's an article about the case I almost got selected for on Monday (I had to sit through voir dire till almost noon):

QuoteJury reduces robbery charge

By Robin Bass

A Spencer County jury reduced second degree robbery charges for a Mt. Washington man that used a hand-written note to get money from a Country Mart gas station employee last September.

Curtis A. Blandford, 20, was found guilty of theft by unlawful taking of over $500 Monday in Spencer County Circuit Court.

The jury recommended that Blandford be sentenced to one and a half years in jail.

Judge Charles Hickman set Blandford's sentencing date as May 6.

Blandford was video taped entering the gas station Sept. 27 and passing a note the clerk. On the slip of paper read, "This is a stick up. Give me all of you money or (expletive) happens. The note appeared to have been scribbled on a church bulletin or other religious document, because printed under Blandford's message was a scripture verse.

The story made headlines last year, in part, because County High School teacher Jacob Barmore followed the suspect for several miles before blocking Blandford's Jeep Cherokee from exiting a dead end street near Tanglewood Golf Course.

With no cell phone to call the authorities, Barmore convinced the suspect to get in his vehicle and drove the suspect to On the Way Cafe, a nearby restaurant.

Taylorsville Police cautioned residents from engaging potential suspects, instead citizens are encouraged to get a suspect's license plate number, description of the car and report the suspect's whereabouts to law enforcement.

Once in police custody, $982 and several snacks taken from the convenient store were recovered.

Blandford reportedly told police in September that he was unemployed and recently "had a falling out" with family members.

Second degree robbery is a felony charge that involves making threats, not the use of deadly weapons. This offense carries the penalty of five to 10 years in prison.

Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2009, 10:49:35 AM

Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 10:47:05 AM
Well, to be fair, the Founding Fathers only wanted rich people to be involved in government.  :)

"Fortunately there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy"

"Perhaps not. But don't forget that most men without property would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor.  That is why they will follow us!"

Who said this?

Adams & Dickinson. Atleast they did in the movie 1776.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!111111111111oneoneeleveneleveneleven
:ultra:

Quote from: Caliga on April 26, 2010, 05:01:26 PM
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!111111111111oneoneeleveneleveneleven
:ultra:

Lemmie guess - chosen for a panel?

Yes, and this is not a one day deal either.  Gonna be a week or more.

Quote from: Caliga on April 26, 2010, 05:33:15 PM
Yes, and this is not a one day deal either.  Gonna be a week or more.

I'll give you a hint that will make things go much easier - only listen to what the prosecuting attorney has to say.   :)

Ex parte! :ultra:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2010, 05:35:58 PM
Ex parte! :ultra:

Those are the best trials to run.   :cool:

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2010, 05:34:07 PM
I'll give you a hint that will make things go much easier - only listen to what the prosecuting attorney has to say.   :)

This is a civil case.  Which makes Cal sad, since I do not get to bring down the HAMMER OF JUSTICE on anyone. :(

Quote from: Caliga on April 26, 2010, 05:38:13 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2010, 05:34:07 PM
I'll give you a hint that will make things go much easier - only listen to what the prosecuting attorney has to say.   :)

This is a civil case.  Which makes Cal sad, since I do not get to bring down the HAMMER OF JUSTICE on anyone. :(

Oh yuck.   :bleeding:

Well, in that case, remember that insuance companies are people too.

I am permitted to say nothing further at this time, sir. :)

Quote from: Caliga on April 26, 2010, 05:44:36 PM
I am permitted to say nothing further at this time, sir. :)

You don't have to say anything - just listen.  :contract:

There is no such thing as fibromyalgia.
Chiropractors can't diagnose anything.
"Chronic pain syndrome" is a myth.
Never give an award just because one side has "deep pockets".
When a judge gives you instructions - LISTEN.

Of course if you could at least tell us what kind of case it is I could give you more specific instructions...

60% of what you have said is, as Seven of Nine would say, irrelevant. :)

Quote from: Caliga on April 26, 2010, 05:50:00 PM
60% of what you have said is, as Seven of Nine would say, irrelevant. :)

So not a MVA then...  Hmm...

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2010, 05:48:38 PM
There is no such thing as fibromyalgia.

:hmm:  Really, Dr. Boy?

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 26, 2010, 06:45:32 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2010, 05:48:38 PM
There is no such thing as fibromyalgia.

:hmm:  Really, Dr. Boy?

Really.  :smarty:

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 26, 2010, 06:45:32 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2010, 05:48:38 PM
There is no such thing as fibromyalgia.

:hmm:  Really, Dr. Boy?

Beeb also thinks that if you're brought before a judge you're guilty of a crime, so take any statements with a grain of salt.

Quote from: Habbaku on April 26, 2010, 08:39:17 PM
Beeb also thinks that if you're brought before a judge you're guilty of a crime, so take any statements with a grain of salt.

Apparently if you think that way during jury selection, the defense lawyer will dismiss you.

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 08:46:16 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on April 26, 2010, 08:39:17 PM
Beeb also thinks that if you're brought before a judge you're guilty of a crime, so take any statements with a grain of salt.

Apparently if you think that way during jury selection, the defense lawyer will dismiss you.

Excellent.  So all I need to do is to make similar statements to get out of it  :showoff:

IMO, making deliberately stupid statement to get out of a jury is very unethical.  There are fellow citizens out there whose fate lies in the hands of the jury, and all potential jurors should take their obligations seriously.

Thankfully (or not...?), I do legitimately dislike police.

Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2010, 09:02:30 PM
IMO, making deliberately stupid statement to get out of a jury is very unethical.  There are fellow citizens out there whose fate lies in the hands of the jury, and all potential jurors should take their obligations seriously.

Oh yeah, and making me work 2 full time jobs, i.e. jury duty and my original job, is very ethical  :yucky:

Quote from: Monoriu on April 26, 2010, 09:08:53 PM
Oh yeah, and making me work 2 full time jobs, i.e. jury duty and my original job, is very ethical  :yucky:

Yeah because you would be the only person to have ever been so inconvenienced. :rolleyes:

Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2010, 09:02:30 PM
IMO, making deliberately stupid statement to get out of a jury is very unethical.  There are fellow citizens out there whose fate lies in the hands of the jury, and all potential jurors should take their obligations seriously.

IMO, having juries is very unethical.  A society saying that justice isn't important enough to be trusted to professionals isn't worth saving.  And because my opinions carry the force of truth, that is the Order of Things.

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 09:15:00 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on April 26, 2010, 09:08:53 PM
Oh yeah, and making me work 2 full time jobs, i.e. jury duty and my original job, is very ethical  :yucky:

Yeah because you would be the only person to have ever been so inconvenienced. :rolleyes:

Inconvenienced?  More like throwing me into living hell.  I've seen people who go to the courts from 9-5, then get back to the office from 5-1.  Day after day. 

Quote from: Monoriu on April 26, 2010, 09:40:30 PM
Inconvenienced?  More like throwing me into living hell.  I've seen people who go to the courts from 9-5, then get back to the office from 5-1.  Day after day.

Why hasn't the PRC taken your juries away yet?

Quote from: Monoriu on April 26, 2010, 09:40:30 PM
Inconvenienced?  More like throwing me into living hell.  I've seen people who go to the courts from 9-5, then get back to the office from 5-1.  Day after day. 

What's your point? If I'd been selected for jury duty, I would have been expected to still get my work done.

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 09:48:46 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on April 26, 2010, 09:40:30 PM
Inconvenienced?  More like throwing me into living hell.  I've seen people who go to the courts from 9-5, then get back to the office from 5-1.  Day after day. 

What's your point? If I'd been selected for jury duty, I would have been expected to still get my work done.

The point is I won't go down without a fight - I'll do everything within legal limits so that I don't have to be a juror :contract:

Quote from: Monoriu on April 26, 2010, 09:51:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 09:48:46 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on April 26, 2010, 09:40:30 PM
Inconvenienced?  More like throwing me into living hell.  I've seen people who go to the courts from 9-5, then get back to the office from 5-1.  Day after day. 

What's your point? If I'd been selected for jury duty, I would have been expected to still get my work done.

The point is I won't go down without a fight - I'll do everything legal so that I don't have to be a juror :contract:

Lying during jury selection isn't legal.  :contract:

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 26, 2010, 09:52:23 PM


Lying during jury selection isn't legal.  :contract:

Being prejudiced or stupid is definitely legal  :bowler:

Quote from: Monoriu on April 26, 2010, 09:53:51 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 26, 2010, 09:52:23 PM


Lying during jury selection isn't legal.  :contract:

Being prejudiced or stupid is definitely legal  :bowler:

But saying you are when you aren't isn't.   :licklips:

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 26, 2010, 09:54:57 PM

But saying you are when you aren't isn't.   :licklips:

I am interested to know how you can prove the statement "I will listen to the prosecutor only" to be lying :contract:

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 09:05:47 PM
Thankfully (or not...?), I do legitimately dislike police.

How do you feel about Sting's solo career?

Quote from: Monoriu on April 26, 2010, 09:59:48 PM
I am interested to know how you can prove the statement "I will listen to the prosecutor only" to be lying :contract:

Statements on this board.

Quote from: Monoriu on April 26, 2010, 09:51:31 PM
The point is I won't go down without a fight - I'll do everything within legal limits so that I don't have to be a juror :contract:

My point is: Don't be an ass, many have to suffer.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2010, 10:00:32 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 09:05:47 PM
Thankfully (or not...?), I do legitimately dislike police.

How do you feel about Sting's solo career?

Didn't say The Police. :hug:

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 10:31:47 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on April 26, 2010, 09:51:31 PM
The point is I won't go down without a fight - I'll do everything within legal limits so that I don't have to be a juror :contract:

My point is: Don't be an ass, many have to suffer.

Better them than me  :P

Anecdotally, at least, they don't just let you off the hook when you make some "outrageous" claim about your beliefs, they at least make you expound on it and bust your balls. 

I had one friend who checked the "don't like cops" boxes on the questionnaire, and got called up in front of everybody to explain out loud that he wouldn't accept police testimony as legitimate, wouldn't be able to control his prejudice against the police, why he felt that way, etc.  Like garbon, he wasn't lying about it, but if you were, it would have to be a little discouraging.

Another friend got called up in his small South Jersey hometown, and a guy claimed he thought anyone who was arrested was guilty, etc., and the judge started threatening to write it down for him in case he was ever in court and really laid into him.

I guess if you really have the nerve you can make up some extreme belief for yourself, but I don't think it's as easy as it seems.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 26, 2010, 11:06:02 PM
Anecdotally, at least, they don't just let you off the hook when you make some "outrageous" claim about your beliefs, they at least make you expound on it and bust your balls. 

I had one friend who checked the "don't like cops" boxes on the questionnaire, and got called up in front of everybody to explain out loud that he wouldn't accept police testimony as legitimate, wouldn't be able to control his prejudice against the police, why he felt that way, etc.  Like garbon, he wasn't lying about it, but if you were, it would have to be a little discouraging.

I didn't say that at all. I actually said that I would accept police testimony as legitimate as they are just doing their jobs and that I didn't think my prejudice would get in the way.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 26, 2010, 11:06:02 PM
Anecdotally, at least, they don't just let you off the hook when you make some "outrageous" claim about your beliefs, they at least make you expound on it and bust your balls. 

I had one friend who checked the "don't like cops" boxes on the questionnaire, and got called up in front of everybody to explain out loud that he wouldn't accept police testimony as legitimate, wouldn't be able to control his prejudice against the police, why he felt that way, etc.  Like garbon, he wasn't lying about it, but if you were, it would have to be a little discouraging.

Another friend got called up in his small South Jersey hometown, and a guy claimed he thought anyone who was arrested was guilty, etc., and the judge started threatening to write it down for him in case he was ever in court and really laid into him.

I guess if you really have the nerve you can make up some extreme belief for yourself, but I don't think it's as easy as it seems.

Thanks for the tips :contract:

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 11:12:35 PM
I didn't say that at all. I actually said that I would accept police testimony as legitimate as they are just doing their jobs and that I didn't think my prejudice would get in the way.

OK, I just meant having genuinely negative feelings about the police in the context of jury selection, not that you both have the same opinions.   :)

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 26, 2010, 11:42:50 PM
OK, I just meant having genuinely negative feelings about the police in the context of jury selection, not that you both have the same opinions.   :)

Oh sorry I should have explained. I just meant that I think it might be easier than one thinks given that there are a lot of things one can say. But you are right that you do need to be prepared to say something.

I don't understand why someone would have negative opinion about police.     :huh:

Most are good enough people. But there is always the asshole who tries to take his authority to the next level that ruins the image for everyone else.

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2010, 11:48:12 PM
I don't understand why someone would have negative opinion about police.     :huh:

As I said in court: I've never had an experience with a police officer than I would describe as beneficial.

What I didn't say is that most of the time I've encountered police, they seem like posturing assholes.

It's actually not that bad, this trial.  It's just that I'm going to have to start doing work at night to make up for missed days, which fucking sucks. :(

One interesting thing that's different from the last trial (and I don't know whether this is a Ky. or Mass. thing, or a criminal vs. civil thing): When I did the criminal trial up in Mass., we were told that as a jury we were NOT allowed to ask questions of any kind--we tried to do so during deliberations and the judge came back and actually kinda yelled at us for it.

In this trial, they are actually encouraging us to ask questions.  Most of the juror questions have been deemed inappropriate for the witness we've heard from so far, but I mean the judge is actually pausing at times and saying "Are there any questions from the jury?" at which time you can write a question down and the bailiff delivers it to the judge who then reviews it with the attorneys.

Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2010, 06:36:14 AM
It's actually not that bad, this trial.  It's just that I'm going to have to start doing work at night to make up for missed days, which fucking sucks. :(

Is this because you want to, or because of have to ?

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 11:53:34 PM
What I didn't say is that most of the time I've encountered police, they seem like posturing assholes.

And you didn't like the competition.   :console:

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2010, 08:57:47 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 11:53:34 PM
What I didn't say is that most of the time I've encountered police, they seem like posturing assholes.

And you didn't like the competition.   :console:

Can you give him a few pointers on how to tolerate such competition better?

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2010, 08:57:47 AM
And you didn't like the competition.   :console:

Nope, I'm certainly more than just an asshole. I've testimonials. :)

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2010, 11:48:12 PM
I don't understand why someone would have negative opinion about police.     :huh:

oh... I don't know...  maybe it's the constant lying, the cops caught faking evidences, those who turn murderers, rapists or drug dealers... just maybe these little things of no consequences.

there's also the matter of cops protecting themselves as if they were gang members, the fact that they are following orders to arrest speeding drivers instead of real criminals, etc, etc.

Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2010, 11:45:08 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2010, 11:48:12 PM
I don't understand why someone would have negative opinion about police.     :huh:

oh... I don't know...  maybe it's the constant lying, the cops caught faking evidences, those who turn murderers, rapists or drug dealers... just maybe these little things of no consequences.

there's also the matter of cops protecting themselves as if they were gang members, the fact that they are following orders to arrest speeding drivers instead of real criminals, etc, etc.

I meant people who get their opinions of police from the real world, not from television and movies.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 09:06:12 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2010, 08:57:47 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 11:53:34 PM
What I didn't say is that most of the time I've encountered police, they seem like posturing assholes.

And you didn't like the competition.   :console:

Can you give him a few pointers on how to tolerate such competition better?

The only pointer I could give him is "don't follow DGuller's lead."  I don't know enough about the topic to do more than point out some bad examples.

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 11:46:17 AM
I meant people who get their opinions of police from the real world, not from television and movies.

Oddly, I often like cops on television (Law & Order, Southland, etc.).

Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2010, 11:45:08 AM
oh... I don't know...  maybe it's the constant lying, the cops caught faking evidences, those who turn murderers, rapists or drug dealers... just maybe these little things of no consequences.

So, you don't like people.  :P

Quotethere's also the matter of cops protecting themselves as if they were gang members, the fact that they are following orders to arrest speeding drivers instead of real criminals, etc, etc.

So, you don't like organization.  :P

None of this is unique to police.

Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2010, 11:45:08 AM
there's also the matter of cops protecting themselves as if they were gang members

That's my biggest problem with cops, although I generally don't have problems with them.  The majority of cops seem to have some glaring blindspots when it comes to ethics.  They seem incapable of realizing that "professional courtesy" on traffic stops, blue wall of silence, or selectively using their discretion are all corrupt practices.  They also adopt the "us vs. them" mentality that justifies those practices, and often all citizens go into the "them" column.  Maybe the job makes you jaded like that, but it doesn't look good.

Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 11:58:49 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 11:46:17 AM
I meant people who get their opinions of police from the real world, not from television and movies.

Oddly, I often like cops on television (Law & Order, Southland, etc.).

Yeah, I wasn't sure what Beeb was talking about.  On TV, the cops are rarely portrayed negatively, and even the questionable practices are often presented as the only common sense option, if they are at all.

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 11:46:17 AM
I meant people who get their opinions of police from the real world, not from television and movies.

The times I've dealt with cops they've been obnoxious, stupid, and/or humorless.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2010, 12:04:27 PM
The times I've dealt with cops they've been obnoxious, stupid, and/or humorless.

:yes:

I've had two contacts with police in my life.  Once when I was mugged, and once when I was pulled over for speeding.  Ironically, the NJ state trooper who pulled me over was considerably more courteous and professional than most (but not all) of the Jersey City cops I dealt with after my mugging.

Hmm, the police I've encountered have certainly been humorless, but then I wasn't trying to crack them up.  They've all been professional, some were courteous, none of them were obnoxious or stupid (that I could tell).

Is it so unreasonable for police to have an 'us vs. them' mentality?

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 12:00:32 PM
That's my biggest problem with cops, although I generally don't have problems with them.  The majority of cops seem to have some glaring blindspots when it comes to ethics.  They seem incapable of realizing that "professional courtesy" on traffic stops, blue wall of silence, or selectively using their discretion are all corrupt practices.  They also adopt the "us vs. them" mentality that justifies those practices, and often all citizens go into the "them" column.  Maybe the job makes you jaded like that, but it doesn't look good.

Really - those are your biggest complaint?  That they use discretion on laying charges?  I'd hate to see police without some level of discretion.

Professional courtesy on traffic stops?  Yeah, that's just terrible.  Just awful.

And blue wall of silence?  What can I say - I've nevr seen it.  I've done opinion files on questions of police misconduct before, and I've always found the investigations were done with full professionalism.

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 01:02:58 PM
Really - those are your biggest complaint?  That they use discretion on laying charges?  I'd hate to see police without some level of discretion.

Not the use of discretion, abuse of it.  Abuse of discretion can be a pretty awful thing, especially when coupled with laws that are widely broken and are essentially unenforceable.  A lot of cops don't even think that discretion can ever be abused.

QuoteProfessional courtesy on traffic stops?  Yeah, that's just terrible.  Just awful.

There are a couple of things wrong with it.  First, on general level, it's a bad thing to have two different standards, one for regular serfs, and one for badged nobility.  Second of all, here in NJ, there were a couple of cases where cops, or relatives of cops, were given "professional courtesy" when they were drunk behind the wheel, and some time later proceeded to kill innocent people.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 01:12:11 PM
There are a couple of things wrong with it.  First, on general level, it's a bad thing to have two different standards, one for regular serfs, and one for badged nobility.  Second of all, here in NJ, there were a couple of cases where cops, or relatives of cops, were given "professional courtesy" when they were drunk behind the wheel, and some time later proceeded to kill innocent people.

Badged nobility. :rolleyes:

Agreed that any crime should not be given a pass.  I know of one incident where the police did not investigate when another officer appeared to be driving drunk, and all kinds of hell broke out for those involved.

But for a speeding ticket?  Puh-leeze.

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 01:21:11 PM
But for a speeding ticket?  Puh-leeze.

So you see nothing wrong with a certain segment of population being given a free pass to speed as they please, while others would be getting a ticket and a lecture for doing the same thing?

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 01:28:00 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 01:21:11 PM
But for a speeding ticket?  Puh-leeze.

So you see nothing wrong with a certain segment of population being given a free pass to speed as they please, while others would be getting a ticket and a lecture for doing the same thing?

It's not a "free pass".  If one cop waves a badge and says "I'm a cop, you can't ticket me", he'll get both a ticket and serious discipline from his superior.

And what you don't understand is that for a police officer, getting a ticket is a lot more serious than it would be for you.  They'll have to report it up the chain.  An outside judge will have to be brought in.  You could proably negotiate down a ticket - a cop wouldn't have that ability.

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 01:36:55 PM
It's not a "free pass".  If one cop waves a badge and says "I'm a cop, you can't ticket me", he'll get both a ticket and serious discipline from his superior.

Maybe in la-la land.  Here in NJ, even obnoxious cops nearly automatically get a break.  It's not just a misplaced sense of camaraderie, the traffic officer himself can get ostracized or harassed if he writes another cop.

QuoteAnd what you don't understand is that for a police officer, getting a ticket is a lot more serious than it would be for you.  They'll have to report it up the chain.  An outside judge will have to be brought in.  You could proably negotiate down a ticket - a cop wouldn't have that ability.

You are mistaken, I am very well aware of that.  It seems like all the more reason for a cop to pretend like the laws apply to him just the same, or at least not be blatant when breaking the traffic laws.  Given the higher penalties, having a slightly higher threshold may be justifiable, but not the blanket immunity from traffic violations that most cops are proud to provide.

And just where do you get your information from? :yeahright:

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 01:53:47 PM
And just where do you get your information from? :yeahright:

Cops themselves.  During on my Goggle searches, I came across a forum frequent by NJ cops.  One of the topics I saw was a very lengthy discussion of "professional courtesy".  About 80% of the participants see nothing wrong with it and are proud to claim that they NEVER write another cop, another 10% are more ambivalent but still don't, and the rest (almost always state troopers) are critical of that practice but are still highly reluctant to do it.

My interest was piqued, so I searched around some more, and found another cop forum with a high traffic.  Read the same topic there, and there was a similar consensus.  Writing another cop is a big NO-NO, even if he's driving 30 over (paraphrasing, not exaggerating).  DUI is not treated as leniently, but there is still a lot more leeway provided than a normal civilian would get.  Whereas any civilian who's even borderline would be arrested, often times cops expressed willingness to tow the brother's car and send him home with a relative if he's not too drunk.

Maybe it just so happens that only the most ethically-challenged cops feel the urge to post on Internet forums.  Or maybe there are even plenty of good actors with an axe to grind who are good at subtly impersonating cops on the Internet on their own sites.  However, I think it's just more likely that I got a glimpse of the true mindset of American cops.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 02:11:18 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 01:53:47 PM
And just where do you get your information from? :yeahright:

Cops themselves.  During on my Goggle searches, I came across a forum frequent by NJ cops.  One of the topics I saw was a very lengthy discussion of "professional courtesy".  About 80% of the participants see nothing wrong with it and are proud to claim that they NEVER write another cop, another 10% are more ambivalent but still don't, and the rest (almost always state troopers) are critical of that practice but are still highly reluctant to do it.

My interest was piqued, so I searched around some more, and found another cop forum with a high traffic.  Read the same topic there, and there was a similar consensus.  Writing another cop is a big NO-NO, even if he's driving 30 over (paraphrasing, not exaggerating).  DUI is not treated as leniently, but there is still a lot more leeway provided than a normal civilian would get.  Whereas any civilian who's even borderline would be arrested, often times cops expressed willingness to tow the brother's car and send him home with a relative if he's not too drunk.

Maybe it just so happens that only the most ethically-challenged cops feel the urge to post on Internet forums.  Or maybe there are even plenty of good actors with an axe to grind who are good at subtly impersonating cops on the Internet on their own sites.  However, I think it's just more likely that I got a glimpse of the true mindset of American cops.

I rest my case.

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 02:16:06 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 02:11:18 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 01:53:47 PM
And just where do you get your information from? :yeahright:

Cops themselves.  During on my Goggle searches, I came across a forum frequent by NJ cops.  One of the topics I saw was a very lengthy discussion of "professional courtesy".  About 80% of the participants see nothing wrong with it and are proud to claim that they NEVER write another cop, another 10% are more ambivalent but still don't, and the rest (almost always state troopers) are critical of that practice but are still highly reluctant to do it.

My interest was piqued, so I searched around some more, and found another cop forum with a high traffic.  Read the same topic there, and there was a similar consensus.  Writing another cop is a big NO-NO, even if he's driving 30 over (paraphrasing, not exaggerating).  DUI is not treated as leniently, but there is still a lot more leeway provided than a normal civilian would get.  Whereas any civilian who's even borderline would be arrested, often times cops expressed willingness to tow the brother's car and send him home with a relative if he's not too drunk.

Maybe it just so happens that only the most ethically-challenged cops feel the urge to post on Internet forums.  Or maybe there are even plenty of good actors with an axe to grind who are good at subtly impersonating cops on the Internet on their own sites.  However, I think it's just more likely that I got a glimpse of the true mindset of American cops.

I rest my case.

I don't know, after serving amongst the cops, I think listening to cops talk amongst themselves is the best way to know what they really think, and not just the party line.  It's certainly more reliable than taking the word of a prosecutor with authoritarian mindset at face value.

EDIT:  And here's a link to discussions from one of the sites, on a forum where only verified police officers can post.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36403
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90409

I wonder which of the two options provide better and more reliable information:  two big threads with plenty of confirmed police officers talking among each other, or one Canadian prosecutor who is not exactly known for his willingness to question authority.

:lmfao:

Will "I know something because I read it on an internet forum" be the new "I know something because I was in a university club" meme?

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 02:59:22 PM
:lmfao:

Will "I know something because I read it on an internet forum" be the new "I know something because I was in a university club" meme?

Actually, he already used it in the very same discussion in which he claimed expertise based on membership in a college club!  :lol:

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 02:59:22 PM
:lmfao:

Will "I know something because I read it on an internet forum" be the new "I know something because I was in a university club" meme?

Probably.  Many posters here are willing to go for cheap shots when they're out of arguments.  That was the reason for the university club meme, and it's the reason for the internet forum meme.  Communication is communication, regardless of the medium. 

Go ahead, feel free to tell me how an honest discussion between cops is not credible, just because that discussion occurred on the Internet.

All the times I was pull over, the cop was very nice well except for the whole giving me a ticket business.

But I still think most of them are idiots.

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2010, 03:02:02 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 02:59:22 PM
:lmfao:

Will "I know something because I read it on an internet forum" be the new "I know something because I was in a university club" meme?

Actually, he already used it in the very same discussion in which he claimed expertise based on membership in a college club!  :lol:

Actually, I claimed expertise based on doing things in a club, not based on being a member of a club.  My expertise in car matters was questioned, so I figured mentioning that I was once one of the people building an original car was a good way to shore it up.  Normally it would work, but I made a mistake of stating it too late, after a couple of people who hate admitting a mistake already staked out their position that I don't know what I was talking about.

I still find it ironic that I am mocked for that thread when I didn't say anything wrong, and in fact brought up a couple of unique points.  On the other hand, grumbler said a fundamentally idiotic thing, about a car being able to overpower its brakes, and yet still feels like he's in position to mock me.  I guess it goes to show you that looking like you know what you're talking about is often more important than actually knowing what you're talking about.

If you can't dress the part, darling, don't bother trying.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 03:13:30 PM
I guess it goes to show you that looking like you know what you're talking about is often more important than actually knowing what you're talking about.

Congratulations son, you have just figured out how the legal profession works.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 03:13:30 PM
On the other hand, grumbler said a fundamentally idiotic thing, about a car being able to overpower its brakes, and yet still feels like he's in position to mock me. 

Actually, as you well know, I said nothing of the sort.  But don't let mere truth get in the way of your weaseling.

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2010, 05:31:11 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 03:13:30 PM
On the other hand, grumbler said a fundamentally idiotic thing, about a car being able to overpower its brakes, and yet still feels like he's in position to mock me. 

Actually, as you well know, I said nothing of the sort.  But don't let mere truth get in the way of your weaseling.

Took me a minute to find this quote:

QuoteHe tried to use the brakes to fully stop the car, and failed.  The engine was just too powerful.

This quote implies, by simple laws of physics, that the engine can be powerful enough to overpower the brakes, which is nonsense for any conceivable passenger car.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 05:45:28 PM
Took me a minute to find this quote:

QuoteHe tried to use the brakes to fully stop the car, and failed.  The engine was just too powerful.

This quote implies, by simple laws of physics, that the engine can be powerful enough to overpower the brakes, which is nonsense for any conceivable passenger car.

Except that we know that he tried to use the brakes, and they didn't stop that particular vehicle.  I made no general statement about cars, because (unlike you) I recognize that known specific incidents are more persuasive than general rules, even ones that you claim make the known facts "nonsense."

In other words, you can claim that you know from a general rule (learned from non-professional sources) things than the specific facts of the case as determined by professional experts will not allow, but don't expect anyone to swallow your claim.

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2010, 06:03:26 PM
Except that we know that he tried to use the brakes, and they didn't stop that particular vehicle.

No, they didn't stop it, but it wasn't because they engine was too powerful.  The reason the car didn't stop is because the brakes failed due to not being applied properly for the situation at hand.

Your logic goes something like this.  If the engine is too powerful, then the brakes won't stop the car.  The car didn't stop.  Therefore the engine was too powerful.

Quote
I made no general statement about cars, because (unlike you) I recognize that known specific incidents are more persuasive than general rules, even ones that you claim make the known facts "nonsense."

The fact was that the car didn't stop.  Claiming that this fact happened because the engine was too powerful is a theory, and that's what is nonsense.  I'm sure you are aware that there is a difference between facts, and theories that attempt to explains the facts.

Good grief.

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 06:52:35 PM
Good grief.

You were the one who opened the door to this, by trying the whole disproof by meme argument, when I introduced the statements of the actual cops into this discussion.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 06:15:13 PM
No, they didn't stop it, but it wasn't because they engine was too powerful.  The reason the car didn't stop is because the brakes failed due to not being applied properly for the situation at hand. 

This is merely an assumption.  The fact is that the brakes were applied, and didn't stop the car.  It kept going.  You can argue that it wasn't the engine making it go.  Knock yourself out.

What part of phyics says an engine can't overpower the brakes?  Seems to me if I mount a tank engine in a car that has clothes pins for brakes that engine is going to power right the fuck through.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2010, 07:49:04 PM
What part of phyics says an engine can't overpower the brakes?  Seems to me if I mount a tank engine in a car that has clothes pins for brakes that engine is going to power right the fuck through.

The parameters of a typical passenger car, of course.  Obviously a top fuel car with 5000 HP engine and Yugo brakes is a different beast.  In a typical passenger car, the engine will never be more powerful than the brakes.  It won't even be close.

As I said in the previous thread, all you have to do is compare the 0-60 and 60-0 times.  It usually takes more than 7 seconds to go from 0 to 60.  It takes about 180 feet, or about 4 seconds, to go from 60 to 0.  That should give you the indication of the relative power of the two right there.

Of course, people have gone beyond theory, and actually tested cars.  Every single passenger car that was tested came to a full stop when both the throttle and the brakes were applied fully and continuously.

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2010, 07:40:03 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 06:15:13 PM
No, they didn't stop it, but it wasn't because they engine was too powerful.  The reason the car didn't stop is because the brakes failed due to not being applied properly for the situation at hand. 

This is merely an assumption.  The fact is that the brakes were applied, and didn't stop the car.  It kept going.  You can argue that it wasn't the engine making it go.  Knock yourself out.

Of course the engine was making it go.  Any engine, powerful or not, makes the car go.  The fatal factor in that accident, however, wasn't that the engine was too good at making the car go, which is what you claimed, but rather that the brakes were made too bad to make the car stop. 

If the engine was half as powerful, it would still propel the car forward once the brakes were gone.  If the brakes remained operable, the engine with all its might wouldn't be able to keep the car from stopping with the brakes full applied.  The brakes were rendered inoperable because they were ridden for too long before, if ever, being applied fully and continuously.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 08:14:35 PM
  The brakes were rendered inoperable because they were ridden for too long before, if ever, being applied fully and continuously.

This is what is called "an assumption."  I have seen no basis for it in any of the reports.

You are conceding that my point was true (the brakes were applied, but they didn't overcome the engine) and also calling that truth "ridiculous."  It is teh funnay.

Why the brakes didn't stop the car isn't known.  Your assumption that someone far, far more knowledgeable than you about driving at high speeds (a professional at it, in fact, as he was a California Highway Patrol patrol officer, not someone who became an instant armchair expert by joining a college club and reading some internet postings) didn't know what you know about braking is what is "ridiculous."

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2010, 08:58:45 PM
You are conceding that my point was true (the brakes were applied, but they didn't overcome the engine) and also calling that truth "ridiculous."  It is teh funnay.

Actually, no, I'm not conceding your point.  To concede your point, I would have to agree that the brakes were applied fully, but even at full power they couldn't overcome the power of the engine.  Since I know that to be a physical impossibility for that Lexus, I would not be agreeing with that any time soon.

I don't know for sure who shot JFK.  It could be Oswald, it could be the guy in the grassy knoll, or it could be someone else entirely.  I am pretty sure, however, that it wasn't someone who was in Austin at that time.  Why?  Because I'm aware of the physical reality that it's impossible to shoot someone in Dallas from Austin.  For the same reason I can rule out the theory that the engine was too powerful to overcome the brakes, due to knowing that physics wouldn't allow that Lexus engine to overpower fully-functioning, fully-applied Lexus brakes.

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2010, 08:58:45 PM
Why the brakes didn't stop the car isn't known.  Your assumption that someone far, far more knowledgeable than you about driving at high speeds (a professional at it, in fact, as he was a California Highway Patrol patrol officer, not someone who became an instant armchair expert by joining a college club and reading some internet postings) didn't know what you know about braking is what is "ridiculous."

If Car and Driver can stop a 540hp Roush Mustang at full acceleration simply by stomping on the brakes, I'm thinking your run of the mill Toyota should stop, CHIP or no.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

On Topic:  I got nothing regarding a civil trial, except to note that Barrister's "screw the little guy" tendencies seem to be at play both in reference to criminal and civil trials.

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 06:52:35 PM
Good grief.

I can't figure out which is worse.  This car-brake argument or the inherent authoritarianism of fire safety week.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2010, 09:11:59 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 06:52:35 PM
Good grief.

I can't figure out which is worse.  This car-brake argument or the inherent authoritarianism of fire safety week.

God help us come car brake safety week.

Quote from: ulmont on April 27, 2010, 09:11:25 PM
On Topic:  I got nothing regarding a civil trial, except to note that Barrister's "screw the little guy" tendencies seem to be at play both in reference to criminal and civil trials.

Insurance companies pay their lawyers hourly rates, the people suing them pay on contingency. Therefore, I have to root for the insurance companies.  :P

But BB is right, insurance companies' stockholders are people too.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2010, 09:51:58 PM

Quote from: ulmont on April 27, 2010, 09:11:25 PM
On Topic:  I got nothing regarding a civil trial, except to note that Barrister's "screw the little guy" tendencies seem to be at play both in reference to criminal and civil trials.

Insurance companies pay their lawyers hourly rates, the people suing them pay on contingency. Therefore, I have to root for the insurance companies.  :P

But BB is right, insurance companies' stockholders are people too.

And so are their policyholders, who are going to share the losses one way or another.  Any insurance fraud, as well as frivolous lawsuits, victimize the honest policyholders.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2010, 12:04:27 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2010, 11:46:17 AM
I meant people who get their opinions of police from the real world, not from television and movies.

The times I've dealt with cops they've been obnoxious, stupid, and/or humorless.

Most of the cops I've dealt with, even ones who've pulled me over were quite professional. One was a complete dick about it though. I can see how that kind of experience can sour a person on cops if it happens in a more serious situation than the one I happened to be in.

I've never been pulled over by a cop who was trying to be a dick about it.  Every time I've been pulled over I was in the wrong.  Except that time I had a spare tire on and I was trying to get home.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 09:56:51 PM
And so are their policyholders, who are going to share the losses one way or another.  Any insurance fraud, as well as frivolous lawsuits, victimize the honest policyholders.

Well, that's true systemically, but not so much for a single law suit. They still have to have competitive rates.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2010, 10:11:43 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2010, 09:56:51 PM
And so are their policyholders, who are going to share the losses one way or another.  Any insurance fraud, as well as frivolous lawsuits, victimize the honest policyholders.

Well, that's true systemically, but not so much for a single law suit. They still have to have competitive rates.

Of course, you don't set rates to recoup past losses, you set rates given what you expect to pay out in the future.  However, every frivolous lawsuit increases the insurance company's expectation of future frivolous lawsuits, and they have to price for that.

Would you idiots stop yapping about insurance companies pl0x?  When did I ever say that an insurance company was even involved in this suit? :contract:

Quote from: Caliga on April 28, 2010, 12:10:38 PM
Would you idiots stop yapping about insurance companies pl0x?  When did I ever say that an insurance company was even involved in this suit? :contract:

Is it a criminal trial or a civil trial?

Civil... And this might shock you but anybody can sue anyone for any reason... without an insurance company's involvement :o

Quote from: Caliga on April 28, 2010, 12:18:50 PM
Civil... And this might shock you but anybody can sue anyone for any reason... without an insurance company's involvement :o

But there is also a possibility that insurance company is involved, but that fact is not advertised for obvious reasons.  The insurance company lawyer may simply appear to be a lawyer hired by the defendant.

I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want to deceive the jury in that manner, or why the judge would allow such a deception... :huh:

Quote from: Caliga on April 28, 2010, 12:32:23 PM
I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want to deceive the jury in that manner, or why the judge would allow such a deception... :huh:

Insurance companies have an...impression...that juries are more likely to award damages if they know the defendant will just be handing the judgment off to the insurance company, so often try to exclude that evidence.

The Federal Rules of Evidence - along with states that roughly parallel the FRE, such as Tennessee - generally bar the introduction of the existence of an insurance policy:

Quote from: FRERule 411. Liability Insurance

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.

Quote from: Caliga on April 28, 2010, 12:32:23 PM
I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want to deceive the jury in that manner, or why the judge would allow such a deception... :huh:

If the jury knows that the defendant has liability insurance, they would conceivably be more likely to award damages, or more damages.  They may figure that the poor little guy who's a plaintiff would need the money more than than the big, mean insurance company. 

Apart from the fact that it's not fair to insurance companies, it's also not fair to defendants.  Their cases should be judged on the facts of the case, not on whether they have a liability insurance.

Quote from: Caliga on April 28, 2010, 12:10:38 PM
Would you idiots stop yapping about insurance companies pl0x?  When did I ever say that an insurance company was even involved in this suit? :contract:

You'd be surprised.  Insurance companies rarely are involved in lawsuits under their own names - instead they act on behalf of their insureds.  In fact I would bet you one billion imaginary dollars that an insurance company is involved in your case, even without me knowing anything about it.

And I speak from some experience - I started out doing insurance defence.  And unless it is a denial of coverage, the insurer is never mentioned in the style of cause.

In fact, IMO, the biggest advantage for a typical individual of having a liability insurance is the fact that you'll be provided with a lawyer, who is by law required to defend you as if his company is on the hook for the very last dollar of the judgment.  That insures you not only against being bankrupted in a lawsuit, but also insures you against being legally harassed (since merely legally defending yourself can in itself bankrupt you).

I concede that all of the above is possible, but when I can finally speak about the case I suspect you all will come to believe that insurance company involvement is at best tangential.  I would guess there was such involvement initially, but given who is doing the suing I don't think they would be involved any longer.

Gentlemen, I have reached: a verdict.  :showoff:

However, the jury only deliberated for like 30 minutes, which I'm rather ashamed of.  I agree with the verdict though, so I guess that's all that really matters.

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
However, the jury only deliberated for like 30 minutes, which I'm rather ashamed of.  I agree with the verdict though, so I guess that's all that really matters.

Well, you were all there for the trial, so if you guys were all paying attention, I'd think you'd all have the verdict when you got into the deliberation room?

Quote from: ulmont on April 30, 2010, 11:06:06 AM
Well, you were all there for the trial, so if you guys were all paying attention, I'd think you'd all have the verdict when you got into the deliberation room?

Yes, but it was a rather complicated case with mountains of documentation.  I was the only juror who seemed even remotely interested in reviewing the documentation, and after I'd finished reviewing it nobody else wanted to look it over to even verify if what I was saying was correct. :mellow:

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 11:07:51 AM

Quote from: ulmont on April 30, 2010, 11:06:06 AM
Well, you were all there for the trial, so if you guys were all paying attention, I'd think you'd all have the verdict when you got into the deliberation room?

Yes, but it was a rather complicated case with mountains of documentation.  I was the only juror who seemed even remotely interested in reviewing the documentation, and after I'd finished reviewing it nobody else wanted to look it over to even verify if what I was saying was correct. :mellow:

:frusty:

And people wonder why I don't like juries...



So can you tell us what your case was about now?

Beeb, I maintain my previous conviction that the existing American jury system is a joke and should be replaced by one consisting of professional jurists. :hug:

I had this opinion before the first trial I served a a juror on, maintained the conviction following that trial, and still hold this position today.

I need to run and grab lunch, so I don't have time for a big long post, but the hilarious opening deal for y'all to chew on is this:

The case was a contract dispute involving a gas station cafe/grocery/bait shop here in the county.  :cool:

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 11:07:51 AM

Quote from: ulmont on April 30, 2010, 11:06:06 AM
Well, you were all there for the trial, so if you guys were all paying attention, I'd think you'd all have the verdict when you got into the deliberation room?

Yes, but it was a rather complicated case with mountains of documentation.  I was the only juror who seemed even remotely interested in reviewing the documentation, and after I'd finished reviewing it nobody else wanted to look it over to even verify if what I was saying was correct. :mellow:

People have lives, you silly man.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2010, 11:15:48 AM
People have lives, you silly man.

YUO ARE: reinforcing my position.  :)

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 11:15:25 AM
Beeb, I maintain my previous conviction that the existing American jury system is a joke and should be replaced by one consisting of professional jurists. :hug:

I had this opinion before the first trial I served a a juror on, maintained the conviction following that trial, and still hold this position today.

I need to run and grab lunch, so I don't have time for a big long post, but the hilarious opening deal for y'all to chew on is this:

The case was a contract dispute involving a gas station cafe/grocery/bait shop here in the county.  :cool:

Did they: serve barbeque?

Ok, so let me set the situation up:

PART 1

There's a gas station in the county which is right at the junction of KY Highway 44 and Overlook Drive, that leads down to the lake's main boat launch and marina, making it a pretty good location to say the least.

Back in 1998, the guy who owned the station went bankrupt and the bank foreclosed on him.  The gas station was sold at auction on the courthouse steps for $75,000 plus back taxes to these two dudes (who are brother-in-laws) from Louisville who had begun speculating out here as the construction boom was beginning.

They fixed the place up, opened an adjoining restaurant and bait shop, replaced the old gas tanks (which were not up to EPA and Kentucky standards), added diesel, digital pumps, and prepared a portion of the property as a boat storage facility.  Their improvements drove business through the roof: in their first full year of operation, they grossed around $120,000; within five years, they grossed over a million dollars.

In late 2002, they decided to put the place up for sale, because they had been running it entirely themselves (with the help of their wives) and wanted to move on to other entrepreneurial projects.. I guess (they really weren't too clear on that).  They put it up for $1,000,000 asking price, and this cat came along and offered them $812,500 which they accepted.

Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2010, 12:39:26 PM
Did they: serve barbeque?

I do not know... neither the plaintiff's attorney nor the defendant's thought to question them about that.  :Embarrass:

PART 2

The guys who owned the place were basically blue collar wheeler-dealers: the one guy had only his high school diploma and had been a locksmith, and the other guy had gotten his GED (Euros = this means he didn't finish high school, and went back and took retard classes to get a sort of makeup diploma) and was a roofer.  They are what we call "good old boys" here--hard working, no doubt, but it goes without saying that they're going to be a little bit shady.  In fact, there was an allegation that they were involved in bootlegging and investigated for that: remember that I live in a county that had prohibition until last November.  Yeah, I kind of felt like I was in a time machine when that came up. :lol:

Anyway, the guy who ultimately bought the property from him was a career salesman who had a BA in business administration from Purdue and had previously been a VP of sales for Atlas Machinery, GE Appliance, and some other impressive places.  He had "gotten laid off" in 2002 and had decided he wanted to be self-employed after that.  He did not want to tap into his savings or re-mortgage his home to get the purchase capital, so he sought out an SBA loan and was approved for a loan in the amount of $650,000.  Obviously, $650,000 != $812,500, so they had to figure out some other way of closing the gap, since apparently the sellers liked him and were quite motivated to sell (and can you blame them, given the figures I've presented?)

So what they decided to do to close the gap was the following:

A. The sellers wrote a promissory note to the buyer in the amount of $150,000 plus interest (I forget the interest rate... think it was 5%), with no payments due for the first five years.  In years 6 through 10, the total accrued interest would be due in annual installments (each = 20% of total accrued interest).  In year 11, the principal would come due in full.

B.  To close the remaining gap and as a precondition of item A., the buyer/sellers agreed to a consulting agreement in which the sellers would give the buyer any advice he felt he needed to be successful, would agree to be on the premises for a transition period to help "maintain business/personal relationships", and so forth--basically teach the guy all he needed to know to run the business.  In return, the seller would pay them 0.65% of his gross receipts annually for five years.

Both parties agreed to the above and signed and there were no conditional clauses for either agreement (now this fact will become important later on in the story).

Oh yeah, here's a website about the station:

http://www.kyhuntnfish.com/settlerstrace/settlerstrace.php (http://www.kyhuntnfish.com/settlerstrace/settlerstrace.php)

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 12:41:08 PM
which were not up to ... Kentucky standards

:blink:

Quote from: The Brain on April 30, 2010, 01:17:08 PM
:blink:

Come on Brain, that was too easy.

PART 3

Ok, so the business + property was sold in "as is" condition following seller's standard disclosures, in which they did not disclose any major problems with the property, and the business changed hands on 4/1/2003.  For the first year or so, everything was cool.  The new buyer continued to grow the business and make improvements (the first thing he did was install chicken broasters, and if you look at that website I posted he's quite proud of his fried chicken), such as expanding the gravel parking lot and putting in more restaurant seating, and he dutifully paid his first consulting agreement installment in January of 2004.

In the late spring/early summer of 2004, several customers who were storing boats onsite complained to him of "foul odors" coming from the storage area.  He wasn't really sure what to think of that, and didn't do anything about it until July.

He got some more complaints in July and thought to himself... hmmm...  well, this property does have a septic system, so maybe I should have my septic hauler come out and take a look (he had had his solid waste removed in January of 2004 without any apparent issues).  So he calls up the hauler and asks him to come out and do a removal.  The hauler was like "ok, I'll do it, but you shouldn't need to have your waste pumped out so soon"... but he figured he better have him do it just in case.

So the hauler gets there, backs his truck up to the septic tank cap (which was on a riser), and when he opens the cap so he can get the pump hose in there, there is an explosion of back pressure that lifts the cap AND him clear off the ground.

Hurry up with the next chapter bitch! :ultra:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 30, 2010, 01:32:10 PM
Hurry up with the next chapter bitch! :ultra:

:mad:  I'm also trying to get caught up on some work at the same time I'm writing this NIGGA.

Does this story have 1,001 parts?

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 01:30:48 PM
So the hauler gets there, backs his truck up to the septic tank cap (which was on a riser), and when he opens the cap so he can get the pump hose in there, there is an explosion of back pressure that lifts the cap AND him clear off the ground.

:lol:  This story's gettin' good.

My very first trial of any significance, ever, was over a malfunctining septic field / tank.   :cool:

Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2010, 01:40:58 PM
Does this story have 1,001 parts?

You are: tiresome.

PART 4

So the hauler is like "umm sir I believe you may have a problem here" and hooks up his pump and cleans 2,200 gallons of solid material out of the septic system.  Now, the tank capacity is 1,000 gallons, which is his normal haul for this guy.  Basically, the tank itself, the distribution box, and the lateral lines were clogged full of solid waste for some reason.

Now, remember how I said earlier that the new owner had made a bunch of improvements?  One of the improvements was that he had expanded the size of the parking lot.  The sellers argued, but for some reason it could not be definitively shown to us, that the new owner had expanded his gravel lot onto the leach field, which effectively destroys it as the gravel + parked cards compacts the soil and disrupts normal soil percolation.  The new owner seemed to be insinuating (but did not convincingly prove via his testimony or his attorney's) that he was either not informed as to the location of the leach field, or was misinformed, and also that he didn't expand the lot onto the leach field.  :huh:

So anyway, the new owner then called a plumber and the first thing the plumber did was walk to the back of the field, and sure enough they discovered that there was effluent oozing out of the ground at the back end of the field, down the slope toward the back of his property.  Now, it just so happens that the adjacent property belongs to the US Army Corps of Engineers, and is a State Park and Conservation Area that drains into Taylorsville Lake, which is a very popular fishing and boating area.  I myself have a boat I moor at the marina, and swim and fish in that lake.  Obviously, the station owner immediately realized that it would not be a good business practice to pollute this property. ^_^

So, he then paid this plumber (who was working in conjunction with the county board of health inspector( to completely replace and expand his lateral field and distribution box.  The new owner tried to argue that the distribution box was faulty, because the outlet pipe was submerged when the plumber and inspector exposed it (we got to look at delightful photo exhibits of the box), but nobody seemed to be able to prove or even recall when exactly these photos were taken or who took them. :huh:  He spent a total of $12,000 on this project.

At the beginning of calendar year 2005, the new owner's consulting payment to the sellers came due again.  He showed up at the sellers' place of business--after they sold the station they bought the hotel up the street--and tried to give them what was due minus the cost of the repairs he'd made to the septic system, which he felt must have been defective when he purchased the property.

Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2010, 02:06:08 PM
My very first trial of any significance, ever, was over a malfunctining septic field / tank.   :cool:

Not surprising, since it apparently happens all the time in rural areas.  One of the witnesses (the hauler) mentioned something about being in court "all the time" for septic disputes.

Incidentally, I have a septic system too, and I've had it pumped bi-annually and have always made a point of inspecting my leach field for soft ground/leakage.  :showoff:

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 02:07:20 PM
You are: tiresome.

:rolleyes: Philistine.

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 01:21:51 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 30, 2010, 01:17:08 PM
:blink:

Come on Brain, that was too easy.

:( This head movie makes my eyes rain.

PART 5

So the sellers were like "Fuck you, give us all our money" and the new owner was like "NOWAI", and the sellers refused to take his check, and have refused all of his additional payments (two of which are held in escrow by the court).  He has also not paid any of the interest on his promissory note because of this, nor the $150K principal, which the sellers have called in early, which they are within their rights to do since he has failed to pay any interest.  When he was questioned about why he didn't pay on the promissory note, his answer was "times are tough, and plus I've spent close to $200K between the cost of the septic repairs and legal fees due to this lawsuit."

In his defense, he argued that the sellers knew there was a problem, because in 1999 a guy who runs a local construction business, and who came in to testify, was out at the grocery shooting the shit with the former owners, and as a favor had agreed to dump some topsoil onto the leach field.  The plaintiffs had difficulty explaining this witness away other than by saying he had had a stroke and "was ill"... this same guy also mentioned on the witness stand that one of the sellers had owed him $1,500 from a subcontract deal on a house the seller had acted as developer on and had never paid up.

Also, the defense argued that the distribution box was defective because the photos presented showed that the water levels were above the outlet pipe--under normally operating conditions, the inlet pipe is fully exposed (as it's located higher in the box than the outlet pipe) and the outlet pipe should be half submerged.  The photos presented showed only one pipe (which appeared to be the inlet pipe) and it was half submerged.  The outlet pipe was totally below the scum layer.

Ok, so in terms of parties involved and amounts asked:

The plaintiffs were the former owners, who were suing in the amount of $150,000 (promissory note principal) plus accrued interest in full, as well as the full amount owed in consultancy fees, which I believe totaled $46,000 and change.

The defendant was the new (current) owner, who was basically asking that the promissory note be declared void due to the septic issues.  He was not asking to be excused from paying the consultancy fees, though for some reason we were asked to rule on that as well.  He also had a counterclaim seeking unspecified punitive damages against the plaintiffs.

Isn't a bit late to be checking out Lechfeld?

So, did the new owner go through all the trouble just to collect $12,000?

Seems like a fairly open and shut deal in favor of the plaintiffs.

Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2010, 02:45:57 PM
Seems like a fairly open and shut deal in favor of the plaintiffs.

That's what I would think considering it was sold "as is".

Actually it might be kind of fun to pollify this and see what people think before I reveal the details of the verdict.  :)

Quote from: sbr on April 30, 2010, 02:47:02 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2010, 02:45:57 PM
Seems like a fairly open and shut deal in favor of the plaintiffs.

That's what I would think considering it was sold "as is".

It was sold "as is" provided the sellers disclosed any pre-existing conditions that they were aware of related to the safe and proper operation of the business.  I thought I said that earlier, sorry.

Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2010, 02:45:57 PM
Seems like a fairly open and shut deal in favor of the plaintiffs.

It comes down to patent versus latent defect, and whether or not the previous owner knew of the problem.

Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2010, 03:07:15 PM
It comes down to patent versus latent defect, and whether or not the previous owner knew of the problem.

You'll note from 'PART 5' that the defendant claimed they were aware and fraudulently failed to disclose that fact upon the sale of the property and business.

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 03:13:18 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2010, 03:07:15 PM
It comes down to patent versus latent defect, and whether or not the previous owner knew of the problem.

You'll note from 'PART 5' that the defendant claimed they were aware and fraudulently failed to disclose that fact upon the sale of the property and business.

Which is why I said (contrary to Habs assertion it was open and shut) that is what the case would seem to turn on.

What I do recall from my septic field case is that it turns on experts.  We had a really good expert who was able to state quite convincingly that the field was not designed properly from the get-go.

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 03:13:18 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2010, 03:07:15 PM
It comes down to patent versus latent defect, and whether or not the previous owner knew of the problem.

You'll note from 'PART 5' that the defendant claimed they were aware and fraudulently failed to disclose that fact upon the sale of the property and business.

Ah I must have missed that part.  Wasn't there an inspection done on the property before the sale?  I would think the septic system would be high on the list of things a third party inspector would look at.

Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2010, 03:15:30 PM
What I do recall from my septic field case is that it turns on experts.

:perv:

Oh, also, as I believe this is now a matter of public record:

The case was TUNACAKES PROPERTIES v. SJK PROPERTIES, SK PROPERTIES, and STEVEN E. KILLIAN  :)

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 03:29:13 PM
Oh, also, as I believe this is now a matter of public record:

The case was TUNACAKES PROPERTIES v. SJK PROPERTIES, SK PROPERTIES, and STEVEN E. KILLIAN  :)

No Bored Of Education? Your case is suck.

TUNACAKES?  :lol:

Quote from: sbr on April 30, 2010, 03:23:35 PM
Ah I must have missed that part.  Wasn't there an inspection done on the property before the sale?  I would think the septic system would be high on the list of things a third party inspector would look at.

The buyer, by law, had to have an environmental inspection done for two reasons, which focused on those two things:

A. inspection of his fuel tanks and dispensing equipment
B. inspection of his food service and sanitation facilities

These items were found to have no deficiencies.

The county inspector who looked after item B. also happens to be responsible for septic inspections, but he didn't do a septic inspection other than a surface examination of the leach field, which appeared normal, because at the time the septic tank, which was first installed in 1979, was totally buried (by Kentucky law they now have to have access risers when newly installed) and neither seller nor buyer wanted to pay for excavation.

Unsurprisingly, his tank now has a riser.  :)

Quote from: sbr on April 30, 2010, 03:33:40 PM
TUNACAKES?  :lol:

Yep. :lol:

One of the jurors asked one of the plaintiffs to explain that (as I mentioned earlier, the judge in the trial actively encouraged juror questions) and he said his nickname was "Tuna"--he was a pretty big guy so I can see it, and as a joke he called his brother-in-law "Cupcake" because he was "kind of a wuss", so they combined the two to come up with "Tunacakes".

What's the verdict?  The suspense is killing me.

I'm gonna pollify it and then delay revealing the results until the debate has amused me long enough.  Plus, it will kill you.  :)

Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2010, 04:13:48 PM
I'm gonna pollify it and then delay revealing the results until the debate has amused me long enough.  Plus, it will kill you.  :)

Pfft, you're giving far too much credit to my attention span.  The suspense may kill me, but five minutes later I won't remember anything about it.

I would think your zombified flesh would serve as a reminder.

So, has the debate amused you long enough yet?

Is this thread Eddie's worst fear?

Anyway nice necro-job.

 :lol:

What happened to this thread (as it progressed through the change in board infrastructure)? Cal made a poll but I have the first post? :hmm:

Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2010, 02:41:12 AM
I've never been pulled over by a cop who was trying to be a dick about it.  Every time I've been pulled over I was in the wrong.  Except that time I had a spare tire on and I was trying to get home.

Hi past Raz.  I should tell you, I've been driving with an expire licence for about a year now.

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2010, 11:48:12 PM
I don't understand why someone would have negative opinion about police.     :huh:

The BBiest comment ever. Thank you, 2010.

Roxanne, King of Pain, Every Breath You Take... I can see his point.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 26, 2010, 10:00:32 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 09:05:47 PM
Thankfully (or not...?), I do legitimately dislike police.

How do you feel about Sting's solo career?

Time to get some new jokes.

At least Eddie is consistent.

 :lmfao: