I've been thinking about this, and I believe what really irks me about this prevailing elitist attitude towards jury duty is the implication that the people who are on trial are all guilty, and that the attorneys all want idiots who will believe a lie. What you guys are describing is a court system where everyone who is on trial is guilty and trying to get away with a crime, and are hoping for a jury of dumbasses. That's an incredibly cynical view of the entire process, and I'm glad that it hasn't been my experience so far.
It's coming through loud and clear that you guys are not objective. Do you think it's possible that this lack of objectivity was clear at the time, as well?
Steve, are you insulting me by calling me non objective? As I do not believe my post was in anyway an insult to you or anyone else. Just a statement of experience. That is like saying being called Sand N, and Camel Jockey, and Wet Back, (* which I have been called a lot in my life *) did not happen because you believe racism does not exist near you. Or like I ate today , and there is no world hunger, or that there is no global climate changes as I am fine today. My post as stated does not prove all cases. I stated "I" and that was my experience. So I do not believe I have insulted you. Just curious. As I hope a discussion can occur with different points of view.
I am very objective. Just ask anyone I dated or married. It drives them nuts.
And in a DUI, they are charged, for usually having a road side breathalyzer value over some limit defined by the legislation. So the Legislation or elected officials set a law in place. Then the executive branches go out and enforce those laws.. Those found in violation get their day in court, and the is done by the third part of our government. Some of the other cases were Driving under no license or suspended license. Kind of hard to not say not guilty.
Yet, as when I made a left had turn onto a divide highway. There were no left hand turn signs from the two lane road to the divided 4 lane road. they were all in a place to be seen from the initial stop. Not the stop in the middle. So I assumed it was to stop people from turning the wrong way into oncoming traffic. I made the left hand turn and a police officer pulled me over and gave me a ticker. I told him thank you and then say him court where I explained my situation. the Judge decided that my objective point of view was very valid and had the officer take an action item to get a sign up in less than 24 hours and I was to go with no fine.
I went to a friends house, and everyone was parked in the street and the lawn. So I parked in the lawn as it was the last spot left. One of the street spots was a large industrial truck parked there for a nearby warehouse. I got a ticket in the morning. Once I saw the ticket I moved the vehicle and as the truck was gone I could see the sign that said no parking in the lawn. So I explained this to the judge and he let me go, and decided that more signage in the area was required as well.
In college, I had just started there and I did not know all the faculty parking. I parked in a lot and got a ticket. Once again a truck unloading had blocked the signage. I explained this and they let me go with a warning form the magistrate.
Now none of these are Jury worthy, yet, I am in front of the judge and pretty much I am trying to prove my innocence. Or my reasoning for my actions and to see if the judge decides is they were reasonable.
I have been on other jury selections before. I always get dismissed, after the first question of what is your occupation. 100% Dismissal rate.
So, while my data may be subjective, I also saw that they did the same for others in the same education band. Note: Education is not an indication of intelligence.
I was also a witness to a vehicle homicide. that is where someone dies in an auto accident. After the prosecution asked me their questions, the judge held up the defense question, to ask me questions himself. He stated it was very rare to get someone so objective and detailed oriented to be a witness. the Defense did not argue as the Judge was doing his job for him and could always appeal for procedural reasons later. I gave more details and descriptions about the roadways nearby and then proceeded to the defense. His first question was what was on the corner, I said a story and a half to two story tall building with no windows and given the description of the angles of the road ( think two road divided into one way streets in and around an expressway ) and that visibility was x feet to the first lane and the y feet into the third lane. I described that he got out of the car and that while I could not hear him as I was turning my car and radio off to get out and help, he was already out and trying to see if they were ok in the other car.
He got timed served and as the widow believed it was a true accident and not negligence and that the lights that had been timed for as long as I could remember for 20 plus years were out of sync enough to have aided in the accident.
The system is not rigged. yet it is. I read where a Benton Harbor Mi Police Officer went out and found a victim to make his drug dealer and he served four years and after he was out the officer was convicted and found guilty but only served 18 months for sending innocent people to prison for falsifying reports and evidence.
So, I do not understand why you are upset with me and others for stating what has happened to and around us.
