Just saw this via yahoo.com:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/disgruntled-texas-man-pays-speeding-182200269.html

Talk about being creative! And, he let them keep the change. What a guy!

I think he needs to "get a life", and I agree with the poster who commented:

"I APPRECIATE this man's idea, but he was rather out of place.

Number one, it was a jury of his own peers that convicted him, not the government, so it wasn't entirely police extortion.

Number two, he didn't hurt the police one bit, rather he just made the clerks day worse. And she had zero control over the decision of the jury and zero control over his driving habits.

Yes 212 bucks is rather steep for 9 mph, so like I said I appreciate his willingness to expose a corrupt government, but you have to take it out on the right people and do it in the right way."

Don't know about other states, but here in Washington, when one gets a ticket, they have 3 choices on how to proceed:

1. Pay the fine outright (and thus plead guilty).

2. Attend a mitigation hearing to try and get the fine reduced (typically works, and usually the reduction is anywhere from 30 to 50%).

3. Contest the ticket. In this case, one goes to court and appears before a judge. One thus makes an argument as to why they think the violation is either invalid or unjust. This will lead to either a dismissal of the violation (and thus no fine), a reduction in the fine, or things remain as they are.

In some cases (and depending on the jurisdiction), one can contest the ticket by filling out some paperwork and mailing it to the court. There is no actual hearing involved. We did exactly that 2 years ago, when my wife received an invalid ticket for not yielding the right away in a round about (hate those things, as do quite a few other drivers I know). Based on quite a few easily proven circumstances, we filled out the paperwork, mailed it in, and the violation was dismissed.

Apparently, he "chose" the third option (maybe there is no "mitigation" choice in that Texas town/jurisdiction). Without knowing his driving record, nor how he tried to "argue" his case (and maybe other circumstances), it's difficult to understand why it was so much for just going 9 mph over the limit. But, assuming his driving record was OK, and that he tried to state his case as calmly and clearly as possible, I don't blame him at all for being pissed off.

Note though that they did accept the payment, counted it, and even left him a courteous voice message about a refund due.

Also, note the last part of this: "I was convicted by a jury for driving 39 in a 30 and was subject to $212 at the barrel of a gun". Would like to know about "the barrel of a gun". In almost all cases, and especially if one acts respectful to the officer, I have never heard of the need for a gun regarding a traffic violation.

By the way, here in Washington, when one contests a ticket, there is no jury involved at the hearing. There is the defendant, the judge, a couple of court clerks, and the officer who wrote the ticket. So if there was an actual jury involved, that definitely screams of a terrible waste of money in that Texas town/jurisdiction.

The man had already pled not guilty, been tried before a jury of his peers and found guilty which takes option 1 and option 3 off the table.

In Texas, there is no provision for a mitigation hearing other than appealing the fine to a higher court and that is only available if there was judicial error. The legal fees for that would be far more than the fine and difficult to prove.

This is far from the first time someone has paid, or attempted to pay, a fine in coins. As a teenager there was "common wisdom" you could do that as a protest. However the Texas legislature passed a law that says the courts do not have to accept coins in payment of a fine. I suspect the clerk

1. was unaware of the law that allows them to refuse payment in coin (it does not come up that often) or
2. chose to accept the payment rather than starting something with a scofflaw who was obviously spoiling for a fight.

On the other hand the judge does have the option of refusing the payment and issuing an arrest warrant for contempt of c court and/or non-payment The Collin County jail is not a place I would like to spend the night, much less 30 days.

Texas is definitely more unfriendly than Washington is, that's for sure! But still, $212 for going only 9 mph over the limit is definitely excessive.

So, in Texas, when an officer writes up a citation what options does the driver have? I would be surprised (and hopefully Texas is progressive enough) if there was not at least the option of appearing before the court, and contesting the ticket. Based on the description, it states that he was "tried before a jury of his peers and found guilty", and thus one might assume that he did actually contest it, and went before the judge (and the jury, although that seems to be a HUGE waste of taxpayers' funds).

And, as for paying by cash/coins, note that the law passed by the Texas legislature says "However the Texas legislature passed a law that says the courts do not have to accept coins in payment of a fine" (bold emphasis added by me). Thus, the clerk does have the option to accept coins fro payment, and thus did nothing wrong. Again, given that 4 hours later, after counting the money, an individual from that office called the individual and left him a pleasant message about over payment, everything seemed OK.

To me, I'm glad he did it! If the judicial system in Texas is that dictatorial, more power to the folks. As I mentioned above, circumstances are WAY MORE reasonable in Washington with such relatively "minor" matters (again, we don't know the circumstances regarding his driving record, but all indications are that is not an issue). The example I gave above about the "bogus" citation my wife received more than 2 years ago is a perfect example of that. I'm sure glad we are not in Texas, or else the "bogus" ticket would have remained!

Half a century ago the standard speeding fine in Texas was $10 / mph over the limit up to but not including 10, then $20 per mph over the limit if you were 10 or more over the limit up to 20, after that they got really serious. For that reason 9 mph speeding fines are common. It is the arresting officer's way of giving the speeder a break. Note too the fine also includes court costs and for a jury trial $200 is not unusual. Even the fine is uncontested court costs can run $50 to $100.

I neglected to mention that if you have a clean record for the last three years and you not over 10 mph over the limit you can elect to take a safe driving course and if your record remains clean for three years after that the record is expunged. You will still pay for the safe driving course and court costs.

Again, a jury trial for a traffic violation (and definitely minor in this case) is a HUGE waste of taxpayers' money (and the court system should wisely spend their time and efforts on WAY more serious crimes).

Also, $212 at 9 mph over the limit comes to $23.55 per mph over the limit. Again, way, way too excessive!

And, that business about a clean record, 3 years, etc. exists in Washington also. But here again, we are WAY more progressive than Texas. It only takes 1 year for it to be removed, not 3.

So, in reality the Texas driver caught a break (for all we know, he may have been 29 mph over the limit) but, instead of appreciating it, decided to be a jerk. He needs to “get a life”.

Nothing was stated at all how much he was actually exceeding the speed limit by. If it was truly only 9 mph over the limit, and he attempted to get the ticket removed and/or the fine reduced via a court trial (with a waste of money jury present), and he was completely turned down, then I am glad he did it. No matter how it looks, he certainly proved a valid point: Texas is a police state, with a ridiculous fine structure, and lack of any reasonable alternatives. And, to top it all off, they waste valuable resources (money, people's time, etc.) to have a jury trial for traffic violations. Definitely a stupid use of resources, I'll say!

I don't think he proved anything, except that he's an inconsiderate jerk. As many posters in that link pointed out, the 30 MPH speed limit suggests he was in a residential area....where children play and could dart out into the street.

After getting caught for exceeding the speed limit by nearly a third, and having his peers confirm that his choice to speed was wrong, he decided to act childishly and take his frustration out on a civic employee.

Perhaps I was wrong to say that he didn't prove anything. He did. His actions and the posters' responses confirm that you can publish any nonsensical position on-line and get lots of people to buy in, while others see through it.

👍

Had you read the article carefully you should have seen the quote

By my math that would seem to indicate he was fined for driving 9 mph over the speed limit.
Normally there would not be a jury trial for a misdemeanor traffic offense, however under the 5th, 6th, & 7th amendments to the Constitution of the United States anyone accused of a crime has an absolute right to trial by jury no matter what the offense and I have to assume that was the case here. From your remarks it sounds as if you are implying Washington State does not adhere to the Constitution of the United States of America and I find that very difficult to believe. Personally I believe that our Constitutional rights are important enough to override any cost considerations.

No, the one person stated that decreasing the amount over the limit is, at times, done in Texas. Also, a 30 mph limit can be in other locations.



No, after explaining the circumstances before a jury (again a HUGE waste of resources), he still could not get the fine reduced, nor possibly the citation dismissed. He then expressed his valid frustration, but not directed at a civic employee. I did not see him harass the woman at all And he was definitely calm when he dumped the coins onto the counter.



No, he did a great service in exposing the police state in Texas, and that is what lots of people see it as.

You did not follow what I stated above, in post #40754. I was responding to what ryck had stated:





I never said that. What I clearly stared was that in Washington, the individual has 3 choices (at the outset) as to how to proceed. I suspect that if one wishes to push it further, a jury trial could happen. But, for most sensible folks (at least here in Washington), the initial 3 choices are enough. And just like you stated above, and I responded, depending on one's driving record, there is a way to just pay a flat fee upfront, and if you do not receive any violations within a year, the infraction is dismissed.

And, you never answered my question above, regarding the choices one has in Texas after receiving a traffic violation (not including the "3 year" dismissal choice you already mentioned).

Finally, what about the "at the barrel of a gun" statement? Is it that bad in Texas (again, evidence of a police state)?

Meanwhile, most other folks would not have tunnel vision, and see through this correctly.

👍 👍 👍

What about it? Given this person's peculiar behaviour, and the fact that he didn't provide any evidence other than a passing comment, the rational conclusion is that there was no gun involved in the event.

A common colloquialism used throughout the south since before the revolutionary war. Similar in connotation to shotgun wedding although generally used in a different context. In the context it was used here anyone in Texas would NOT take it literally. Rather he was angry after demanding a jury trial that his peers found him guilty and he was assessed a penalty by the judge. The gun to his head being the fact he had to pay the fine or he could be penalized with additional fines, and possibly even held in contempt of court and incarcerated.

He behaved just fine. I suspect, though, that the "barrel of a gun" comment was made in jest by him. However, given the ridiculous amount for going only 9 mph over the limit, I can understand how he felt.

I suspected he just said it ion jest. But, given the ridiculous amount he had to pay for just going 9 mph over the limit, I can certainly understand him feeling that way.

And, given that you STILL have not answered the question as to what options one has after receiving a citation, I looked it up via a google search, and here it is:

"What do I do if get a traffic ticket in Texas?

After getting a traffic ticket, you must decide how you will plead. You have three options: guilty, no contest or not guilty. The first two options require you to pay the ticket on or before your scheduled court appearance. If you decide to plead not guilty, learn more on how to fight your traffic ticket. No matter how you decide to plead, just be sure you do so by the date listed on your citation. Ignoring the traffic ticket could lead to a warrant for your arrest."

So, just as I thought, things are rather confining in Texas. One cannot choose to mediate a violation like in Washington, and thus have an excellent chance of getting the fine reduced. I suspect he took the third choice, as if he selected either one of the first two, he would have been required to pay the ridiculous $212 fine either before he went to court, or when he went. I suspect for the third choice, he was given some time to pay the fine.

This also shows, as I stated previously, that Texas wastes tax payers' money, by having a jury trial! In Washington, it is much simpler, cleaner, and there is no jury present when one contests it, or in some cases (like we did for my wife's bogus ticket), one can contest it via the mail. That is definitely a wise use of taxpayers' money.

Gimme a break.

The guy was a complete jerk from jump street!

His wasn't a clever way to pay for a ticket; it wasn't even a clever way to protest a perceived unfair fine (as the title of this thread should have stated).

He GAMBLED and LOST, reacted like a cry-baby when it came time to pay the piper, and took out his anger over his own chosen fate on an undeserving third party, and grotesquely, to boot.

Excessive fine? Thats just your own very narrow assessment of the way in which Texas protects Texans. "We don't want you speeding, so we've fixed things so it'll be painful for you if you do" is a fair attitude...one that in no way implies a police state...one that the majority of Texans who elected the people who passed the laws in question apparently support...one that Washington apparently doesn't buy into. "Excessive" isn't quantifiable; it's relative to the desired end (and, of course, the tunnel vision of the observer).

ryck's position is spot-on, and I suspect that your idea of the "most folks [who'd] see through this correctly"(*) probably comes from a combination of your having looked into one of those facing mirror arrangements in which you see yourself from here to eternity and your never having looked up "correctly" in a dictionary, NOT from your having assessed the reactions of the folks who've posted in this thread.

And your persistent complaining about jury trials wasting taxpayer dollars demonstrates a VERY FRIGHTENING and, VERY UNFORTUNATELY, GROWING lack of appreciation by Americans for the wisdom inherent our Constitution and the benefits it has bestowed upon us and our forbears who fought for them. The right to a trial by jury under ANY circumstances is NEVER to be sneezed at.

Oh, sure, in any population there'll be some people who'll buy into and applaud any display of stupidity no matter how gross it is, but luckily for America, those people don't rule the roost, and hopefully they never will.

(*) You often state opinions as if you're actually speaking for "other folks", and perhaps you are, but if you are I'd like to know who they are and by what authority and in what capacity you're speaking for them.

Oh, and "liking" your own posts isn't cricket, although it is in keeping with your high opinion of your own opinions; thumbs ups from others are the only ones that count.

Exactly right, Artie. I recently was called for jury duty and, although I was not chosen, I would have been proud to serve. The jury system is far from perfect (which human endeavor is?) but it's the best that we have. The Founding Fathers knew that government cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and history in this country and others have vindicated this view so many times that a listing would be unbelievably long. The jury system obviates, as much as possible, having the prosecution be the sole arbiter of guilt.

Mistakes are made, yes, but that's preferable to the venal behavior that government continually demonstrates.

It always saddens (but amuses) me that for so many years the rights to vote and to a trial by jury were almost self-cancelling freedoms (in NY, at the least).

I imagine that you remember the days when jury pools were drawn exclusively from voter rolls and many people never registered to vote in order to avoid jury duty...when jury duty was two weeks every two years in Brooklyn? Well, since they changed the system and have drawn jurors from the rolls of every state agency that's got names it's down to a day or two every eight years.

That's frightening in its implications!

Jury trial for a traffic misdemeanor in Texas is an OPTION chosen by the defendant. The prosecutor and the court would prefer NOT to have a jury trial as it takes too much time for too many people and costs too much money, but it is the defendants constitutional right.

The "ridiculous fine" you are so exercised by includes court costs. While I do not have the particulars of that case available to me but I would not be at all surprised the actual fine was $12 and the remaining $200 was in court costs. From personal experience, pleading nolo contendere (no contest) and taking the safe driving course runs in the neighborhood of $250 in tuition and court costs for a similar 9 mph over the limit. The difference is this option can be expunged from your driving record and will not effect your auto insurance rates. I can also say that 60 years of driving experience in Texas would lead me to strongly believe the actual violation was significantly more than 9 mph but the arresting officer chose to give the driver a break and wrote the ticket for the lower speed to keep the violation at a lower level.

Reading between the lines, this rather immature individual was mad because he had been caught speeding, plead not guilty and requested a jury trial because he thought a jury would be more sympathetic than a judge. He was wrong about the jury's sympathies which made him even angrier and like an acting out teenager he chose to pay his fine in this manner. I suspect he was even angrier that his tantrum did not even rate a mention in the local news.

I am! I'm reading your convoluted statements.



No, it was a clever way to make a statement to the police state in Texas.



Nope, it was a clever, excellent way to pay the ridiculous fine.



Man, talked about confusing thinking, to say the LEAST! Again, nothing grotesque about paying the fine in cash. He EVEN politely asked the clerk if paying by cash was allowed, and she said yes.



If you think $212 for going only 9 mph over the limit is acceptable, good for you. Myself (and I suspect most sane individuals (do you know what that word means? I doubt it) can think of WAY MORE WISE WAYS to spend my money. But, if you want to spend it that way, fine.





So, by your convoluted logic, the instance I mentioned regarding the bogus infraction my wife got would have been better resolved by having a hearing that included a jury? Man, what prehistoric thinking!



I'm sure there are MANY, MANY folks out there that would share either the same or similar opinions. But, for folks that have tunnel vision, it's understandable why they can't fathom such logic.

Man, folks have difficulty reading! I NEVER, NEVER said that one does not have a right to a trial by a jury. From a logical perspective (folks around here seem to have a difficult time grasping that word), though, having a jury AUTOMATICALLY present for hearing arguments about traffic violations is a HUGE, HUGE waste of time, effort, and money. The Texas court system would be wise to concentrate such processes on WAY MORE serious crimes.

Again, I am NOT SAYING that the individual cannot have a trial with a jury. He or she should always have that option.

I understand all that, given the way things are setup in Texas. (In actuality, yes, one can choose the option for a hearing, but that hearing is with a jury present. That's my whole point!) But, the model here in Washington works just as well, and for most traffic infractions, a trial WITH A JURY PRESENT is extremely, extremely rare. And that being the case, court costs logically (there's that word again. I truly wonder if folks can understand that) are WAY, WAY less.

Again, I cite the example, regarding the bogus ticket my wife received a couple of years ago. That process was extremely cost effective, smooth, and definitely saved the taxpayers money (and thus that jurisdiction could wisely spend their funds on WAY MORE serious crimes). In Texas, we would have needed to have a trial jury to argue our case. Man, talk about inefficiency!

Really? You accuse the “folks around here” of having trouble reading and then continue your rant that Texas is wasting money by having a jury automatically present for traffic offences. Really?....after joemike has explained twice that it is not so.



My ‘read’ on all of this is that you simply want to force your opinion that Texas is a police state, as indicated in your early statement “….he did a great service in exposing the police state in Texas, and that is what lots of people see it as.”

Then, when people aren’t buying in you suggest they can’t follow logic. Perhaps it would be easier if you didn't change your logic to suit your own mistakes. You start out absolutely accusing the Texas officer of using a gun:

“Would like to know about "the barrel of a gun". In almost all cases, and especially if one acts respectful to the officer, I have never heard of the need for a gun regarding a traffic violation.”

Soon thereafter you reinforce your opinion:

“Finally, what about the "at the barrel of a gun" statement? Is it that bad in Texas (again, evidence of a police state)?”

Then, when it’s pointed out quite politely that you didn't understand what you had read in the man’s link, you can’t admit you may have been wrong. Instead you ask everyone to believe that what you really meant in the above statements was that “…..the "barrel of a gun" comment was made in jest by him.”

Allow me to make a couple of suggestions:

1. If you really think Texas is a police state, don’t go there.
2. If the inability of the "folks around here” to grasp your concepts causes you so much grief, don’t come here.

And, I am sure a man of your perspicacity will appreciate that these suggestions are offered with the kindest intentions.

I am not "forcing" anything. I am just stating obvious things,and making a valid comparison to the way things are here in Washington state.

For contesting a ticket, I have previously pointed out the differences between Texas and Washington. But, given that some folks still can't read, I'll explain it VERY, VERY clearly here.

So, the individual makes the choice of contesting the violation. In Texas, the defendant foes before a judge, and that INCLUDES a jury to hear the case. In Washington, the defendant goes before a judge, but there is NO JURY present.

I hope that is clear now. And, I'll repeat: regarding the bogus ticket my wife received a couple of years ago, Washington (at least the jurisdiction which has "control" of the violation) is definitely WAY MORE progressive than Texas. We were able to write in our defense, without going to court. That documentation was read by a judge in his chambers, and he made the ruling then (correct one, by the way, given the circumstances). No need to go before the judge in person (although we had that option), and certainly no jury present!



I DID NOT SAY that I did not understand what he stated, regarding this "barrel of a gun" business. In fact, here is what I said (twice, by the way):

"I suspect, though, that the "barrel of a gun" comment was made in jest by him. However, given the ridiculous amount for going only 9 mph over the limit, I can understand how he felt."

"I suspected he just said it in jest. But, given the ridiculous amount he had to pay for just going 9 mph over the limit, I can certainly understand him feeling that way."

Once again, it seems folks cannot read around here!



First of all, I really have no desire to re-visit Texas again (was there about 45 years ago, and it was "OK"). Secondly, I'll say what I want, and when I want (within the "rules", of course. I hope others will do the same).

Now, may I kindly make a couple of suggestions for you:

1. Do not misquote anyone, nor misstate what one previously says. Just keep things honest, especially when you are quoting someone.
2. If you can't agree with someone's statements, well and good. But, state your objections in an accurate manner.

Yes, yes, you "suspected" that the man was jesting. However, you only came to your suspicion AFTER you learned that you wrongly interpreted what the man had said.

Clearly, this current rant is less about clarification than it is about your obsession with having the last word. So, you are welcome to it. Enjoy.

The way it works is the county calls a jury pool (in a large urban county there may be 300 or more jurors in the pool and there may be more than one pool each week day) that is available to serve in any court in the county and may or may not located at the county court house. When a judge needs a jury panel to select from the jury room is contacted and a group of potential jurors is sent to that court, the number sent is determined by the requesting judge. Any juror in the pool may be empaneled for anything from a major criminal or civil case lasting many days or weeks to a misdemeanor trial such as the one under discussion that typically lasts less than an hour. So while there was a jury panel standing by somewhere, it was not necessarily at the particular court house and most certainly not for a particular court or trial.

Depending on the county a jury pool's lifespan is anywhere from 4 hours in some large urban counties up to a week or more in small rural counties. Where the pool's lifespan lasts more than a day it is a typical practice to allow the panel to go home or to work but they must remain available when a jury panel is requested. When a jury panel is sent to a court the jurors undergo voir dire by both the defense and the prosecution and may or may not be selected to actually sit on the jury or in the case of an extended trial they may be selected as alternates in case a jury member becomes unable to serve for any reason. The system is both effective and efficient.

No, I actually had such a thought when I first read the story on yahoo.com.

And, I guess there are just some dense folks who can't admit when they are mistaken and/or take a correction in a mature manner.

Oh, one more thing, in case you still think I have something against Texas: I would make the exact same points/objections, etc., no matter which other state this (or something stupidly similar) occurs in. I am, though, willing to bet that there are not many states which use a jury to hear arguments related to "not so serious" traffic violations. (Yes, yes, I understand the defendant does have every right to demand a jury trial. But, in most instances for traffic violations, that does not seem necessary).

All of that may be fine and efficient, but to use a jury for hearing arguments related to traffic violations (at least ones that are not "too serious") is, to me, a HUGE waste of time and resources.

Now that I think about it, Washington actually has traffic courts already set up in just about all jurisdictions, and thus there is no "choosing" of a jury needed. Again, seems WAY more cost effective and efficient.

By the way, Oregon is another state that is progressive (and efficient) like Washington. About 5 years ago, I received a speeding violation south of Bend, Oregon (about a 6 hour drive from where I live). Due to my excellent driving record, I was given the option of electing to take an on-line course, and I accomplished ALL of that on line and through the mail. I wonder if a state like Texas would require me to make an appearance in court to ask for such an option? As it is, with the first two options one has after receiving a traffic violation in Texas, apparently a court appearance is still required. In Washington, if one just pleads guilty right away, they can just mail in the fine to the appropriate court/jurisdiction. No court appearance is needed. And, as I stated before, at least in Washington, one has the reasonable option of having his case "mediated", and even though the defendant is "kind of" admitting guilt, at least there is an excellent chance of getting the fine reduced. And, there is no jury trial for that. The defendant just meets one on one with a court-appointed individual, and discussions ensue between them. Seems reasonable and efficient to me.

Ya, right.


Exactly.

Yup, I'm right, and as usual, you are dead wrong!



Hmm, admitting you are dense. My synopsis is right on the money!

And therein lies the problem.

You either don't begin to understand or just plain don't give a damn that what's obvious to you is not necessarily obvious, may even be ridiculous, to others.

You need to quit stating your opinions as if you're issuing pronouncements, and you also need to quit denigrating those who don't see it your way.

Not seeing something your way does NOT make people stupid, ignorant, dense, blinded by tunnel vision, or anything else other than people expressing their own opinions.

You're just another guy with opinions, but you're the only one around here who states them as authoritative and laughs at those who don't recognize "the wisdom inherent in their authority ".

Perhaps there are "MANY, MANY folks out there that would share either the same or similar opinions", and perhaps you ought to find yourself a new home among them.

Once again I will remind everyone that even in The Lounge everyone is expected to adhere to the bounds of civil discourse.

• personal remarks or ascribing thoughts to another person is out if bounds.
• Telling others about themselves is never an acceptable practice.
• Even if not ascribed to an individual by name statements like "for folks who have tunnel vision" does nothing to further the conversation and indirectly insults some of the readers.
• Remember what is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to others.
• claim your opinions as your own or document the source of your opinion.
• Most important of all keep it civil.

No, the problem is folks who can't accept reasonable explanations, like yourself.



I can, and do, understand obvious things. It's some other folks that don't.



Unfortunately, that becomes necessary either when folks do not acknowledge where and when they have been corrected, or when my opinions have validity.

Also, you need to heed your denigrating remark. Remember when you denigrated my family? I have never, nor will I ever, stoop so low and do something like that (except when I respond to someone that starts such denigrations, like you previously did).



See above.



Yeah right, and I've got a bridge that I can sell you in Brooklyn.



No, I'll just stick around here, and post when I want.

Keep pushing and get banned.....you have so much to offer here, it would be a shame to have to send you away because of your repeated interactions outside the Forum guidelines.

I think you can be better than your track record would have us believe. Now prove it by your actions.

I'm willing to do that. But, can others do the same? I feel my response above to artie505 was within the guidelines. In fact, I was just providing responses that were just like his statements (in tone and meaning). What is wrong with that?

That's how minor skirmishes often escalate into more serious clashes. Cruising the high road without a sniper rifle is healthier for the psyche and doesn't get one targeted for retaliation.

Wow...just...WOW!

And I'll bet that you even believe it.

:shrug:

It's always amazed me how many people will be dishonest or do anything they can just to get out of serving. I wonder how they'd feel if they were on trial and none of those who were serving took their duties seriously. I bet they'd feel a bit differently then.

Just my 0.02...

Does the system still allow jury nullification? I was chosen for jury duty here and the case was a guy who sold marijuana to an undercover officer from a shopping cart full of flowers he was pushing around. I forget what exact question I was asked but expressed the opinion that the whole case was a waste of everyone's time and taxpayer money. The defense attorney argued for close to an hour that I was merely expressing a political opinion.

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

Hmmmmm. Sounds like the defense attorney in slolerner's case had this in the back of his mind.

the most important take from the video is
A) juries can't be held accountable for their verdict
B) there can be no appeal or retrial if you are found innocent

So although hurry nullification isn't specifically allowed, it's an unpreventable option available to jurors due to what has been specifically spelled out in their job as jurors.

I especially like his examples of nullification (for good and for evil) during the civil war era. Northern juries found people illegally assisting with the escape of slaves innocent, and southern juries found black lynch mobs innocent. Two very concise, clear examples of jury nullification.

Canada also has jury nullification. However our countries differ in that a Canadian prosecutor can appeal the acquittal.


I saw that and thought it was also a good argument in favour of prosecutorial right to appeal.

That no-retrial rule only applies in criminal cases, not civil. I think in matters of criminal justice, the citizens need to be given the edge since it's already an unlevel playing field. (if you lose, you lose hard, but if you win, you don't win anything other than the right to be left alone)

If something like that happens in this era, the victims' families hit up the courts with civil suits and tend to win. (like OJ Simpson for one recent example)

Excellent recent example…..although my guess is that the families would have preferred seeing him do hard time for the rest of his life. And, a civil suit might not be too meaningful in situations where there's nothing to seize.

Unlike a criminal trial where the jury decision has to be unanimous and the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in this civil case only a ¾ majority is required and the standard of proof is "a reasonable man" would think. So it is not unreasonable for persons not satisfied with the results of a criminal trial to turn to civil court to get satisfaction. Monetary awards in cases like that are often secondary to the plaintiff having the satisfaction of a court acknowledging the defendants guilt in the act.

Civil juries have even been known to find for the plaintiff even though the plaintiff did nothing wrong. I was on a civil jury where several jurors acknowledged the defendant did nothing wrong, but because the plaintiff had suffered pain and anguish she deserved compensation and they wanted to find for the plaintiff. FWIW as there were only three jurors who felt that way the decision of the other nine was sufficient to prevail and we found for the defendant.

I wonder if some of that isn't the mentality of "I've been wronged and somebody's gotta be held responsible!"

What I say to them: No, sometimes your luck's just crap. Life isn't always fair. And no, you're not entitled to compensation for when life takes a dump on you. More specifically, just because someone else is nearby and was involved in it, doesn't make them responsible for it.

Gee, any chance I could convince you to write to our Prime Minister? We have had a series of federal governments who seem to think they should:

a) apologize for every wrong that's ever been committed against anyone and
b) write fat cheques to compensate.

It's got so out of hand that even the gay community has now pitched the government that they should get an apology (and a cheque, of course) for past wrongs.

Gads.

I now understand why that Criminal Court Judge got bent out of shape when I raised my hand - I was the only one to do so. - when he asked the the voir dire panel if any of us would vote against a conviction based on the facts because we didn't agree with the law.

Actually, I didn't have nullification in mind...wasn't even aware of the concept; my response was rooted in the thought that (to the best of my knowledge) the ONLY opportunity an INDIVIDUAL American has to raise hir LONE voice and make it HEARD is to say "That law sucks! Hung jury!"

Needless to say, we didn't get into a philosophical discussion, but had we done so I would have made a very strong point that the privilege is not one to be taken lightly, but neither is it one to be ignored (if nobody asks the right question and nullifies the possibility).

I think it is more a case of, "The defendant has insurance therefore the only one hurt will be in insurance company so why not grant the defendant a windfall."

My wife once sat next to a district court judge on an airline flight and during their conversation he said exactly that. When, my wife pointed out that we all pay for the insurance either directly in the form of premiums or indirectly in the form of increased prices to pay for the increased premiums, the judge was quiet and very thoughtful and finally confessed to her, "I guess you are right. That never occurred to me before." The scary thing to me is the judge, who had a reputation of being a very good jurist, was so wrapped up in the mechanics and letter of the law that he had never considered the impact not only on those directly involved but the general public as well.

Sounds like the man spent his life in a closet.

It's incomprehensible to me that he could have served in the legal profession long enough and with enough distinction to have become a judge without ever having bumped into the reality noted by your wife.

The thought of it makes me fearful of the "justice" dispensed in his court!

Edit: It also leaves me wondering how he goes about acquiring a new car.

The whole (slightly tangential) discussion revolving around jury duty would lead one to avoid same by hook or by crook, unless of course one is otherwise bored senseless and/or is at loose ends as to what to do for entertainment.

As for the latter, might I suggest learning a foreign language (eg, Arabic, Russian, Greek, Chinese — something not written in Roman letters which can also recruit right-hemisphere learning) to while away the hours, as well as forestall dementia's setting in.

And generations of "good" Americans did, indeed, avoid it, but by never registering to vote (here in NYC, anyhow), which was kinda counterproductive.

Which reminds me of the recent incident on an airline. A mathematics professor was writing some mathematical thoughts of a symbolic nature. The woman sitting next to him saw these, did not recognize the script, saw that he was "Middle Eastern in appearances", he had spoken to her curtly ("Is Syracuse your home?" "No.") and notified a member of the flight crew of suspicious behaviors. The professor was pulled off, questioned but allowed to return to his seat and the flight continued

Oh, the professor was an award winning Italian mathematician.

Apropos same ...

If I had a laptop to travel with, I never would, given the rather less than sacrosanct treatment of one's data, especially when crossing international borders.

However, I have a great screen saver which is guaranteed to freak out any Nosy Parker who is wont to check out what you're doing on your computer:
At a click it starts a visual countdown from 10 (virtually full-screen font). If you start mumbling gibberish or, even better, some form of Arabic, you're guaranteed to cause an effect.
I particularly enjoy capping off the countdown with an elegant calligraphic rendition of "Allahu akbar".
(You could also offer your seatmate a 72-hour Depend®.)

Or you could go to a theatre and wait until 15 minutes after the movie starts and yell FIRE!

and no, neither sounds like even a remotely good idea.

I thought somebody might come up with that (or a similar) objection. But, no, it's not the same thing. Nor is it like using the word "bomb" in an airline terminal.
It is virtually the same as the Italian mathematician example ... namely, no harm, no foul. And it screws over the stupid and ignorant.

No harm???

The difference is INTENT. Admittedly the lady who was frightened by a mathematical formula demonstrated her ignorance, but ignorance is not a crime and neither she nor the mathematician intended to create an incident which is what you are proposing. I suspect the airline, TSA, and airport security police would take a very dim view of your little practical joke and at best you could end up being asked to leave the airplane and take a bus. You could even end up with a fine or even jail time.

Maybe yes, maybe no. There is absolutely no literal threat.
But, as I noted in my preamble, it's wholly moot. I would never travel with any electronic device which could be seized and searched by authorities, legitimate or otherwise.

Inciting a stampede or riot isn't a protected act, anywhere. If you do something with the intent to get that result, you are responsible for that result even if the victim was stupid for responding like that.

Taking a total disconnect - if you toss a firecracker under someone's seat, and they jump when it goes off and hit their head on the bin overhead, you will probably be found and held responsible for their injury in any civil or criminal response.

Now let me really shorten that: "Don't be an ass"

Continuing in the vein of the hypothetical ...
It is extremely difficult to prove intent, which is an internal mental construct, if that's what is necessary to determine "guilt".
On the other hand, proximate and/or ultimate cause* is a more achievable possibility, but limited to that culpability is reduced.
(* For example, proximate cause of someone's rear bumper being crunched is my vehicle's having hit it; the ultimate cause might be the failure of my vehicle's braking system or my inattentiveness. In either case, albeit otherwise irrelevant to the main issue, the matter is dealt with by liability insurance.)

And getting back to reality, once you're busted, neither lack of intent nor even innocence will save you from having to talk and perhaps even pay your way out of it.

The reality is that, given the premises I stated, such can never happen. So let's just drop this.

The reality is that given those premises it can never happen to you, but it could happen to someone dumb enough to like and execute your "cute" idea.

Accordingly, a complete discussion of potential consequences is not unwarranted.