An open community 
of Macintosh users,
for Macintosh users.

FineTunedMac Dashboard widget now available! Download Here

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#40784 - 06/01/16 09:17 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: joemikeb]
honestone Offline
Banned

Registered: 11/13/15
Loc: Seattle, WA (up in God's Count...
Originally Posted By: joemikeb
Originally Posted By: honestone
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.

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 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!
_________________________
Using Macs since 1984
Current Systems:
Mid 2013 13" MacBook Air with 251 gig Samsung SSD
Late 2012 Mac Mini with 256 gig Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Using OS 10.11.5 on both
Make SuperDuper! backups for both machines
Canon Multifunction Inkjet Printer

Top
#40786 - 06/01/16 10:40 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: honestone]
ryck Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Okanagan Valley
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.

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
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.

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
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.

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.


Edited by ryck (06/01/16 10:43 AM)
_________________________
ryck

iMac (Retina 5K, 27", 2017), 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 2400 MHz DDR4
OS High Sierra 10.13.6
Canon MX712 Printer
Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner
Time Machine on 320GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro
Super Duper on 500GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro

Top
#40787 - 06/01/16 11:35 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: ryck]
honestone Offline
Banned

Registered: 11/13/15
Loc: Seattle, WA (up in God's Count...
Originally Posted By: ryck
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.

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
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.

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
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.

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.”


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!

Originally Posted By: ryck
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.”


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!

Originally Posted By: ryck
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.


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.


Edited by honestone (06/01/16 11:39 AM)
_________________________
Using Macs since 1984
Current Systems:
Mid 2013 13" MacBook Air with 251 gig Samsung SSD
Late 2012 Mac Mini with 256 gig Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Using OS 10.11.5 on both
Make SuperDuper! backups for both machines
Canon Multifunction Inkjet Printer

Top
#40788 - 06/01/16 12:09 PM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: honestone]
ryck Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Okanagan Valley
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.


Edited by ryck (06/01/16 12:28 PM)
_________________________
ryck

iMac (Retina 5K, 27", 2017), 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 2400 MHz DDR4
OS High Sierra 10.13.6
Canon MX712 Printer
Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner
Time Machine on 320GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro
Super Duper on 500GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro

Top
#40789 - 06/01/16 02:14 PM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: honestone]
joemikeb Offline
Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Fort Worth, Texas
Originally Posted By: honestone
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

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.
_________________________
joemikeb • moderator

Top
#40790 - 06/01/16 02:22 PM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: ryck]
honestone Offline
Banned

Registered: 11/13/15
Loc: Seattle, WA (up in God's Count...
Originally Posted By: ryck
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.


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).


Edited by honestone (06/01/16 02:25 PM)
_________________________
Using Macs since 1984
Current Systems:
Mid 2013 13" MacBook Air with 251 gig Samsung SSD
Late 2012 Mac Mini with 256 gig Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Using OS 10.11.5 on both
Make SuperDuper! backups for both machines
Canon Multifunction Inkjet Printer

Top
#40792 - 06/01/16 02:40 PM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: joemikeb]
honestone Offline
Banned

Registered: 11/13/15
Loc: Seattle, WA (up in God's Count...
Originally Posted By: joemikeb
Originally Posted By: honestone
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

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.


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.
_________________________
Using Macs since 1984
Current Systems:
Mid 2013 13" MacBook Air with 251 gig Samsung SSD
Late 2012 Mac Mini with 256 gig Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Using OS 10.11.5 on both
Make SuperDuper! backups for both machines
Canon Multifunction Inkjet Printer

Top
#40800 - 06/01/16 05:13 PM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: honestone]
ryck Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Okanagan Valley
Originally Posted By: honestone
Originally Posted By: ryck
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.


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

Ya, right.

Originally Posted By: honestone
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.

Exactly.
_________________________
ryck

iMac (Retina 5K, 27", 2017), 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 2400 MHz DDR4
OS High Sierra 10.13.6
Canon MX712 Printer
Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner
Time Machine on 320GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro
Super Duper on 500GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro

Top
#40808 - 06/01/16 08:20 PM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: ryck]
honestone Offline
Banned

Registered: 11/13/15
Loc: Seattle, WA (up in God's Count...
Originally Posted By: ryck
Originally Posted By: honestone
Originally Posted By: ryck
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.


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

Ya, right.


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

Originally Posted By: ryck
Originally Posted By: honestone
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.

Exactly.


Hmm, admitting you are dense. My synopsis is right on the money!
_________________________
Using Macs since 1984
Current Systems:
Mid 2013 13" MacBook Air with 251 gig Samsung SSD
Late 2012 Mac Mini with 256 gig Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Using OS 10.11.5 on both
Make SuperDuper! backups for both machines
Canon Multifunction Inkjet Printer

Top
#40811 - 06/02/16 12:25 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: honestone]
artie505 Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Originally Posted By: honestone
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.

Originally Posted By: honestone
I am not "forcing" anything. I am just stating obvious things....

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 tongue ".

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.


Edited by artie505 (06/02/16 02:32 AM)
Edit Reason: Add another denigrating adjective
_________________________
The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

Top
#40817 - 06/02/16 06:44 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: artie505]
joemikeb Offline
Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Fort Worth, Texas
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.
_________________________
joemikeb • moderator

Top
#40819 - 06/02/16 08:23 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: artie505]
honestone Offline
Banned

Registered: 11/13/15
Loc: Seattle, WA (up in God's Count...
Originally Posted By: artie505
Originally Posted By: honestone
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.

Originally Posted By: honestone
I am not "forcing" anything. I am just stating obvious things....

And therein lies the problem.


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

Originally Posted By: artie505
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.


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

Originally Posted By: artie505
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.


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).

Originally Posted By: artie505
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.


See above.

Originally Posted By: artie505
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 tongue ".


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

Originally Posted By: artie505
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.


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


Edited by honestone (06/02/16 08:42 AM)
_________________________
Using Macs since 1984
Current Systems:
Mid 2013 13" MacBook Air with 251 gig Samsung SSD
Late 2012 Mac Mini with 256 gig Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Using OS 10.11.5 on both
Make SuperDuper! backups for both machines
Canon Multifunction Inkjet Printer

Top
#40820 - 06/02/16 10:09 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: honestone]
MacManiac Online
Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Paradise....on the central Ore...
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.
_________________________
Freedom is never free....thank a Service member today.

Top
#40821 - 06/02/16 10:14 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: MacManiac]
honestone Offline
Banned

Registered: 11/13/15
Loc: Seattle, WA (up in God's Count...
Originally Posted By: MacManiac
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?
_________________________
Using Macs since 1984
Current Systems:
Mid 2013 13" MacBook Air with 251 gig Samsung SSD
Late 2012 Mac Mini with 256 gig Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Using OS 10.11.5 on both
Make SuperDuper! backups for both machines
Canon Multifunction Inkjet Printer

Top
#40825 - 06/02/16 01:54 PM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: honestone]
grelber Offline


Registered: 08/05/09
Loc: North of 49th ||
Originally Posted By: honestone
... 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.

Top
#40828 - 06/02/16 02:54 PM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: honestone]
artie505 Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Wow...just...WOW!

And I'll bet that you even believe it.

:shrug:
_________________________
The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

Top
#40855 - 06/04/16 02:37 PM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: jchuzi]
GregMac Offline


Registered: 06/04/16
Loc: Newark, NJ
Originally Posted By: jchuzi
Originally Posted By: artie505
The right to a trial by jury under ANY circumstances is NEVER to be sneezed at.
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'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...

Top
#40857 - 06/05/16 04:56 PM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: GregMac]
slolerner Offline


Registered: 08/25/09
Loc: New York City
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.

Top
#40867 - 06/07/16 11:02 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: slolerner]
Virtual1 Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Iowa
Originally Posted By: slolerner
Does the system still allow jury nullification?

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ
_________________________
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department

Top
#40876 - 06/08/16 05:50 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: Virtual1]
ryck Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Okanagan Valley

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

Originally Posted By: slolerner
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.


Edited by ryck (06/08/16 05:52 AM)
_________________________
ryck

iMac (Retina 5K, 27", 2017), 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 2400 MHz DDR4
OS High Sierra 10.13.6
Canon MX712 Printer
Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner
Time Machine on 320GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro
Super Duper on 500GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro

Top
#40894 - 06/13/16 05:10 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: ryck]
Virtual1 Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Iowa
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.
_________________________
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department

Top
#40896 - 06/13/16 05:49 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: Virtual1]
ryck Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Okanagan Valley
Originally Posted By: Virtual1
B) there can be no appeal or retrial if you are found innocent

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

Originally Posted By: Virtual1
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.

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


Edited by ryck (06/13/16 06:11 AM)
_________________________
ryck

iMac (Retina 5K, 27", 2017), 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 2400 MHz DDR4
OS High Sierra 10.13.6
Canon MX712 Printer
Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner
Time Machine on 320GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro
Super Duper on 500GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro

Top
#40910 - 06/14/16 04:44 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: ryck]
Virtual1 Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Iowa
Originally Posted By: ryck
Originally Posted By: Virtual1
B) there can be no appeal or retrial if you are found innocent

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

Originally Posted By: Virtual1
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.

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)
_________________________
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department

Top
#40912 - 06/14/16 05:03 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: Virtual1]
ryck Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Okanagan Valley
Originally Posted By: Virtual1
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.


Edited by ryck (06/14/16 05:05 AM)
_________________________
ryck

iMac (Retina 5K, 27", 2017), 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 2400 MHz DDR4
OS High Sierra 10.13.6
Canon MX712 Printer
Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner
Time Machine on 320GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro
Super Duper on 500GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro

Top
#40916 - 06/14/16 06:43 AM Re: A Very Clever Way To Pay For a Ticket! [Re: ryck]
joemikeb Offline
Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Fort Worth, Texas
Originally Posted By: ryck
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.
_________________________
joemikeb • moderator

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Moderator:  alternaut, cyn