It's Personal...

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:07 pm

she was a bitch anyways

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:12 pm

Indeed. Maybe when I lose some more weight and finally get a decent job I'll find a woman that takes me seriously. I'm losing a solid 1-2 pounds a month, and I put out applications a couple of times a week. Something has to work out.

violence in the media · Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:58 pm

I guess this is the thread for sharing. My uncle, Clarence, is receiving the Presidential Citizens Medal today.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:44 pm

Congratulations for your uncle.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:51 pm

I have jury duty next week. I've never been called before.

I work evenings, so it likely won't interfere with work terribly much, so I'm interested in how it goes. I know it'll probably be a boring inconvenience, but I believe in society and doing my part for it.

The guys at work are all predicting I'll get put on a big, drawn-out case. If nothing else, the deliberations would be interesting to be in, seeing as how my views are sort of nonstandard for the region.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:00 pm

I have been called 3 times
I have never sat on a jury

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:45 pm

Around september 2010, I spent a month in-patient at a behavioral facility (read: insane asylum). While it did me a whole lot of good, there were a few unexpected side effects.

Their cafeteria was a 5-star buffet style setting. So, left unattended with this cornucopia of food, I gained 30 lbs in a month.

So, I've been trying to get rid of those 30 lbs. I finally am making progress. I've lost about 20 lbs in the last 6 months. Not only that, Some of that lost weight has come back as muscle rather than fat. I'm still not as fit as I would like to be, but I can now run a mile without killing

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:23 pm

I sat on a jury once. It was one of those cases where the plaintiff was claiming that the other person deliberately harmed him during a game of basketball. It was one of those cases where you didn't need 100% absolute agreement and I was the lone discenter, because I was not convinced that there wasn't any proof that the foul was deliberate that caused him to fall and injure himself.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:45 am

Then it turned out you had a shitty judge, or you really didn't understand the jury instructions. Knowing you, I'll bet on the latter.

You consent to a wide range of contacts when you engage in a sport, including deliberate fouls.

The only factual question I can see for the jury is whether or not the type of foul was the type of contact that should have reasonably been expected in playing the game.

IE, you consent to being slapped really hard, or tripped into, but not to be punched in the face. If he deliberately hacked at the other guys arms to prevent a shot, it's a foul, but not a battery.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:26 am

So none of this?

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:41 am

I highly doubt anyone on the Den is getting empaneled any time soon. I'm pretty sure just posting here disqualifies you by itself.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:26 am

I just missed my jury call due to forgetstupidshitunlessithappensimmediatelyorI'mnaggeditis. Called and got it rescheduled for something like Dec. 5. I'm actually not going to try to get out of it, if I don't have to, because I'd think it'd be at least somewhat interesting.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:12 am

Orion wrote:I highly doubt anyone on the Den is getting empaneled any time soon. I'm pretty sure just posting here disqualifies you by itself.

I was considering that. I mean, I lean liberal in most political and social issues, pretty much atheistic (though I don't think about religion much at all, really), and I have about half a degree in a hard science. And I have actually, bona-fide diagnosed Asperger's Syndrome and I'm quite willing to turn off my emotions and prejudices to deal with something rationally.

So, I guess the most I've decided beforehand is if I get seated on a jury, and it comes to it, I'm not voting guilty unless I'm absolutely sure they are, and I will not be swayed to do otherwise.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:22 am

Maxus wrote:
Orion wrote:I highly doubt anyone on the Den is getting empaneled any time soon. I'm pretty sure just posting here disqualifies you by itself.
I was considering that. I mean, I lean liberal in most political and social issues, pretty much atheistic (though I don't think about religion much at all, really), and I have about half a degree in a hard science. And I have actually, bona-fide diagnosed Asperger's Syndrome and I'm quite willing to turn off my emotions and prejudices to deal with something rationally.

So, I guess the most I've decided beforehand is if I get seated on a jury, and it comes to it, I'm not voting guilty unless I'm absolutely sure they are, and I will not be swayed to do otherwise.

Well then I hope you don't get selected as a jury member for a civil matter, because when the judge tells you that you are to find someone guilty if you think the evidence shows more probably than not that they are, you should do what he says.

Jury instructions usually don't suck.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:15 am

I'm not entirely up on my judiciary, but I'm pretty sure the circuit court doesn't handle civil cases. I could be wrong but that's my impression.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:56 pm

I was removed from a grand jury because, apparently, being Depressed is enough to disqualify a person. Makes me wonder if, to try a Depressed individual, a Depressed jury must be acquired.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:34 pm

Kaelik wrote:The only factual question I can see for the jury is whether or not the type of foul was the type of contact that should have reasonably been expected in playing the game.

That was basically the issue. He was basically trying to insist that what was otherwise the appearance of a action that was poorly performed was "deliberate" becuse the two may have had some words before the game, and the fact that he was just some old tired coach who hurt himself falling down on his leg had nothing to do with his injury.

If he could have offered up any witnesses to show that the foul was aggreous, he would have had a good case. As it was it was a "I said" vs "He said" and the POV of anyone infolved in an infraction of that sort is both difficult to be precise and very biased.

He basically sob storied the other jurors and he won.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:59 pm

tzor wrote:
Kaelik wrote:The only factual question I can see for the jury is whether or not the type of foul was the type of contact that should have reasonably been expected in playing the game.
That was basically the issue. He was basically trying to insist that what was otherwise the appearance of a action that was poorly performed was "deliberate" becuse the two may have had some words before the game, and the fact that he was just some old tired coach who hurt himself falling down on his leg had nothing to do with his injury.

If he could have offered up any witnesses to show that the foul was aggreous, he would have had a good case. As it was it was a "I said" vs "He said" and the POV of anyone infolved in an infraction of that sort is both difficult to be precise and very biased.

He basically sob storied the other jurors and he won.

??

He should have won. If there was no evidence that the contact was uncharacteristic of sports contacts, then they should have found for the defendant, and they did, so you were the only idiot saying that he should owe damages for something that was consented contact.

And also you are still completely wrong, because it has nothing to do with deliberate, and it could have been deliberate as shit, and still not be battery.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:11 pm

Kaelik wrote:He should have won. If there was no evidence that the contact was uncharacteristic of sports contacts, then they should have found for the defendant, and they did, so you were the only idiot saying that he should owe damages for something that was consented contact.

You have it backwards. I cided with the defendant, the others sided with the plaintiff. It was the paintiff who saying that he was owed damages for ... oh my leg was fractured and I'll never be the same coach again ... when there was no clear evidence that the contact was uncharacteristic of sports contacts. The others awardced him the money.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:56 pm

Maxus wrote:I'm not entirely up on my judiciary, but I'm pretty sure the circuit court doesn't handle civil cases. I could be wrong but that's my impression.

You are wrong. Circuit courts primarily handle civil cases. Most cases in general are civil, actually. Criminal cases are usually either plead out or have insufficient evidence to reach trial.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:59 pm

you wrote:I was the lone discenter, because I was not convinced that there wasn't any proof that the foul was deliberate that caused him to fall and injure himself.

According to you, they were convinced that there wasn't any proof that the foul was "deliberate."

According to you, you believed that there might have been some proof that the foul was "deliberate."

According to you, you sided with the plaintiff, and they sided with the defendant, get your weird stupid story where the jury is attempting to decide the wrong factual question straight.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:01 pm

Neeeek wrote:
Maxus wrote:I'm not entirely up on my judiciary, but I'm pretty sure the circuit court doesn't handle civil cases. I could be wrong but that's my impression.
You are wrong. Circuit courts primarily handle civil cases. Most cases in general are civil, actually. Criminal cases are usually either plead out or have insufficient evidence to reach trial.

Do we know he's US though? If I could be sure, I would have told him the same, but for all I know it's the Circuit Court of Tajikistan, which only hears criminal matters.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:41 pm

Moving is hard

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 2:32 am

Jury Duty: Day 1.

I was seated on a panel. Also, Alabama circuit court pays 10 dollars + 5 cents a round-trip mile a day, which is basically gas money and maybe a soda leftover.

The judge strikes me as a likeable fellow. He had the good grace to apologize for the pay basically covering your gas money and admitted that it's an inconvenience to the people summoned and thanked everyone present for answering the summons.

Two panels were summoned and then other twelve panels (including me) were told to be back at 9:15 tomorrow.

They also apparently DO handle criminal cases. The judge said there was a murder case up for jury selection today, which is why there were two panels picked up.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:09 pm

Jury Duty: Day 2.

I arrived a little after nine, well in time for the 9:15 appointment. At 9:25, even the stragglers are comfortably seated, the clerk asks if there's any correction to mileage (having asked everyone to watch the odometer on the way home), they call roll. Then tell us no new cases today, but ask panels 1 and 2 to both stay and 3-14 to go home and come back tomorrow at 9:15.

At 10 o'clock, I'm standing outside phoning my ride.