Why did you drop the "Lusty" portion of your name again?Originally Posted by Justy
Why did you drop the "Lusty" portion of your name again?
I like Kung-Fu.
And how did he get to change it within a year? I smell insider job!Why did you drop the "Lusty" portion of your name again?
So I couldn't start spouting racial epithets?! D:
no that would be counterproductive. And I re-illiterate: why do you want to skip on jury duty?So I couldn't start spouting racial epithets?! D:
Because I have better things to do.
I was lucky. For a few years I was able to get out of it cause of convictions. Now...those convictions are spent. I was called once in 2003 or something didnt have to attend. No such hope now if I'm called....well one. When you show up for the selection arrive in a Nazi Brownshirt & a polkadot dress. Make suere you drool & say 'Capri-Sun' over & over. You'll be home again before you were even asked to sit down.
I hope I never get jury duty. I worry that my short attention span will get the better of me, and I'll just vote with the majority to get it over with and end up really screwing somebody over
Oprah Ticket Gets Woman Out Of Jury Duty
Awesome. Try this Julian, you racist bastard.
It was TAKEN from me.And how did he get to change it within a year? I smell insider job!Why did you drop the "Lusty" portion of your name again?
smurf that noise, I hate Oprah.
Is it because she's black or because she's a woman
It's because she's a crazy moron.
But that might actually have to do with your choices...
I will probably never forgive Oprah for popularising that Law of Attraction bull.
California has a one day one trial policy, so you only have to sit in the waiting room one day if you are not selected to sit on a jury. I was an alternate juror for a murder trial about 7 years ago, the defendant was an 18 year old boy who had stomped a and stabbed a 9 year old boy to death while on meth. We weren't actually deciding whether or not he was guilty, but rather determining his degree of guilt. The defense attorney was pushing us to find him guilty of involuntary manslaughter but nobody was buying it. He was found guilty of 1st degree murder which is what I would have voted for if I had been called in to replace one of the jurors.
That... makes no sense to me. Didn't the jury have the option to find him not guilty on all charges? The manslaughter charge was just a lesser-included offense (meaning that every element of manslaughter is also in murder, though not vice-versa, and he could only be found guilty of one).
I would've been skeptical that a stoned eighteen-year-old could form the requisite intent and premeditation typically required in state laws for first degree murder. However, voluntary intoxication generally is no defense to murder, so second degree murder might have been more fair. It should be noted that I have no idea about the specifics of the case.
He admitted he killed the boy, but he was trying to say the drugs made him do it which, like you said, is no defense to murder. As for the details, he went out of his way to kill this boy, who was watching cartoons in a room by himself and he searched him out and killed him in a horrible way. It was very, very sad.That... makes no sense to me. Didn't the jury have the option to find him not guilty on all charges? The manslaughter charge was just a lesser-included offense (meaning that every element of manslaughter is also in murder, though not vice-versa, and he could only be found guilty of one).
I would've been skeptical that a stoned eighteen-year-old could form the requisite intent and premeditation typically required in state laws for first degree murder. However, voluntary intoxication generally is no defense to murder, so second degree murder might have been more fair. It should be noted that I have no idea about the specifics of the case.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
