Jury Duty with a Liberal

OMG. Earlier this week, I had the most unpleasant experience of my adult life... being chosen for a jury consisting of 5 moderate conservatives and 1 die-hard liberal.

DWI case from 2010 which screams out 'if you throw enough time & $$$ at a problem, it might go away' syndrome. Defendant - Hispanic male who was stopped for suspicious driving at 4 am on a major highway. (He ran up behind a patrol car at a high rate of speed... as captured on the rear video of the squad car). So happened he manages strip clubs and also had $30K in cash in the car with him.

The jury was charged with deciding whether or not the policeman had 'reasonable suspicion' to stop the car. Nevermind the fact the guy was obviously drunk and on video from the time of stop until he arrived at jail... passed out in the back seat of the squad car.

His attorneys were trying to get him off by saying it was an illegal stop.

Fairly cut & dried, right? We saw the video... noticed the cop was driving at 61 mph when headlights came up behind him at a high rate of speed. We watched as he slowed down, pulled over to the shoulder and let the guy pass him... then fell in behind, turned on his lights and stopped him.

Thought we were going to settle the case and get on with our lives, but noooooooo, the idiot liberal couldn't bring herself to side with the cop, so she steadfastly refused to agree the video showed he was obviously speeding. We spent 2 days locked in a room, trying to persuade her to watch one more time and keep an open mind... but she flatly refused, saying her mind was made up... the cop has no reason to stop him. We pressed her to explain why she thought he stopped the guy if he had no reason to be suspicious and she crossed her arms over her chest and stated, "He just didn't, that's all."

What an idiot. Because of her prejudice against law enforcement, the case will be have to be tried again... which is probably not the first time considering the age of the offense.

Made me very concerned for the welfare of our legal system. Our forefathers obviously never considered the fact our intelligence would dissolve rather than evolve as time went on. Whatta waste of time and tax dollars.

But at least I met a true Obama supporter up close & personal. I can testify to this fact... we couldn't be more screwed.


Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 05-04-2012 11:09 AM

 

If you want to learn what happens when liberals take over the whole legal system, read this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/western-europe/231661-ridiculously-light-sentences-sweden.html

 

Thx for the link... it's obviously an international problem. Liberals cause gridlock in the justice system here. It only takes one to deadlock a jury and at least the one I dealt with this week... took great pride in deadlocking the jury. She actually seemed to think she was some kinda heroine for 'saving' the drunk bastard from the mean ole police.

It's like a fellow jury member told her at the end... we can only hope he doesn't go out and do it again and kill somebody's kid this time. But then again it wouldn't matter... criminals are the real victims in lefties' eyes. It's bizarre.

 

So let me get this straight. 1 person represents an entire group of people?

 

On this forum, after thousands of posts which generalize groups of people based on typical political leanings, and NOW you want to ask if its acceptable.

Alright. Thread saved. Plan on me copying this into every post you make that generalizes political leanings.

Or... You could grow a pair and actually discuss the OP rather than play stupid little avoidance games, especially when the games are illogical.

 

Stranger's ideology is never quite as obvious as it is during jury service. What the attorneys don't drag out in view of everybody during voir dire, once you're locked in that little room together, everybody's ideological souls are pretty much laid bare during deliberations.

Deciding someone's fate is a humbling experience. It's just too bad some morons think that's the time to make their political statement.

Idiots.

 

The rest of the jury should have complained about bias and had her replaced with an alternate.

 

Not really, I generally ask this everyime someone tries to generalize either side.

Okay be my guest.

So it's logical to have one person to reprsent an entire group of people?

 

LOL, just realized this thread doesn't have my name on it since it was moved over... but it's mine... for the record.

Can't really say she was biased... more like her mind was made up during the trial and she wasn't willing to listen to anybody else's opinions. Even though it was 5 to 1 against her. She went thru the motions of considering the evidence (i.e., watching parts of a police vid 50 times on 6 different monitors). When we'd point out something OBVIOUS to her, she'd say, "I can't see it. I just don't see what you people see."

That's because she's an idiot.

 

I wonder why she sided with the drunk Hispanic speeder against the police - given clear evidence.
Was she White, Black, or Hispanic?

So much attitude.
I'll betcha a dozen doughnuts she was Black. Am I right?

 

It's not only logical... at times it's unavoidable.

This idiot was a liberal Democrat. I'd stake my jurypay on it.

 

So what part of the OP told you she was a dem?

 

I think she could have been replaced for a failure to deliberate.

 

That's great, but apparently that doesn't matter any more because the trial is over.

 

....or for being prejudiced against the police. And their camera, lol.

.

 

I wrote the OP.

And spent 9 hrs over 2 days locked in a room with her and 5 other people. I know more about those 5 people than I know about most people I work with everyday.

She's a criminal-hugging liberal.

 

Well, in the idiot's defense... the night-vision police car video wasn't like watching TV. It required some judgment of time & motion because it was a segment of about 15 seconds that was in question. Could you tell how fast the car behind him was coming up on his tail?

The officer testified that his view in the rearview mirror was much clearer than what we were seeing... but that didn't matter to her. She couldn't see it 100% clear... so it wasn't so.

Frustrating.

 

It should go without saying ,that 1 person doesnt represent an entire group of people, It should also go without saying that this is very common typical behavior of a liberal brainwashed person,unable to use common sense,and deprived of the ability to think critically. Words have no meaning in liberal minds.

 

So she told you she was a dem?

 

No, she told me she was an Obama-supporter. I deduced she was a Dim.

 

This is so true. She even slipped once and said something like, "Nobody's proven to me..."

The foreman explained again that it wasn't our place to demand PROOF. We've seen all they've got.

She just couldn't get it.

And admitted it was her first time to serve on a jury, even though she was mid-50's. I hope it's her last... people like her are a drain on our judicial system.

 

It might have been because she was a liberal or because she or someone in her immediate family was a drunk. We had one judge who heard DUI cases who was a drunk and defense attorneys wanted him for their clients' cases.

Some years ago, when Walden County had 900 or so registered voters, a man with numerous DUI convictions was running for Sheriff on a "no dui arrests" platform. It was a close election.

 

Sounds a lot more like a case of idiocy than liberalism to me.

 

They say you can't fix stupid, and you were face to face with it, Smarty.
Life lesson proven.

 

Good for her. If her honest opinion was it was unproven, she was 100% right to stand by it. You were 100% wrong if you tried to influence her. I don't know how your justice system works, but I've been on jury duty here and you are required to give your own vote based on your own opinion of the facts presented. That she didn't see what you saw, doesn't make you right.

What evidence was there that he was speeding, btw? Was it evidenced that he was drunk? I mean did they breathalyse him?