12 Mildly Disgrunted People


I just want to hug (your FACE)!
hey! 12 likes for 12 disgruntled people! Isn't that a musical or something?
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you."
- Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy."
- Captain Steel

You can't win an argument just by being right!
Goodluck. Just out of curiosity, how much do you guys in Murica get paid per day? I'm sure this question was answered before but I forgot.

I just want to hug (your FACE)!
Oh wow. While reading the OP, I kept thinking how coincidental it was that I thought I remembered a recent post of Yoda's claiming something about being summoned for Jury Duty. I assumed that this post must be a secondary continuation of that summons announcement. The question kept bugging me though that for as much nudging as there is for consolidating duplicate posts, then "why would Yoda make a second thread for the same topic?" I could barely focus on the narrative as this background thought just kept bursting through my concentration demanding resolution!

The first, following, response seemed odd too as I did not recognize the user name. Sure, I've only been here just over a year and there's no way for me to be familiar with all active users, but this thread topic seems like an obscure matter of interest that only the most frequent users would probably respond to. Yet I've never seen this user's name before! It could not be a new user, as most of them posting from a one-off Google search seem to not stick around long enough to know how to create a custom avatar. This user had one though, so what am I missing?! oh and WHY THE DUPLICATE THREAD TOPIC?!?

Then I notice the post date.

WTF?! How am I reading a post today, from the top of the list, posted almost a decade back?! Still, I was not connecting this thread to the one I was remembering earlier in which Yoda noted his recent summons adding to now THREE unsolved mysteries!!! My thoughts were so caught up in this analysis that I completely missed the obvious. That is, until I read the remainder of responses.

GEEEEEEEZ I make things complicated. A lot.

Fascinating read, by the way. Human psychology is always an interesting thing to me. I would have enjoyed spectating the interactions.

You can't win an argument just by being right!
LOL Y/No. That was a fun read.

The case was about an alleged robbery two and a half years ago;

Originally Posted by Yoda
We also pointed out to him that the issues of fear and threat are beside the point when determining whether or not a potentially dangerous situation was created. He merely repeated his conclusion. I explained that he was only giving us his decision, and not his thought process or rationale for it. He stared at the table and floor, refusing to answer or make eye contact.

I asked him why pointing a gun at a cop isn't creating a dangerous situation. No answer. I asked him whether or not people should be allowed to point guns at cops. No answer. I asked the entire room "is there anyone here who doesn't want an answer to the questions I'm asking?" Everyone wanted an answer. He said nothing.

Eventually he let little things slip, but they only worsened his position. He said that it wasn't reckless "in this instance." Naturally, this led to questions about why this instance was different from others, to which he offered more silence.

Eventually he conceded that the actions in the bakery were reckless and endangered people, so I asked where the line was drawn (quotes are rough, but close): "What's the difference between the reckless actions in the bakery and the reckless actions towards the officers?"

He gave no answer, but after being pressed further and asked again, he offers a response:

Him: "It was only for a second."
Me: "How long does it take for a bullet to reach its target?"

Silence. Staring intently at the floor and table again. I followed up:

"How long does it take to fire a gun?"

Silence. No eye contact. I rephrased again:

"How many seconds before it becomes reckless? Are you saying it's okay to point a gun at a police officer if you only do it for a second?"

Nothing. No reasons, no answers, no thought process. Every now and then he'd repeat his conclusion, and I would explain once again that I wanted to know how he had reached that conclusion. He looked dumbfounded, as if it had never occurred to him that he was required to explain himself.
I legit watched 12 Angry Men yesterday, wish I'd been there to see it.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Once the trial had ended, everyone from the judge to the lawyers spoke openly and bluntly about everything. It was as if they were simply actors in a play wanting to know how their performances were.
Well, courtroom culture is ****ing ridiculous. You have to dress a certain way, you have to speak a certain way, it's pretty much a sham to suggest that anyone in a courtroom is expected to be totally honest.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I also told them how he'd said, more than once I believe, that "all cops lie." No kidding.
Wow. Yeah, slight issue with the juror selection process there.

Originally Posted by Yoda
it seems like that he misled them during the screening,
That'd do it. Sorta like asking a voter "Would you in good conscience vote against your political party if it was discovered they had lead a dishonest campaign?" Oh yes, absolutely, mm-hm.
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel
Movies / Anime / Ultimate Showdown / Veg*nism / Action 2015

... and get asked to be foreman or something based on that alone.
If I had been called I would have said upfront to fellow jurors that I am not gonna be the foreman. I tend to be selected for stuff like this. Someone once told me that my British accent automatically leads people to think Iím intelligent.
Iím here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. Thatís why Iím here now.

⬆️ I do wear glasses for distance. And Iíve been joking that my new glasses make me look very intelligent.

The Adventure Starts Here!
Yoda comes by his logical-juror skills genetically. I have my own "12 Angry Men" story of my first jury duty, back when Yoda was just a toddler. It really was way too much like the movie. I was literally the only person voting guilty through the entire first day, and when everyone discovered that we weren't going to be allowed to go home until we came up with a unanimous vote -- and that I would not change my mind -- I slowly swung everyone around to my deductions.

In my case, though, the other 11 were the ones without logic or reasoning, so I was the one questioning all of them ... once they got done harassing me. We were in a second-floor jury room in downtown Pittsburgh, with no air conditioning, in late May 1986. I was pregnant with Yoda's younger brother. It was awful in that room. Oh, and they allowed smoking, so one juror next to me kept blowing smoke in my face. In my pregnant face. Oh joy.

If anybody wanted to give up and go with the crowd, it was me. But I couldn't let this guy walk. It was a drunk driving case. Some of the stupid reasons the others wanted to acquit were: "What if this was your brother? Would you want him to go to jail?" Or, after he admitted to drinking "a bottle" of liquor, one juror said, "What if it was one of those little bottles like you get on airplanes?"

But early in the third day, with a very frustrated judge who told us bluntly it was an EASY CASE, we came in with a Guilty verdict. It was an enlightening experience because I hadn't realized how much juries are full of STUPID PEOPLE. They need to teach logic in these schools!

I was on one other jury after that, and then got called a third time but didn't have to serve that time. That's enough for me for a while.

But if any of you here feel you are honest and fair, then please don't automatically try to get out of jury duty. It's an eye-opener, for sure, and juries need reasonable people who can use logic.

In my case, though, the other 11 were the ones without logic or reasoning, so I was the one questioning all of them ... once they got done harassing me.
All in the Family, season 1, had an episode where Edith is the hung juror much to the intense annoyance of the other jurors, all of whom are sequestered. Edith prevails though & the guy is acquitted because the real culprit fessed up.

BTW, bet you any money a pregnant woman wonít make it on to a modern-day jury. God forbid she has labor pains at the summing up.

⬆️ It would be discrimination today also. But defendants’ attorneys know all the phraseology to suggest to a juror candidate that maybe they’d rather be someplace else.

The Adventure Starts Here!
True. My being pregnant would, I'm sure, have made the defense attorney think I might be harsher. But honestly, the wishy-washy folks in that jury room were all over the demographical map: old women, young women, young and old men. I was kinda unique in that room, and to this day it astounds me just how little juries do what is asked of them.

⬆️ Keep in mind that was 36 years ago. Nothing is the same anymore. Things used to be more relaxed. Can only imagine the voir dire now.

The Adventure Starts Here!
Well, the second jury I served on was only a few years ago. The same lack of logic skills and tendency to want to just acquit and go home showed up then too. Thankfully, though, we were mostly on the same page to begin with and, like Yoda's case, we had multiple charges to contend with, so would acquit on one and find him guilty on another. (It was an off-duty cop in a bar fight.)

Frankly, if I ever get accused of a crime, I'm not sure I want to be tried by a jury of my peers.