Brat chosen by "God" to House Majority Leader

[icenine]

Originally Posted by JJIII

How about going in with a sense of honesty and decency and a willingness to do your civic duty if they choose you?

Something tells me you would not apply this rule to yourself. My life was complicated also at the time. I also told the Judge more than once that I could be impartial and not suffer economically. They ask a ton of questions and they can see where you are coming from. But they know who they want
They want someone they are confident enough that they can sway with their arguments.

I cannot believe a guy who likes The Fair Tax would be lecturing us about civic responsibility. Besides not wanting to be a juror could in some cases be just what a lawyer wants for his defendant. If they would have picked me I would have done my job as a juror.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by icenine

Something tells me you would not apply this rule to yourself. My life was complicated also at the time. I also told the Judge more than once that I could be impartial and not suffer economically. They ask a ton of questions and they can see where you are coming from. But they know who they want
They want someone they are confident enough that they can sway with their arguments.

I cannot believe a guy who likes The Fair Tax would be lecturing us about civic responsibility. Besides not wanting to be a juror could in some cases be just what a lawyer wants for his defendant. If they would have picked me I would have done my job as a juror.

Something tells you wrong then. I was called and I served.

I honestly believe the Fair Tax would be good for the country. Your mileage may vary.

Your post #54 ("When they ask you what beyond a reasonable doubt is, raise your hand and say "I cannot tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.") That should get you thrown off immediately. Sounds to me like you were looking for ways to make sure you were not picked, or were you coaching others in ways to not be picked?

[icenine]

Originally Posted by JJIII

Something tells you wrong then. I was called and I served.

I honestly believe the Fair Tax would be good for the country. Your mileage may vary.

Your post #54 ("When they ask you what beyond a reasonable doubt is, raise your hand and say "I cannot tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.") That should get you thrown off immediately. Sounds to me like you were looking for ways to make sure you were not picked, or were you coaching others in ways to not be picked?

I have been on jury duty three times since 2008. All I have to do is show up.
If they pick me or not is up to them. Besides, I was sort of being facetious.
You would sort of have to be aware of Supreme Court history to see I was a bit tongue and cheek with the comment. Moreover, everyone else there is throwing out excuses as to why they cannot be on jury duty. I never coached anyone when I was there. I just answered all the questions posed to me. And no I did not use the famous quote.

The Fair Tax would be a disaster of the first order for this nation. Any opinions given by a proponent of such a system must be taken with a huge grain of salt.

[BlueStreak]

I was called up and never gave a thought to making excuses. I answered the questions honestly and they picked me.

The only person who might have seen the gun, the one who made the 911 call, didn't show up. (The caller stated "I think he has a gun." on the recording.) The cops couldn't place the gun in his hand, so the Commonwealths case collapsed and the man walked......although he had a history of gun and drug related crimes a mile long and we all knew he was guilty as hell.

The gist of the selection process seemed to center on guns. They wanted jurors with military or security/law enforcement experience who possessed a basic knowledge of firearms, but had no direct affiliation with related pro or anti gun organizations. No zealots, just people who have used firearms at some point and understand the proper use/operation of them.

My stance on guns has changed over the intervening years. Mainly because of pro-gun zealots and their utter stupidity and intransigence. The more they run their mouths, making moronic and downright callous comments concerning the horrible amount of gun related carnage in this country and the victims of those crimes, the more I want to see them stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights.

YOU ARE YOUR OWN WORST ENEMY. IMO, you are becoming everybodies enemy.

Dave

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by icenine

I have been on jury duty three times since 2008. All I have to do is show up.
If they pick me or not is up to them. Besides, I was sort of being facetious.

OK. I missed that.


You would sort of have to be aware of Supreme Court history to see I was a bit tongue and cheek with the comment.

I recognized the reference. Missed the humor.

Moreover, everyone else there is throwing out excuses as to why they cannot be on jury duty. I never coached anyone when I was there. I just answered all the questions posed to me. And no I did not use the famous quote.

The Fair Tax would be a disaster of the first order for this nation. Any opinions given by a proponent of such a system must be taken with a huge grain of salt.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. That is not a problem to me. To each their own (opinion).

[donquixote99]

I can well believe that 'agreeing to disagree' is not a problem for you. It's a solution. It solves the problem of hard-to-answer criticisms of that terrible 'Fair Tax' idea, that would benefit only the extremely poor and extremely rich, while sticking it to the big majority in the middle.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I can well believe that 'agreeing to disagree' is not a problem for you. It's a solution. It solves the problem of hard-to-answer criticisms of that terrible 'Fair Tax' idea, that would benefit only the extremely poor and extremely rich, while sticking it to the big majority in the middle.

I don't happen to agree with the bolded but I have seen time and again that some here do believe that and I will never change their minds. I believe the FAQs at the website (www.fairtax.org) refute that argument but some here don't see it that way. So be it.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

With libs, its always someone else's job.

Gas-X should help this.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by icenine

I think the lawyers and prosecutors want people that view them with a modicum of deference. If you demonstrate to them that you are their equal and not easily impressed they most likely will not want you on the jury. That was sort of my take...they sort of seemed like college professors who were wary of the intimidating students who could cause trouble. That was sort of the vibe I got. When you get dismissed it sort of seems like you were not up to snuff though.

In my several experiences with jury duty in which I was thrown out during voir dire, I came to realize they don't like folks with analytical minds (engineers, scientists, etc.). They also will reject people who have had investigative experience (in my case, accident investigations for large industrial accidents and/or structural collapses). They want folks they can emotionally sway as well as folks who don't bristle when others try to manipulate their emotions. FWIW, I've read they're particularly fond of middle-age housewives.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

In my several experiences with jury duty in which I was thrown out during voir dire, I came to realize they don't like folks with analytical minds (engineers, scientists, etc.). They also will reject people who have had investigative experience (in my case, accident investigations for large industrial accidents and/or structural collapses). They want folks they can emotionally sway as well as folks who don't bristle when others try to manipulate their emotions. FWIW, I've read they're particularly fond of middle-age housewives.

Hmmmm.........

My one experience proved to be the opposite.

Dave