I only follow the patriarchal aspects of Islam. Not the aspects that make you a cuck e.g. Abstaining from womanising, penetrating a sweet trap virgin ass and lowering your gaze.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, removeddit.com, archive.is*

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

“being a mother is the hardest job I’ve ever done.”

This statement would carry more weight if she'd been a door gunner in Vietnam and not an academic in California.

"They're in the trees man they're in the god damn trees!"

*Kids come out with mud on their clothes*

Weren't door gunners in Vietnam relatively safe compared to foot soldiers? All you have to do is rain death on rice farmers while Fortunate Son plays in the background.

Definitely not. Aviators had a much higher death ratio in the Army, Air Force, and Navy than anyone else, and that's been true of pretty much every war in the 20th century.

Helicopter crew were in particular danger because they could be killed by small arms fire, but all aircraft were in danger from Russian surface to air missiles and North Vietnamese fighter planes.

Nevermind what I said then. Except for the Fortunate Son part. I choose to believe that is true.

It didn’t help that they were always looking for the best place to surf

Really? I thought recon teams had the hardest jobs.

Probably, I don't think being an aviator, especially a gunner, was necessarily the "most difficult" job, but it carried extreme risk. Even if they weren't getting shot at their aircraft could just have a mechanical failure

Oh honey... you actually think the men who spent their time smoking dope, listening to music, and raping women over in Vietnam had it more rough than a single mother living in this oppressive patriarchal society? It's strange how someone so ugly can be so cute

This is why you were given the hammer

How to tell you have a cushy life of privilege.

Classic Billie Burr

Spent about 20 minutes during jury duty arguing with the judge that I should be dismissed because the victim in the case is one of my largest clients, and they kept trying to construct ways in which I could potentially be impartial when I literally take money from one side of the case for a living.

There is basically zero chance this is true. During voir dire the lawyers for both sides are eager to throw out potential jurors for any reason they can find.

Maybe she was mad that being dismissed from one particular jury didn't fully discharge her obligations? Either way, that story is fake news or selectively edited.

During voir dire the lawyers for both sides are eager to throw out potential jurors for any reason they can find.

Wouldn't they only try to throw out only those they think are more likely than average to vote "against them" ? Especially since, AFAIK, they can only throw out a certain numbers of jury members unless there is cause (Which, in this case, the judge supposedly ruled there wasn't) ?

But yeah, even if the judge did rule that way, one of the lawyers would definitely want to throw someone with that big of a potential bias out.

I think it depends on the locality, but AFAIK, the lawyers on each side basically want to get down to the dumbest chumps they think they can easily talk into believing their side.

unless there is cause

This is they key: they can throw out as many as they want if they have a "good" reason for it. They can also throw out a limited number of jurors without giving any reason, so they save those for throwing out people who seem like they might have read a book, or who are the same/different race than the client/defendant.

I think it depends on the locality, but AFAIK, the lawyers on each side basically want to get down to the dumbest chumps they think they can easily talk into believing their side.

Yeah but nothing guarantees the replacement will be dumber than the current juror, or less biased, so you're still left with the idea you should throw out those most likely to vote against you and not just any juror.

They can also throw out a limited number of jurors without giving any reason, so they save those for throwing out people who seem like they might have read a book, or who are the same/different race than the defendant/client.

I know that, but my point was that, logically, only one of the two sides would want a given juror thrown out, since while you can have bias against both sides, one has to outweigh the other, unless the bias "cancel out" each other, in which case, no side has any particular interest in throwing that juror out, unless they expect the average juror to be more in their favour than their opponent's, and replacing a neutral juror is thus a favourable (But still risky) bet.

I wasn't criticizing the fact lawyers do try to throw out juror, I was criticizing your wording that implied both sides would try to throw out jurors indiscriminately, and as many as they could, while in truth it is a weighted consideration whether or not to throw out a given juror.

But again, yes, in this particular case, there is definitely a side that would want to throw that woman out given the huge bias she could have. The only possible explanation short of a lie would be that a judge actually denied that being a good cause for replacement (Quite unlikely) and the lawyer who would have wanted to throw her out had run out of "unconditional" replacements.

If only you could put that energy into your relationships

I am a bot. Contact for questions

Sure yeah, I agree one side is much more motivated to get rid of her in this case.

I'm just saying as a general matter, the lawyers are eager to toss people off juries. It's not hard at all to get kicked off some particular jury, but sometimes they still make you sit around for a couple days in case another jury is empanelled.

This is all correct. And to expound a little in case anyone reading this is interested or cares, there’s actually a fairly simple equation for jury selection during a criminal trial. Keep in mind this is just in general, there’s tons of situations where things would get a tad more complicated

Prosecutor will want older (45+) aged white people who appear affluent, since they’re more likely to have had good experiences with the police. Therefore be more inclined to think the person on trial is guilty.

The defense will want jurors of the same general age, gender, and race as the person in trial, since they’re more likely to have empathy for them that way. And if that fails, or there isn’t anyone like that available, the defense will want young black men (18-35). They’re more likely to have had negative interactions with police, as therefore have a slight assumption that the person is innocent

You're right. There's two types of "strikes" during voir dire: Peremptory and Cause.

Each side gets X amount of strikes. Strikes for cause are given first and there must be a valid reason associated that both the judge and the opposing side must agree to.

Peremptory strikes don't have to have a reason and are done second.

The judge also chooses to disqualify people they deem are retarded.

So wait are you saying a juror who replaces another one because of a peremptory strike can't then be striked for cause, even if there is one ?

If you get either strike you are removed from the pool entirely.

No I mean, say we have Juror A, who is on the jury, and Juror B, who is simply in the replacement pool.

Juror A gets a peremptory strike, Juror B replaces them. Can Juror B then be stricken for cause ?

No, you're out of order slightly.

When they're doing the strikes, a jury hasn't been selected yet, there is only a big pool of potential jurors.

Once the strikes have been given out, then they choose the jury (usually going in numerical order, but might differ based on state).

If someone needs to be removed from the actual 12-person jury, they call it something else (not part of voir dire).

Oh, okay, thanks.

You're a regular John Grisham

The judge also chooses to disqualify people they deem are retarded.

Isn't this everyone who is stupid enough to get stuck on a jury?

Getting out of jury duty is super easy.

There is basically zero chance this is true.

Agreed. There's no drama here, just fake nonsense. If the breastfeeding didn't get her out of it, she could simply declare "one of the participants pays me for services, I'm going to find in their favor regardless of the evidence, essentially nullifying this trial, and if you keep me on the jury, there's a built in appeal because I've made this clear up front" ... and home she goes.

Just say you believe your values trump the law and you'll get removed.

It's absurdly easy. When asked if there is a reason for you not to serve, just say you're a proponent of jury nullification and you'll be excused before you even finish the sentence

Entitlement of mayo foids is deeper than Mariana Trench.

Most privileged class in human history. Must be put in re-education camps like how China does it

White women are one of the most oppressed groups in America (surpassed only by other women of color - without getting into specifics of sexual orientation/disability intersectional oppression). I don't understand why you're so bitter toward them. Are you by chance a bitter little white boy, Karl?

Dude, weak. I know you can do better.

Eh the bait isn't good enough. You have to train more to lurk out the CAnaimals and MDEfugees.

Just say "I dont believe in the court system so I will.vote not guilty no matter what"

Simply admit to knowing about Jury nullification should also do the trick.

I just tell them I'm racist against [insert x group represented in the trial]. Works every time 9 out of 10 times.

I'm curious to hear about the 10% of lawyers who are okay with a juror hating their client from the start

I wasn't convincing enough in my declared racism.

You mean the prosecution?

Well duh, but I was talking about the defense attorneys

(((Defense attorneys))) in cases where the victim is a wh*te women who sleeps with black men.

Yup, that's what I did the only time I've been summoned

A woman did that once when I was on jury duty. The judge made a bit of a fuss about it, basically demanding to know why she was such an idiot and publicly shaming her, but then let her go home.

Just ignore the letter and skip out on it. The government doesn't even bother trying to enforce jury duty obligations.

I don’t think babies come from the butt.

Yeah, they usually come from the bussy.

You haven't ever seen a pregnancy video, have you?

If you really want to get excused from jury duty just say during general questioning that you're "uncomfortable with this sort of case and that you don't feel you could be unbiased."

Takes about an hour tops and you'll be removed from the pool.

According to her Facebook post,

Oh fuck, well case closed then! Big J journalism here.

Well, tbqh:

Court documents support these claims, according to the Sacramento Bee.

This judge got retired yesterday actually. He has a long history of making edgelord comments and got censured once for releasing a friend of his who was arrested for domestic violence. Dude was a shitbag in general

I get out of jury duty by throwing the notice in the trash when I get it

Do the same with your taxes

Why? I got back 5k more than I paid in thanks to the witch

i wouldn’t brag about being poor, but ok...

2019, year of our lord not just throwing away jury duty summons

Downvoted because I hate f*males.

Typical foid move. They want all the rights and none of the responsibilities

Excuse me, "foid"? May I ask: Are you an incel?

Proudly. My peen is untainted by mayo foid gash

That's fine, we're not attracted to people who speak like you do anyway. Just don't go killing people in a few years please, creep!

Bless up to Papa Elliot ;)

Retrda

Never change twox, never change.

what is "femoid"

and kid is not "shit out"

idiot asshole

what is "incel"

Last I checked having kids isn't considered an excuse out of jury duty, although being too poor to hire a babysitter and having kids might be. But you're expected to hire one for jury duty.

If she can afford to homeschool her kids then she's probably pretty comfy and just wants an out.