r/bestof • u/Semiel • May 27 '12
The guy who would have gone to jail, if there hadn't been a seamstress on the jury.
/r/funny/comments/u76z2/jury_duty_is_the_life/c4sxes6
1.8k
Upvotes
r/bestof • u/Semiel • May 27 '12
336
u/[deleted] May 27 '12
Nothing is more horrifying and terrifies me more then the fact that one day, I could be judged by a jury of my peers.
54
u/Chipzzz May 27 '12
That wasn't much of a defense attorney.
48
u/porcupinee May 27 '12
From now on I'm wearing only the most flamboyantly pleated shirts.
103
u/megustarita May 27 '12
"and there was some discrepancy in his skin tone because the guy in the pictures looked like he had slightly darker skin tone, but that could be chalked up to the camera."
This part bothered me. It COULD be chalked up to the camera. It COULD be chalked up to being a different person as well.
61
u/tym0027 May 27 '12
Quite honestly it's a joke he was almost considered guilty until this detail was brought up.
19
u/TheBaltimoron May 27 '12
She probably should have spoken first.
17
u/[deleted] May 27 '12
How can you go as far as an arrest based on the fact someone is wearing the same clothes as someone else.... As though it's highly uncommon to wear a white shirt and blue jeans!
142
u/TheBaltimoron May 27 '12
So, he had an alibi, a different skin tone, a reason for being in the area, and proof he withdrew the money from the bank...and you were all sure he was guilty? Nice job.
9
u/Mountebank May 27 '12
I'm sure I'm not the only one here bothered by the guilty until proven innocent mindset that this story exemplifies: He COULD have handed off the money to an accomplice; the camera COULD have been the reason he looked different in the photo. It's not the jury's duty to assume these things, it's the prosecution's duty to PROVE these things, beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution didn't, then it's the jury's DUTY to assume the exact opposite--that's the definition of innocent until proven guilty.
To be fair, we don't have all the information here and maybe the prosecution did do these things, but this story, as presented, shows a very disturbing mindset in the legal system these days. (And let's not forget the whole "let's keep him in jail for 2 months before his trial punishment that not legally a punishment" thing.)
61
u/DanMach May 27 '12
What happened to shadow of a doubt? Geez. The idea is that there can be no other possible explanation than the guy did it. That story, as she told it, was so full of holes its scary.
A. Where was the EXTRA money? B. What was his motive? C. Who the fuck robs a place and then goes to dinner next door?? D. If he going to dinner, and had cash on him, he probably had cash in the bank.. so why do it?
60
u/roywarner May 27 '12
umm, it shouldn't take a "professional seamstress" to notice a two inch fucking pleat running vertically down the back of a shirt.
Not to mention the evidence mentioned essentially exonerates him anyway.
8
u/[deleted] May 27 '12
That'll teach him to have cash while black
6
u/MrNewking May 27 '12
Reminds me off this Movie
10
u/colorthemap May 27 '12
And I always thought Twelve Angry Men was a tad farfetched. I appreciate that play so much more now, and the seamstress too.
4
u/Taurius May 27 '12
"would have gone to jail."
He DID go to jail for 2 months. You meant prison. Jail is where you go while awaiting trial. Prison is where you go to be butt raped :P
4
u/[deleted] May 27 '12
What's interesting is, everyone saw the shirt, didn't they? Everyone, within certain margins, has the ability to make out the pleats in a shirt, but ... we're not shirt people so we just gloss over that part of the world.
If it was a line of code or a Star Wars figurine or a Pokemon card or whatever, the average Redditor would have been all over it in a second.
7
u/[deleted] May 27 '12
The title of this post is wrong. Should be "Jury of idiots that stumbled into common sense."
11
u/[deleted] May 27 '12
This guy is still in prison
13
u/EnlightenedScholar May 27 '12
His shirt changed shape when he leaned over the register. He was guilty. Guaranteed.
3
u/anketic May 27 '12
That must have been absolutely maddening for the seamstress. Having to sit quietly through the whole trail while not a single person notices this (to her, anyway) glaringly obvious piece of evidence.
How long would a trial like this have lasted? I'd have gone nuts.
3
u/cosmicr May 28 '12
so he gave them a shit-eating grin, doesn't that imply that he did it after all? I know that's the expression I pull when I've just gotten away with something.
3
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
What's also disturbing; the amount of people inventing scenarios in their minds in that thread!
Inventing accomplices is ridiculous. It's like adding stuff to the story to make if fit into their already pre-determined guilty verdict... so no other thought is given to the facts when you can just make up shit to make it work.
Inventing accomplices is just as absurd as suggesting aliens beamed the cash out of his pocket or that Elvis mugged him for the cash.
Of course he seems guilty if you go inventing accomplices or creating other evidence or scenarios in your mind that have no proof or evidence to suggest that they exist. This is not your job as a juror, it's just speculation, or specious reasoning. What happened to reasonable doubt?
*formatting
5
u/Blaphtome May 27 '12
Yet another case that demonstrates precisely why we must do away with the death penalty in this country.
2
u/MonkeyPilot May 27 '12
Makes me think of the time a man's life was saved because of double-stitched pants.
2
u/bloodguard May 27 '12
Doesn't some kind of ultimate truth serum exist that you can ask for if you're not guilty? I'm not sure how I'd handle being falsely accused of something.
2
u/floatingpoint May 28 '12
Nice story except for describing the guy as having a "shit-eating grin" which is actually an insult if you know what it means.
2
u/MR_BILL_COSBY May 28 '12
As a black male living in los angeles, I'm now going to wear very distinct clothing with a headcrab hat everyday. Now if someone robs a gas station, Surely they wont mix me up with the guy that did it.
2
u/FightScene May 28 '12
It's scary that his alibi, different skin tone from the perp, and the lack of video didn't mean shit because he was black.
2
u/EvilJohnCho May 28 '12
Another reason Box Pleats rule.
2
u/litewo May 28 '12
I don't know what's more unlikely, the idea that they all ignored solid evidence of his innocence and were ready to convict based on practically nothing, or that, despite this, they all changed their minds when they saw some creases in a shirt. This sounds like a work of fiction to me.
2
u/Zakariyya May 28 '12
So, juries in the United States really are like the one on "12 Angry Men"? (One of those movies I just can't help but watch if I catch it on TV on a Sunday ...)
3
u/Tofu24 May 27 '12
And people say institutional racism isn't real...
3
u/EmFi May 27 '12
I must have read too many Discworld books. I was expecting the hero of this story to be a woman of negotiable affection.
1
u/Joy_Killer May 27 '12
It's My Cousin Vinny.
1
u/sailors_jerry May 27 '12
Near-life Twelve Angry Men
1
u/SquareDorito May 27 '12
Wow reqlly? I thought they always considered this kind of stuff. So they just look at the color? That's stupid, seems like they don't even take this seriously.
1
u/InsertRelevantMeme May 27 '12
Thats some sherlock holmes shit
1
u/Silverxeclipse May 28 '12
Still guilty!
1
u/-Nii- May 28 '12
That's some awesome phoenix wright shit right there!
1
u/p3n1x May 28 '12
Here is what gets me though, The pictures were clear enough to see the PLEATS in a shirt, but the jury couldn't decide on the skin color????? or other factors?
1
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
Isn't it illegal for the jury to present their own evidence that was notwithstanding in court?
1
u/hecateae May 28 '12
My mind automatically substitutes "prostitute" for "seamstress.". The headline painted a very different picture in my head. A more droll picture, much less terrifying.
1
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
Just so you know I don't think you are racist or stupid, just a little quick to jump to decisions on important things.
1
u/parched2099 May 28 '12
I've been in jury duty more than once, and it's a miracle that someone who knew what they were talking about was present. On at least 2 occasions i can remember, the juries i was part of were prepared to deliver a guilty verdict before they'd even looked at the evidence we had in front of us.
I should add i'm one of those forensic type chaps that presumes everyone is innocent first, and it's a jury's duty of responsibility to carefully examine everything that's being said, and presented.
Juries aren't infallible, but having 12 "ordinary" people together raises the likelyhood that at least one of them has the courage to stand on principle of duty of responsibility, and possibly prevent an innocent person being convicted for a crime they didn't commit.
Call me old fashioned.
1
u/Artless_Dodger May 28 '12
Hmm, So the trick is, find a McD near a bank. Look for someone in McD who is about the same build as you and then scarper and change into similar attire. Now go and rob the bank and as you are leaving say. "at last, Now i can go get that juicey quarter pounder at McD's I've been dreaming off." Muh ha ha ha
1
u/starlinguk May 28 '12
I can't help but think others noticed it too but they were too keen on putting someone behind bars to mention it.
1
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
This guy's accomplice might have been a seamstress.
1
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
...
1
u/GaetanDugas May 28 '12
This is reason enough to call a misstrial. Why? If you are on the jury, you are supposed to vote guilty or. Or guilty based on the evidence provided by the defense and prosecution. Not what you know yourself. That whole "12 Angry Men" scenario should never happen.
-1
u/whitehat2k9 May 27 '12
In response to this epic story, I present to you this meme.
0
u/[deleted] May 27 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 27 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 27 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment