FARK.com: (4843362) Florida must pay cosmetologist $150/day to cover up tattoos of neo-Nazi while he stands trial for murder. That's 4594 rubles to you, comrade

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Florida must pay cosmetologist $150/day to cover up tattoos of neo-Nazi while he stands trial for murder. That's 4594 rubles to you, comrade (sfgate.com)		155
		More: Florida

• • •

13296 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Dec 2009 at 11:16 PM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/4843362

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

155 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

cretinbob

2009-12-10 10:02:36 PM

That's bullshiat.
Hang the farker anyway.

Lundah

2009-12-10 10:08:44 PM

Judge needs to grow a pair and tell the public defender to STFU. Don't want people to judge you on your appearance? Don't get farking swastikas tattooed on your face.

hb0mb

2009-12-10 10:14:31 PM

Lundah: Judge needs to grow a pair and tell the public defender to STFU. Don't want people to judge you on your appearance? Don't get farking swastikas tattooed on your face.

I agree with you. Maybe it would be different if he was tattooed against his will, but it seems he actively sought out those designs and should have to live with the decisions he's made.

baka-san

2009-12-10 10:22:13 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich

2009-12-10 10:23:24 PM

FTA: "Any tattoos Ditullio had before his arrest won't be covered, such as a small cross under his right eye"

So, knowing that he is going to be tried in front of jury, he willing gets a swastika tattoo on his neck? If he had gotten them 20 years ago and no longer wanted them but couldn't afford removal, I could see the government chipping into help, but seriously, this guy is just a moron.

MuadDib

2009-12-10 10:29:15 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: FTA: "Any tattoos Ditullio had before his arrest won't be covered, such as a small cross under his right eye"

So, knowing that he is going to be tried in front of jury, he willing gets a swastika tattoo on his neck? If he had gotten them 20 years ago and no longer wanted them but couldn't afford removal, I could see the government chipping into help, but seriously, this guy is just a moron.

Perhaps, but $150/day is a lot cheaper than 4 years of appeals attacking a conviction for the prejudicial effect of not doing it. Weighing all the relevant factors, it's a pretty easy choice.

No YOU'RE a Towel

2009-12-10 10:30:50 PM

MuadDib: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: FTA: "Any tattoos Ditullio had before his arrest won't be covered, such as a small cross under his right eye"

So, knowing that he is going to be tried in front of jury, he willing gets a swastika tattoo on his neck? If he had gotten them 20 years ago and no longer wanted them but couldn't afford removal, I could see the government chipping into help, but seriously, this guy is just a moron.

Perhaps, but $150/day is a lot cheaper than 4 years of appeals attacking a conviction for the prejudicial effect of not doing it. Weighing all the relevant factors, it's a pretty easy choice.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Look at everyone in this thread judging based on tattoos alone. No way in hell those won't sway a jury.

Sgt Otter

2009-12-10 10:34:47 PM

...barbed wire inked down the right side of his face...

It looks more like stitches to me.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich

2009-12-10 10:39:00 PM

MuadDib: Perhaps, but $150/day is a lot cheaper than 4 years of appeals attacking a conviction for the prejudicial effect of not doing it. Weighing all the relevant factors, it's a pretty easy choice.

Oh you're absolutely right. It just takes a special kind of stupid to decide to get Nazi tattoos when you're up for two counts of murder 1.

On a side note, at $150/day, I'm betting the cosmetologist is getting paid as much as the public defender.

DarthBrooks

2009-12-10 10:44:03 PM

A mask would be much cheaper.

usesoapfilm.files.wordpress.com

one_more_step_and_the_girl_gets_it

2009-12-10 10:50:00 PM

MuadDib: Perhaps, but $150/day is a lot cheaper than 4 years of appeals attacking a conviction for the prejudicial effect of not doing it. Weighing all the relevant factors, it's a pretty easy choice.

That is a true analogy. But, in these tight financial times, it is only fair that, if he is convicted, the State gets to tattoo his left buttcheek with 18pt Font, saying, "Insert dick here" with an arrow pointing homeward. That is one tattoo that will never be covered up again.

Aidan

2009-12-10 11:20:55 PM

Sgt Otter: ...barbed wire inked down the right side of his face...

It looks more like stitches to me.

Agreed. Thought at first they were talking about the other side of his face.

The_Sponge

2009-12-10 11:21:06 PM

That judge is a piece of shiat. What's next? Why don't you dress him up like Santa Claus to make him look even less menacing?

bingo the psych-o

2009-12-10 11:21:07 PM

one_more_step_and_the_girl_gets_it: MuadDib: Perhaps, but $150/day is a lot cheaper than 4 years of appeals attacking a conviction for the prejudicial effect of not doing it. Weighing all the relevant factors, it's a pretty easy choice.

That is a true analogy. But, in these tight financial times, it is only fair that, if he is convicted, the State gets to tattoo his left buttcheek with 18pt Font, saying, "Insert dick here" with an arrow pointing homeward. That is one tattoo that will never be covered up again.

In comic sans. The tattoo has to be comic sans and you know it.

evaned

2009-12-10 11:21:11 PM

hb0mb: I agree with you. Maybe it would be different if he was tattooed against his will, but it seems he actively sought out those designs and should have to live with the decisions he's made.

Pretty much fourthed, or whatever we're up to, with the exception of definitely dropping the "maybe" in "maybe it would be different."

7of7

2009-12-10 11:21:16 PM

Why do juries get to see the victims and accused anyway?

stirfrybry

2009-12-10 11:21:38 PM

Blindfold the jury!!

Hick

2009-12-10 11:22:21 PM

Makeup? Band aids? A sack?

wasabi in my pants

2009-12-10 11:25:04 PM

No YOU'RE a Towel: MuadDib: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: FTA: "Any tattoos Ditullio had before his arrest won't be covered, such as a small cross under his right eye"

So, knowing that he is going to be tried in front of jury, he willing gets a swastika tattoo on his neck? If he had gotten them 20 years ago and no longer wanted them but couldn't afford removal, I could see the government chipping into help, but seriously, this guy is just a moron.

Perhaps, but $150/day is a lot cheaper than 4 years of appeals attacking a conviction for the prejudicial effect of not doing it. Weighing all the relevant factors, it's a pretty easy choice.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Look at everyone in this thread judging based on tattoos alone. No way in hell those won't sway a jury.

[citation needed]

thereisnospoon

2009-12-10 11:26:24 PM

pfft. what's the problem? thats hella cheap. It'd cost them $120 an hour if I was covering it up. Sounds like a deal.

/dnrtfa

Gish21

2009-12-10 11:26:27 PM

MuadDib: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: FTA: "Any tattoos Ditullio had before his arrest won't be covered, such as a small cross under his right eye"

So, knowing that he is going to be tried in front of jury, he willing gets a swastika tattoo on his neck? If he had gotten them 20 years ago and no longer wanted them but couldn't afford removal, I could see the government chipping into help, but seriously, this guy is just a moron.

Perhaps, but $150/day is a lot cheaper than 4 years of appeals attacking a conviction for the prejudicial effect of not doing it. Weighing all the relevant factors, it's a pretty easy choice.

Yeap. Prison gang tattoos can be argued as a form of self defense. The kind of prison he's in and will be in for the rest of his life is very dangerous for the unaffiliated, especially whites.

johndalek

2009-12-10 11:27:05 PM

you make a decision to have a tattoo--a personal statement about yourself and what you believe

THEN LIVE WITH IT

and don't go crying about it because someone may take offense or prejudge you------

you did it to yourself

No_One_Special

2009-12-10 11:27:53 PM

The fact that it's so well-known that juries base decisions on appearances over trial evidence that a judge would actually AGREE to this is sad.

And if he got those tats inside, it IS entirely possible he was bullied into it. Why guy, scared of big scury black guys, scurries under AB's skirt for protection, they tell him to get all that shiat done to show pride or whatever, we don't know.

hAHAHAHA- I'm just kidding, hang him.

skinink

2009-12-10 11:29:26 PM

Tattoos suck.

NP-Complete

2009-12-10 11:29:30 PM

7of7: Why do juries get to see the victims and accused anyway?

That's an interesting point. Someone's appearance, tattooed or not, is going to influence the way you think about them.

Also, I guess this guy hasn't heard the saying "never get tattoos where a judge can see them".

Lucky Ninefingers

2009-12-10 11:30:12 PM

hb0mb: Lundah: Judge needs to grow a pair and tell the public defender to STFU. Don't want people to judge you on your appearance? Don't get farking swastikas tattooed on your face.

I agree with you. Maybe it would be different if he was tattooed against his will, but it seems he actively sought out those designs and should have to live with the decisions he's made.

... die with. Death sentence is a possibility here.

ProdigalSigh

2009-12-10 11:30:28 PM

Defense attorney could claim that the defendant has had no other choice but to join a gang in prison for his own safety and the gang required that he get the tattoos to prove his loyalty.

Also, as mentioned above by others, cheaper than appeals, and those are stitches or the worst barbed wire tat I've ever seen.

Is barbed wire considered a white supremacist thing? I thought it was just an "I'm a tough guy douchebag," thing?

40 watt range

2009-12-10 11:30:39 PM

Won't the DA mention his neo nazi involvement during the trial? And won't the DA say, is it true, that the state of florida paid to have tattoos removed etc, etc,?

Just wasting this money.

If you get the tattoos, then you live with them, that's it.

Timdesuyo

2009-12-10 11:31:14 PM

bingo the psych-o: one_more_step_and_the_girl_gets_it: MuadDib: Perhaps, but $150/day is a lot cheaper than 4 years of appeals attacking a conviction for the prejudicial effect of not doing it. Weighing all the relevant factors, it's a pretty easy choice.

That is a true analogy. But, in these tight financial times, it is only fair that, if he is convicted, the State gets to tattoo his left buttcheek with 18pt Font, saying, "Insert black or jewish dick here" with an arrow pointing homeward. That is one tattoo that will never be covered up again.

In comic sans. The tattoo has to be comic sans and you know it.

Stanfan114

2009-12-10 11:31:32 PM

Why not make him wear the gas mask he wore when he murdered those people?

Verrai

2009-12-10 11:32:06 PM

7of7: Why do juries get to see the victims and accused anyway?

Agree on this. We have the technology for juries to hear the proceedings without seeing them (and it's cheap)--why not use it and remove all prejudice based on appearance?

Anyway, as someone else pointed out, if nothing else it's worth the cost for avoiding a costly appeal on these grounds in the event he is convicted (sounds like an open-and-shut case to me, but maybe not).

gozar_the_destroyer

2009-12-10 11:34:44 PM

one_more_step_and_the_girl_gets_it: MuadDib: Perhaps, but $150/day is a lot cheaper than 4 years of appeals attacking a conviction for the prejudicial effect of not doing it. Weighing all the relevant factors, it's a pretty easy choice.

That is a true analogy. But, in these tight financial times, it is only fair that, if he is convicted, the State gets to tattoo his left buttcheek with 18pt Font, saying, "Insert dick here" with an arrow pointing homeward. That is one tattoo that will never be covered up again.

What that might look like:

INSERT DICK HERE →

\unicode is fun!

Saturn5

2009-12-10 11:35:24 PM

It's not a bad idea on the judge's part. If the argument can be made that the tats would influence the jury - they have a better shot at appeal or getting a mistrial. Take that variable out of the PD's arsenal right from the start.

gregscott

2009-12-10 11:36:02 PM

How about just tattooing him all over in a solid dark color to obscure the Tattoo? Arguably, this would make him more employable when he's "rehabilitated" by the system. Also, the pain of the over-tattoo would be a "just reward" for his stupidity.
I wonder if a tattoo like that would eliminate the need for sun block?

vudukungfu

2009-12-10 11:36:04 PM

Stanfan114

2009-12-10 11:37:53 PM

Verrai: 7of7: Why do juries get to see the victims and accused anyway?

Agree on this. We have the technology for juries to hear the proceedings without seeing them (and it's cheap)--why not use it and remove all prejudice based on appearance?

Anyway, as someone else pointed out, if nothing else it's worth the cost for avoiding a costly appeal on these grounds in the event he is convicted (sounds like an open-and-shut case to me, but maybe not).

Link

Because we don't live in a vacuum where only logic prevails.

the_chief

2009-12-10 11:38:29 PM

So all I have to do to get free cosmetology service is...

DaBishop

2009-12-10 11:38:54 PM

gregscott: I wonder if a tattoo like that would eliminate the need for sun block?

Maybe if you used glitter in the ink, you'd be reflective.

stucka

2009-12-10 11:40:53 PM

Potentially interesting: His prison record

Seems he can't go more than about seven months without getting into additional trouble.

Question, seriously: If he'd shaved his head specifically to be a skinhead, would anyone argue the state has to provide a wig?

DiffMavis

2009-12-10 11:40:56 PM

Verrai: 7of7: Why do juries get to see the victims and accused anyway?

Agree on this. We have the technology for juries to hear the proceedings without seeing them (and it's cheap)--why not use it and remove all prejudice based on appearance?

Anyway, as someone else pointed out, if nothing else it's worth the cost for avoiding a costly appeal on these grounds in the event he is convicted (sounds like an open-and-shut case to me, but maybe not).

Also agree. And institute having someone randomly selected on hand to ensure that if the judge has the sheriff tackle and drag away the DA (new window), well then someone witnesses it.

SimonSaid

2009-12-10 11:41:31 PM

The defense screwed the hound on this one. They likely removed one of the few appeals this piece of dirt may have had.

Like another observed it is far cheaper than allowing an appeal because his tattoos were prejudicial.

jtr

2009-12-10 11:43:05 PM

if the victims weren't jews and the jurors had nothing against cussing or tattoos, it'd be fine, but of course, someone involved is gonna be swayed by his outward appearance. That's really unfortunate...for the taxpayer!!! If those Menendez brothers had only removed their "parents suck" t-shirts, they'd have gotten off....

Russ1642

2009-12-10 11:43:24 PM

What, no pics of Beecher?

stucka

2009-12-10 11:44:17 PM

More background here, including an "after" photo.

Before: a striped jailhouse jumpsuit, long beard and prominent tattoos of a barbed wire along his face, a swastika and the words "f--- you" on his neck.

After: a pressed blue shirt and pants, his beard neatly trimmed and the tattoos obscured behind makeup.

trapped-in-CH

2009-12-10 11:44:48 PM

(*in Rorschachs voice*)

Hurrm. Cut off tattoos. cheaper.

Software2

2009-12-10 11:45:25 PM

Yes, let's judge the guy based on his tattoos. This is exactly the same thing as giving inmates a suit to wear during the trial. You try to reduce the likelihood that the jury will convict someone based on how they look or what their political beliefs are instead of the facts regarding the crime.

AppleOptionEsc

2009-12-10 11:46:14 PM

gregscott: I wonder if a tattoo like that would eliminate the need for sun block?

Black people get sunburns too, so I'm gonna say "no".

eraser8

2009-12-10 11:47:13 PM

40 watt range: Won't the DA mention his neo nazi involvement during the trial? And won't the DA say, is it true, that the state of florida paid to have tattoos removed etc, etc,?

It's not relevant to the prosecution. It wouldn't be allowed.

Adingo8mybb

2009-12-10 11:47:22 PM

You know who else didn't like neo-nazi tatts?

/oops...never mind...

Russ1642

2009-12-10 11:50:17 PM