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.

(Isthmus / The Daily Page)   Some words are so vile, so despicable, that they cannot be uttered in a courtroom in Wisconsin   (isthmus.com) divider line 107
    More: Asinine, Vernon Hershberger, Wisconsin, Life of Brian, stoned to death  
•       •       •

11828 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2013 at 8:53 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-23 12:59:03 AM
Brats suck?

/serious, bockwurst is far superior.
 
2013-05-23 08:54:36 AM
NI!
 
2013-05-23 08:56:02 AM
The Bears?
 
2013-05-23 08:57:17 AM
Diet?
Kawasaki?
/dnrtfa
 
2013-05-23 08:57:42 AM
"Light beer"?
 
2013-05-23 08:58:11 AM
static.squarespace.com

use raw milk in the batter when frying halibut... it will be good enough for Jehovah.
 
2013-05-23 08:58:32 AM
I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.
 
2013-05-23 08:58:33 AM
Let freedom ring!
 
2013-05-23 08:58:43 AM
imitation cheese
 
2013-05-23 08:59:14 AM
 Teresa Butterworth, witness for the prosecution

No way,

This whole thing is made up, right?
 
2013-05-23 08:59:59 AM

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


Obviously, the only "right" conclusion they want is "guilty."  Do not question authority citizens.
 
2013-05-23 09:00:12 AM
At least no one boiled a goat in its mother's raw milk.
 
2013-05-23 09:01:04 AM
Fat free?
 
2013-05-23 09:03:06 AM

sxacho: At least no one boiled a goat in its mother's raw milk.


Why do you hate God?

You better get right with Him before it's too late.
 
2013-05-23 09:03:13 AM
 
2013-05-23 09:03:20 AM

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


I think they're trying to avoid a pointless tangent that will turn the case from focusing on whether or not this guy filled out his forms correctly into a debate on the merits of whether or not he should be able to sell raw mil-bong in the first place.
 
2013-05-23 09:04:51 AM
should've
 
2013-05-23 09:04:54 AM

ReverendJasen: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

Obviously, the only "right" conclusion they want is "guilty."  Do not question authority citizens.


It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.
 
2013-05-23 09:05:05 AM
It's gotta be "colored oleo"....

/Lawn, off, get.

//For a short time after the colored (oleo)margarine ban was lifted, margarine served in restaurants had to be in a triangular pat instead of the square pat like butter.

//I think the current PC term is "margarine of color".
 
2013-05-23 09:05:10 AM
I'm gonna go with "Alcoholic beverages should be banned."

bikerbob59: The Bears?


No, they use that phrase a lot, but they are required to spit after they say it.
 
2013-05-23 09:06:41 AM
How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?
 
2013-05-23 09:06:57 AM

The Muthaship:  Teresa Butterworth, witness for the prosecution

No way,

This whole thing is made up, right?


That would be like a library investigator being named Bookman.
 
2013-05-23 09:07:23 AM

ReverendJasen: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

Obviously, the only "right" conclusion they want is "guilty."  Do not question authority citizens.


It seems like people in the field of law sometimes forget that juries were implemented to ensure that laws were being applied in a way that was acceptable to the citizens. The whole point of a jury being involved was to try to make sure the spirit of law was followed rather than letter. Yet, prosecutors and judges seem to be under the impression that it is just supposed to be 12 random people who decide if the actions strictly disagreed with a particular paragraph in a book. If that was the case, then surely the lawyers and judges would be far more qualified for it and have no need of juries.
 
2013-05-23 09:07:31 AM
Hah hah, raw milk thread.
 
2013-05-23 09:07:49 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

I think they're trying to avoid a pointless tangent that will turn the case from focusing on whether or not this guy filled out his forms correctly into a debate on the merits of whether or not he should be able to sell raw mil-bong in the first place.


However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......
 
2013-05-23 09:07:55 AM
Barbra Streisand?
 
2013-05-23 09:08:05 AM

JasonOfOrillia: It is a jury nullification issue


And jury nullification is a valuable element of our justice system.
 
2013-05-23 09:08:48 AM

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


Rule 403 of the Federal* Rules of Evidence:

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

That's why

/*most states have similar analogues
 
2013-05-23 09:08:56 AM
Belgium.
 
2013-05-23 09:10:14 AM
I drank raw milk, and I liked it.
 
2013-05-23 09:11:11 AM

farkingfun: However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......


But that would be irrelevant to the actual charge.

What you are raising is a matter for a legislature, not a court, unless you can determine some legal reason why the law itself is invalid.  The Article I branch of government barely does their job as it is, let's not shove the work onto Art. III.
 
2013-05-23 09:13:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0

Yes I'm lame, but this is what came to mind upon reading this article!
 
2013-05-23 09:14:15 AM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-23 09:15:28 AM

Teiritzamna: Rule 403 of the Federal* Rules of Evidence:

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

That's why



Mhmm. I realize that they are trying to avoid a big debate on how dangerous raw milk is and such, but surely they could put a stop to that on an individual basis during the trial, rather than by issuing a blanket ban that also blocks the introduction of details that could be important.

Maybe I'm naive, but I tend to think it is much harder to confuse or mislead the average person than most people think.
 
2013-05-23 09:15:52 AM

danielscissorhands: should've


could've
 
2013-05-23 09:16:21 AM

vwarb: It seems like people in the field of law sometimes forget that juries were implemented to ensure that laws were being applied in a way that was acceptable to the citizens. The whole point of a jury being involved was to try to make sure the spirit of law was followed rather than letter. Yet, prosecutors and judges seem to be under the impression that it is just supposed to be 12 random people who decide if the actions strictly disagreed with a particular paragraph in a book. If that was the case, then surely the lawyers and judges would be far more qualified for it and have no need of juries.


This is how you got witch hunts and lynchings. "Well, the letter of the law says that the person who killed her is the murderer, but there was a darky walking down the street at the same time, so let's string HIM up instead!"

Everybody forgets that "jury nullification" can go both ways - what if they simply don't like the guy who's accused, and decide to punish him for being black/gay/muslim/irish? That's why they have restrictions like this - to make sure the right question is being answered by the jury. Facts are for the jury, law is for the judge.
 
2013-05-23 09:16:51 AM

darth_badger: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 225x225]


....that's not milk...
 
2013-05-23 09:17:40 AM

JasonOfOrillia: It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.


Yes, and that's exactly the point.  This is another case where the prosecutor has reason to believe that if the jury know the reasons or circumstances that lead to the breaking of the law in question, they might not be able to convict with good conscience.  What they want is to simply say "was the law brooken, yes or no?"
This is not justice.  The reasons and circumstances that leads to an infraction of law are important and need to be known to truly apply justice.  And if a jury hears all the facts, and then says "well, he broke the letter of the law, but we don't agree he should be punished for it (or had little other choice, etc)" then the law is wrong, too vague, stupid, or unconscionable.  Jury nullifcation is a good thing--it's one of the only ways we as a people have to protect each other from bad laws and bad lawmakers.
 
2013-05-23 09:18:11 AM

Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?


I grew up drinking nothing but raw milk, because we had a Jersey cow. Sold it to friends, too. BUT, laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.
 
2013-05-23 09:19:29 AM

phyrkrakr: Everybody forgets that "jury nullification" can go both ways - what if they simply don't like the guy who's accused, and decide to punish him for being black/gay/muslim/irish? That's why they have restrictions like this - to make sure the right question is being answered by the jury. Facts are for the jury, law is for the judge.


If I'm not mistaken, this problem was why we stopped allowing the suggestion of nullification in trials. It's true that they have their issues. I just wish there was a way for us to have our cake and eat it too. Obviously I don't have the answer, but I wish people would spend more time looking for one, rather than just being okay with a system that's flawed in one direction or another.
 
2013-05-23 09:19:57 AM

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


The goal is for an 'impartial' decision, not a 'right' decision.
 
2013-05-23 09:20:12 AM

farkingfun: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

I think they're trying to avoid a pointless tangent that will turn the case from focusing on whether or not this guy filled out his forms correctly into a debate on the merits of whether or not he should be able to sell raw mil-bong in the first place.

However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......


Well, raw milk needs to be processed before it's sold.
 
2013-05-23 09:22:44 AM

Vodka Zombie: danielscissorhands: should've

could've


Would've
 
2013-05-23 09:23:46 AM
I've done jury duty twice, and when it's clear that there's an elephant in the room that the jury is not permitted to look at, I feel that my only option is to choose not guilty. The presence of such a thing is enough to provide reasonable doubt in my mind. Especially if the defense is the one prohibited from mentioning things. That's a red flag.

On the other hand, I find an issue that the court is deliberately avoiding may be a mere evidence issue. For example, I juried in a trial where a father was accused of sneaking into his 17 year old daughter's room and forcing her to fellate him. This was a case of testimony alone. Some jurists found that it was odd that he would do this only 3 or 4 times in her life and not regularly. I pointed out that nobody, NOBODY had said that he never did that before, and nobody ever asked her about any experience prior to that first time.  It's probable that he HAD done it before and if he had, if the date and time could not be established with specificity, they would be prohibited from mentioning it.  That guy got off because the jury argued back and forth about how a heavy person could restrain someone in such a position- totally misunderstanding the nature of sexual abuse because they believed it to be physically forceful rape.  So that was a situation where the prosecution could not mention things and the defense didn't want to open the door to it.

I think every American, and every citizen of a country with a double jeopardy law should be aware of the de facto principle of jury nullification- that you can find someone not guilty just because you don't believe that it's appropriate that they be punished or prosecuted, due to the circumstances under which the law was broken, the propriety of the law being enforced, or the method by which is is being enforced, including the potential sentence that could be imposed.
 
2013-05-23 09:24:26 AM

Vodka Zombie: danielscissorhands: should've

could've


would've
 
2013-05-23 09:24:47 AM
Seems that he has his own website to tell his side.  Worth a look
 
2013-05-23 09:26:28 AM

Teiritzamna: farkingfun: However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......

But that would be irrelevant to the actual charge.


Which is why it's being excluded from the trial.
 
2013-05-23 09:27:16 AM

mbillips: Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

I grew up drinking nothing but raw milk, because we had a Jersey cow. Sold it to friends, too. BUT, laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.


This. Might as well eliminate the FDA while you're at it.

/yes, the economy is hobbled by overregulation
//removing regulations on food standards while keeping the ones that force farmers to spend at least 15 minutes each day "emotionally bonding and mentally stimulating" each individual head of livestock is the definition of doing it wrong
 
2013-05-23 09:29:05 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

I think they're trying to avoid a pointless tangent that will turn the case from focusing on whether or not this guy filled out his forms correctly into a debate on the merits of whether or not he should be able to sell raw mil-bong in the first place.


See, it's people like you what cause unrest.
 
2013-05-23 09:29:44 AM

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


ChaoticLimbs: I've done jury duty twice, and when it's clear that there's an elephant in the room that the jury is not permitted to look at, I feel that my only option is to choose not guilty. The presence of such a thing is enough to provide reasonable doubt in my mind. Especially if the defense is the one prohibited from mentioning things. That's a red flag.


It's a Cardassian trial.  The verdict and the sentence have already been determined; the trial is just to show the people that the accused is guilty and understands what he did wrong.
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report