Unusual Jury summons.
- Thread starter Chris142
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by GMBoy
I never understood why law abiding people can be picked at random, be inconvenienced, and be in serious trouble over missing jury duty. There are A LOT of people who want to serve but don't get the summons. Let these people do it.
That's the whole point. It's a random group of people or so it appears. I think one jury I was on it was a pretty mixed pool, male, female, minorities, ethnicity etc. Plus, maybe it's like Groucho Marx who said he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that wanted to have him. Maybe those that want to serve are biases somehow. With a random group, the bias is also random. The fact that anyone, even govenors, mayors and other government officials can be called to serve shows that it's the responsibility of all citizens.
I never understood why law abiding people can be picked at random, be inconvenienced, and be in serious trouble over missing jury duty. There are A LOT of people who want to serve but don't get the summons. Let these people do it.
That's the whole point. It's a random group of people or so it appears. I think one jury I was on it was a pretty mixed pool, male, female, minorities, ethnicity etc. Plus, maybe it's like Groucho Marx who said he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that wanted to have him. Maybe those that want to serve are biases somehow. With a random group, the bias is also random. The fact that anyone, even govenors, mayors and other government officials can be called to serve shows that it's the responsibility of all citizens.
4wd
$50 site donor 2026
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by GMBoy
I never understood why law abiding people can be picked at random, be inconvenienced, and be in serious trouble over missing jury duty. There are A LOT of people who want to serve but don't get the summons. Let these people do it.
That's the whole point. It's a random group of people or so it appears. I think one jury I was on it was a pretty mixed pool, male, female, minorities, ethnicity etc. Plus, maybe it's like Groucho Marx who said he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that wanted to have him. Maybe those that want to serve are biases somehow. With a random group, the bias is also random. The fact that anyone, even govenors, mayors and other government officials can be called to serve shows that it's the responsibility of all citizens.
Yep … the one and only I served on ? … noticed the perfect balance of diversity … that matched the witness lineup
Originally Posted by GMBoy
I never understood why law abiding people can be picked at random, be inconvenienced, and be in serious trouble over missing jury duty. There are A LOT of people who want to serve but don't get the summons. Let these people do it.
That's the whole point. It's a random group of people or so it appears. I think one jury I was on it was a pretty mixed pool, male, female, minorities, ethnicity etc. Plus, maybe it's like Groucho Marx who said he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that wanted to have him. Maybe those that want to serve are biases somehow. With a random group, the bias is also random. The fact that anyone, even govenors, mayors and other government officials can be called to serve shows that it's the responsibility of all citizens.
Yep … the one and only I served on ? … noticed the perfect balance of diversity … that matched the witness lineup
I think it would be good for our younger citizens whom are looking into a law degree or law enforcement to take these jury duty along with the BLM people.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by GMBoy
I never understood why law abiding people can be picked at random, be inconvenienced, and be in serious trouble over missing jury duty. There are A LOT of people who want to serve but don't get the summons. Let these people do it.
That's the whole point. It's a random group of people or so it appears. I think one jury I was on it was a pretty mixed pool, male, female, minorities, ethnicity etc. Plus, maybe it's like Groucho Marx who said he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that wanted to have him. Maybe those that want to serve are biases somehow. With a random group, the bias is also random. The fact that anyone, even govenors, mayors and other government officials can be called to serve shows that it's the responsibility of all citizens.
I do understand why, I guess I just get frustrated because they treat you like a criminal if you can't make it. Often times people are losing money because of it as well.
Originally Posted by GMBoy
I never understood why law abiding people can be picked at random, be inconvenienced, and be in serious trouble over missing jury duty. There are A LOT of people who want to serve but don't get the summons. Let these people do it.
That's the whole point. It's a random group of people or so it appears. I think one jury I was on it was a pretty mixed pool, male, female, minorities, ethnicity etc. Plus, maybe it's like Groucho Marx who said he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that wanted to have him. Maybe those that want to serve are biases somehow. With a random group, the bias is also random. The fact that anyone, even govenors, mayors and other government officials can be called to serve shows that it's the responsibility of all citizens.
I do understand why, I guess I just get frustrated because they treat you like a criminal if you can't make it. Often times people are losing money because of it as well.
Everyone should take fulfilling their civic duty seriously and report for jury duty, if they can. However, if it will be a hardship for you to serve, IMO the best option is to simply throw away the jury duty summons they sent you in the mail. Nothing will ever come of it because they cant prove that you ever received it. Don't call them to try and get out of serving because you just provided proof that you received the summons, THEN they can issue a warrant if you don't show-up.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
I have no intention of actually reading it...but I figure it will probably get me out of jury duty.
I doubt even that will get you out as they probably won't even see what you're reading. My guess is that if you show up with a Nazi shirt on and a bald head, maybe that would get you out.
But I've been of a few juries before, the overriding thing that struck me was the desire to finish quickly and arrive at a quick verdict. You're not supposed to talk about the case before it's all done so the only thing people would talk about was what they had going on afterwards. I commented about it to a lawyer once and he said that's a common theme also. Many have probably been convicted quickly so that the jurists could go home to dinner early.
I served on a jury this summer and while they (judge) said that they would make every attempt to get through this as fast as they could, we should take all the time needed to deliberate. They were willing to order us food if we needed to stay late or have us come back the next day if necessary. All in all it was a very good experience and I was pleasantly surprised at how serious and well reasoned the other jurors were. All involved - from the judge, prosecution, defense and even the clerk who handled us were sincere, genuine people who were glad to have us participate.
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
I have no intention of actually reading it...but I figure it will probably get me out of jury duty.
I doubt even that will get you out as they probably won't even see what you're reading. My guess is that if you show up with a Nazi shirt on and a bald head, maybe that would get you out.
But I've been of a few juries before, the overriding thing that struck me was the desire to finish quickly and arrive at a quick verdict. You're not supposed to talk about the case before it's all done so the only thing people would talk about was what they had going on afterwards. I commented about it to a lawyer once and he said that's a common theme also. Many have probably been convicted quickly so that the jurists could go home to dinner early.
I served on a jury this summer and while they (judge) said that they would make every attempt to get through this as fast as they could, we should take all the time needed to deliberate. They were willing to order us food if we needed to stay late or have us come back the next day if necessary. All in all it was a very good experience and I was pleasantly surprised at how serious and well reasoned the other jurors were. All involved - from the judge, prosecution, defense and even the clerk who handled us were sincere, genuine people who were glad to have us participate.
Originally Posted by GMBoy
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by GMBoy
I never understood why law abiding people can be picked at random, be inconvenienced, and be in serious trouble over missing jury duty. There are A LOT of people who want to serve but don't get the summons. Let these people do it.
That's the whole point. It's a random group of people or so it appears. I think one jury I was on it was a pretty mixed pool, male, female, minorities, ethnicity etc. Plus, maybe it's like Groucho Marx who said he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that wanted to have him. Maybe those that want to serve are biases somehow. With a random group, the bias is also random. The fact that anyone, even govenors, mayors and other government officials can be called to serve shows that it's the responsibility of all citizens.
I do understand why, I guess I just get frustrated because they treat you like a criminal if you can't make it. Often times people are losing money because of it as well.
Aside from those with full time jobs where the state makes them pay, everyone else is losing money. Just part of your civic obligation just like paying taxes. No one likes to do that either. I'm self employed myself so when I was on a jury for 3 days, I didn't collect any pay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo&ab_channel=Science%7CBusiness
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by GMBoy
I never understood why law abiding people can be picked at random, be inconvenienced, and be in serious trouble over missing jury duty. There are A LOT of people who want to serve but don't get the summons. Let these people do it.
That's the whole point. It's a random group of people or so it appears. I think one jury I was on it was a pretty mixed pool, male, female, minorities, ethnicity etc. Plus, maybe it's like Groucho Marx who said he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that wanted to have him. Maybe those that want to serve are biases somehow. With a random group, the bias is also random. The fact that anyone, even govenors, mayors and other government officials can be called to serve shows that it's the responsibility of all citizens.
I do understand why, I guess I just get frustrated because they treat you like a criminal if you can't make it. Often times people are losing money because of it as well.
Aside from those with full time jobs where the state makes them pay, everyone else is losing money. Just part of your civic obligation just like paying taxes. No one likes to do that either. I'm self employed myself so when I was on a jury for 3 days, I didn't collect any pay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo&ab_channel=Science%7CBusiness
I was on a Federal grand jury about 12 years ago. It was (almost) every Wednesday for 18 months, plus a few extra days on the end for a single case we'd been working on for a long time. There were about 100 people called in and they sat the first 20 or so of us without any sort of screening, just by the numbers. It was quite a shock!
They did let several people go pretty quickly who had hardships (financial, child care, etc) and replaced them. After a couple of months the group was pretty well set. It was a combination of mostly retirees and about half a dozen of us whose employers paid us our full salaries for the days we missed. It was an interesting experience.
jeff
jeff
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
I know people who could be bankrupted by jury duty. My friend and my father in law work on commission-no work means no pay. They just get their regular salary...zero.
Thankfully I can go a long time without a commission check.
I know people who could be bankrupted by jury duty. My friend and my father in law work on commission-no work means no pay. They just get their regular salary...zero.
Thankfully I can go a long time without a commission check.
A text message is not enforceable service, nor is a letter in the mail.
One can ignore these things away with no consequences.
The courts know this and therefore summon far more prospective jurors than they actually need.
I tossed at least two petit jury summonses when at an earlier stage in my career, when I figured that planned time off would be better used for a family vacation and not service on a jury, even though I could do jury duty with no use of earned time off or of pay.
I answered a grand jury summons a couple of years ago and ended up as foreperson of that body for three weeks.
It was a fascinating experience and it was eye opening to learn of all of the drug dealing going on in areas familiar to me and most others.
One can ignore these things away with no consequences.
The courts know this and therefore summon far more prospective jurors than they actually need.
I tossed at least two petit jury summonses when at an earlier stage in my career, when I figured that planned time off would be better used for a family vacation and not service on a jury, even though I could do jury duty with no use of earned time off or of pay.
I answered a grand jury summons a couple of years ago and ended up as foreperson of that body for three weeks.
It was a fascinating experience and it was eye opening to learn of all of the drug dealing going on in areas familiar to me and most others.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
A text message is not enforceable service, nor is a letter in the mail.
That is true generally speaking, but one must always be aware of exceptions. Photo radar tickets and red light tickets in this province are sent by regular mail, and service is deemed after a certain number of days. Of course, you don't show up, there is no penalty for that, but you are summarily convicted in your absence.
A text message is not enforceable service, nor is a letter in the mail.
That is true generally speaking, but one must always be aware of exceptions. Photo radar tickets and red light tickets in this province are sent by regular mail, and service is deemed after a certain number of days. Of course, you don't show up, there is no penalty for that, but you are summarily convicted in your absence.
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by fdcg27
A text message is not enforceable service, nor is a letter in the mail.
That is true generally speaking, but one must always be aware of exceptions. Photo radar tickets and red light tickets in this province are sent by regular mail, and service is deemed after a certain number of days. Of course, you don't show up, there is no penalty for that, but you are summarily convicted in your absence.
Here, these photo tickets can't be considered criminal and are therefore merely civil.
This means that they can be ignored unless the company actually running these cameras decides to provide proper service and sue you in a county court of common pleas, which in practice never happens.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
A text message is not enforceable service, nor is a letter in the mail.
That is true generally speaking, but one must always be aware of exceptions. Photo radar tickets and red light tickets in this province are sent by regular mail, and service is deemed after a certain number of days. Of course, you don't show up, there is no penalty for that, but you are summarily convicted in your absence.
Here, these photo tickets can't be considered criminal and are therefore merely civil.
This means that they can be ignored unless the company actually running these cameras decides to provide proper service and sue you in a county court of common pleas, which in practice never happens.
Here, they are under the provincial legislation, and decidedly not civil. There is a company involved in running the cameras, but the tickets are issued and signed by a police officer under the same sections as if you were pulled over on the road and ticketed in person. The only difference is they cannot identify the driver, so the driver is not charged, but the registered owner as the responsible party, who gets no points on his license.
Originally Posted by Garak
The only difference is they cannot identify the driver, so the driver is not charged, but the registered owner as the responsible party, who gets no points on his license.
The part in red is messed up - charging the owner for actions not under his control. Seems some "laws" are going that way ... gotta hold someone responsible (ie, money grab move too), right? ... even if it's not the person actually committing the crime. Nonsense keeps on reproducing in society to head for complete idiocracy.
I know here that if you deny that you were driving the vehicle it gets thrown out of court and dismissed. The camera video is rarely good enough to make a visual ID of the person driving the vehicle.
The only difference is they cannot identify the driver, so the driver is not charged, but the registered owner as the responsible party, who gets no points on his license.
The part in red is messed up - charging the owner for actions not under his control. Seems some "laws" are going that way ... gotta hold someone responsible (ie, money grab move too), right? ... even if it's not the person actually committing the crime. Nonsense keeps on reproducing in society to head for complete idiocracy.
I know here that if you deny that you were driving the vehicle it gets thrown out of court and dismissed. The camera video is rarely good enough to make a visual ID of the person driving the vehicle.
Here in FL, you are presumed guilty for a photo offense, unless you provide the info of the driver actually responsible. Can't do that? Assumed you did not excercise enough due diligence and found guilty. Completely not due process in any sense, but photo tickets are a total money grab and nothing more.
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Here in FL, you are presumed guilty for a photo offense, unless you provide the info of the driver actually responsible. Can't do that? Assumed you did not excercise enough due diligence and found guilty. Completely not due process in any sense, but photo tickets are a total money grab and nothing more.
City Hall tells us it frees up Police to do more important tasks.
Here in FL, you are presumed guilty for a photo offense, unless you provide the info of the driver actually responsible. Can't do that? Assumed you did not excercise enough due diligence and found guilty. Completely not due process in any sense, but photo tickets are a total money grab and nothing more.
City Hall tells us it frees up Police to do more important tasks.
It's a crafty excuse, but I've never seen a department with a large portion of it's force dedicated to red light enforcement.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
The part in red is messed up - charging the owner for actions not under his control. Seems some "laws" are going that way ... gotta hold someone responsible (ie, money grab move too), right? ... even if it's not the person actually committing the crime. Nonsense keeps on reproducing in society to head for complete idiocracy.
I understand your concern, but under what possible circumstances is the owner not in control of his vehicle, aside from theft? Theft of the vehicle will get the charge to disappear quickly. Now, here, it's drummed into you through driver training and it's part of your registration and every bit of legislation that the registered owner is responsible for the motor vehicle at all times. If it's a jointly owned vehicle, both names can be on the registration and that specific dual entity can be charged. If it's a company, same thing. Your wife driving your car? Get her to pay the ticket. Your kid? Let him register his own car, or have him pay the ticket. The minute I got my license, I had to register my own car, or not drive, and that was long before photo radar existed. That was Dad's policy, not the DMV's. Sold your vehicle? Remove the plate. I can't think of a single legitimate circumstance where a registered owner is going to unjustly be targeted by a red light camera or photo radar camera for something that's completely out of his control.
There is value in the RO being responsible. If it is a company, they do have responsibility. There are a few circumstances where the company does have some points/record go against them. A guy driving a vehicle with a windshield crack can get a ticket here. If it's given to the RO in lieu because the RO doesn't want to fix the windshield and the poor flunky driving the truck can't do anything about it. Additionally, charges are then still possible when there's dash cam evidence of an offence or witness evidence.
DoubleWasp: Here, there is due process. You can request a trial, and if convicted in your absence because you legitimately did not get service through the mail, you have the right to appeal. With respect to red light tickets and photo radar in general, sure they're a cash grab. But, it's voluntary, after all.
The part in red is messed up - charging the owner for actions not under his control. Seems some "laws" are going that way ... gotta hold someone responsible (ie, money grab move too), right? ... even if it's not the person actually committing the crime. Nonsense keeps on reproducing in society to head for complete idiocracy.
I understand your concern, but under what possible circumstances is the owner not in control of his vehicle, aside from theft? Theft of the vehicle will get the charge to disappear quickly. Now, here, it's drummed into you through driver training and it's part of your registration and every bit of legislation that the registered owner is responsible for the motor vehicle at all times. If it's a jointly owned vehicle, both names can be on the registration and that specific dual entity can be charged. If it's a company, same thing. Your wife driving your car? Get her to pay the ticket. Your kid? Let him register his own car, or have him pay the ticket. The minute I got my license, I had to register my own car, or not drive, and that was long before photo radar existed. That was Dad's policy, not the DMV's. Sold your vehicle? Remove the plate. I can't think of a single legitimate circumstance where a registered owner is going to unjustly be targeted by a red light camera or photo radar camera for something that's completely out of his control.
There is value in the RO being responsible. If it is a company, they do have responsibility. There are a few circumstances where the company does have some points/record go against them. A guy driving a vehicle with a windshield crack can get a ticket here. If it's given to the RO in lieu because the RO doesn't want to fix the windshield and the poor flunky driving the truck can't do anything about it. Additionally, charges are then still possible when there's dash cam evidence of an offence or witness evidence.
DoubleWasp: Here, there is due process. You can request a trial, and if convicted in your absence because you legitimately did not get service through the mail, you have the right to appeal. With respect to red light tickets and photo radar in general, sure they're a cash grab. But, it's voluntary, after all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked