Thread: State pays for murder suspect makeover?

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Hmmm, so if someone might be biased because the alleged criminal is Hispanic, or African American, or some other race, can we have a race change for them? Retarded, and yet another waste of some taxpayers' money.

Could not agree more!

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Guilt by association? If I choose to walk down the street with a bunch of drug dealing gang bangers then I choose to accept the consequences of such actions, right?

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Right, so since he chose to make himself look the way he did shouldn't he suffer the consequences? How many people were not offered a fair trial simply based on how they were born, yet we bend over backwards to make sure this guy does not get judged by the persona he chose to display?

Choosing to look a certain way doesnt make you any more or less likely to commit murder. There are peaceful racists who never hurt anybody. Jurors might, however, misinterpret the tattoos and pre-judge him as guilty.

I think its a shrewd legal move by his lawyer but I would just bring my wife's Clinique bag and cover that shit up. no need for it to hit the media.

Sure, but the circumstances of this case make that analogy weak sauce to the max.

He is not alleged to have participated in a rioting murderous mob...he is accused of acting alone. Who he was associating with during the commission of the crime is irrelevant.

Almost as irrelevant as the design of the tattoos on his neck.

Shoot...I went on a cruise 2 new-years ago and there was a big heavy-set white guy on the boat with a mullet and jean shorts...he had a tattoo...of a KKK klansman on his back, in a hood, carrying a torch and pointing out with his other finger as if to say "You're next"...everybody on the boat made some (presumably accurate) judgments about this fellow.

1. He is socially mal-adjusted
2. He is likely a racist
3. He is likely from the south

Do any of those things make him automatically more likely to commit a murder? I dont know...but the tattoo could not be considered material evidence in the case, thus it should not be considered by the jury, thus the desire and right to cover it.

I should to back to law school...

The moment you, or anyone else, chooses to make a topic about a person posting in the topic as opposed to the topic of conversation then consider it a problem. You want to poke fun at me, call me a redneck, a racist, or whatever else you choose then so be it, that is your choice. Just remember you are the one that has to live with the consequences of said choices. If you care to discuss this further just PM me.

As for the topic at hand just extradite the dude to Texas, and let us give him a dose of our secret marinade injection.

Originally Posted by jason_jinx

think and state what you want

You like to throw your comments out on the forums now and again for shits and giggles

then when I do it back I am labled some troll.

double standard?

I swear most of you expect me to act like some saint.....when in fact I talk with the same tone as the other mods in these forums.


You need to sit back and think to yourself why am I expecting jinx to act like the creme de la creme.

I am a online teamplayer that talks shit in good fun while staying in line.

That is why both the prosecution and defense gets to eliminate potential jurors. I am sure most inmates in prison now blame the system, and this is just one more loophole that will be exploited to the max.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Guilt by association? If I choose to walk down the street with a bunch of drug dealing gang bangers then I choose to accept the consequences of such actions, right?

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Right, so since he chose to make himself look the way he did shouldn't he suffer the consequences? How many people were not offered a fair trial simply based on how they were born, yet we bend over backwards to make sure this guy does not get judged by the persona he chose to display?

Choosing to look a certain way doesnt make you any more or less likely to commit murder. There are peaceful racists who never hurt anybody. Jurors might, however, misinterpret the tattoos and pre-judge him as guilty.

I think its a shrewd legal move by his lawyer but I would just bring my wife's Clinique bag and cover that shit up. no need for it to hit the media.

Sure, but the circumstances of this case make that analogy weak sauce to the max.

He is not alleged to have participated in a rioting murderous mob...he is accused of acting alone. Who he was associating with during the commission of the crime is irrelevant.

Almost as irrelevant as the design of the tattoos on his neck.

Shoot...I went on a cruise 2 new-years ago and there was a big heavy-set white guy on the boat with a mullet and jean shorts...he had a tattoo...of a KKK klansman on his back, in a hood, carrying a torch and pointing out with his other finger as if to say "You're next"...everybody on the boat made some (presumably accurate) judgments about this fellow.

1. He is socially mal-adjusted
2. He is likely a racist
3. He is likely from the south

Do any of those things make him automatically more likely to commit a murder? I dont know...but the tattoo could not be considered material evidence in the case, thus it should not be considered by the jury, thus the desire and right to cover it.

I should to back to law school...

Originally Posted by jason_jinx

I am a online teamplayer that talks shit in good fun while staying in line.

Choosing to divert the thread into very poorly veiled personal attacks of Civil - a person you have quite a history with - is unwise and is the kind of thing that makes people click the "Report Post" button.

Discuss the topic or why you disagree with somebody's opinion...don't just call the guy racist. That is bad ju-ju and will anger the gods.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

That is why both the prosecution and defense gets to eliminate potential jurors. I am sure most inmates in prison now blame the system, and this is just one more loophole that will be exploited to the max.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Guilt by association? If I choose to walk down the street with a bunch of drug dealing gang bangers then I choose to accept the consequences of such actions, right?

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Right, so since he chose to make himself look the way he did shouldn't he suffer the consequences? How many people were not offered a fair trial simply based on how they were born, yet we bend over backwards to make sure this guy does not get judged by the persona he chose to display?

Choosing to look a certain way doesnt make you any more or less likely to commit murder. There are peaceful racists who never hurt anybody. Jurors might, however, misinterpret the tattoos and pre-judge him as guilty.

I think its a shrewd legal move by his lawyer but I would just bring my wife's Clinique bag and cover that shit up. no need for it to hit the media.

Sure, but the circumstances of this case make that analogy weak sauce to the max.

He is not alleged to have participated in a rioting murderous mob...he is accused of acting alone. Who he was associating with during the commission of the crime is irrelevant.

Almost as irrelevant as the design of the tattoos on his neck.

Shoot...I went on a cruise 2 new-years ago and there was a big heavy-set white guy on the boat with a mullet and jean shorts...he had a tattoo...of a KKK klansman on his back, in a hood, carrying a torch and pointing out with his other finger as if to say "You're next"...everybody on the boat made some (presumably accurate) judgments about this fellow.

1. He is socially mal-adjusted
2. He is likely a racist
3. He is likely from the south

Do any of those things make him automatically more likely to commit a murder? I dont know...but the tattoo could not be considered material evidence in the case, thus it should not be considered by the jury, thus the desire and right to cover it.

I should to back to law school...

If the tattoo was on his back, would he be required to sit shirtless in the courtroom so everybody could see it?

No. Obviously not.

He has a right to cut his hair, shave his face, put on a suit for the trial - and yes - apply makeup to cover tattoos.

You might think it's "unfair" but I think you are wrong.

I disagree with the tax dollars paying for the makeup artist...not the act itself.

Sure, he can do whatever he pleases with his personal appearance. The choice he made was to blaze potentially divisive tattoos in places that are difficult, if not impossible, to conceal. Once again, his choice, so suffer the consequences. I am all for him doing whatever he can within his power to hide or disguise them, but should receive no special treatment over any other defendant.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by jason_jinx

I am a online teamplayer that talks shit in good fun while staying in line.

Choosing to divert the thread into very poorly veiled personal attacks of Civil - a person you have quite a history with - is unwise and is the kind of thing that makes people click the "Report Post" button.

Discuss the topic or why you disagree with somebody's opinion...don't just call the guy racist. That is bad ju-ju and will anger the gods.

You guys are the kings of smearing and trying to plant seeds of doubt.

my pm's have been sent

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Sure, he can do whatever he pleases with his personal appearance. The choice he made was to blaze potentially divisive tattoos in places that are difficult, if not impossible, to conceal. Once again, his choice, so suffer the consequences. I am all for him doing whatever he can within his power to hide or disguise them, but should receive no special treatment over any other defendant.

It is also the power of the prosecution to bring them up if they are relevant.