Thread: State pays for murder suspect makeover?

You guys do realise that he had pictures taken of the tats when he was booked? He may have gotten rid of the shock value of the tats but not the fact he has them. All the prosecuter has to do is show them the pics which he is allowed to do. So i would have to say it's a complete waste of money.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

The tats are new, since he was arrested.

In that case take new pics.

Originally Posted by BigHub

because creme de la creme is pimp status, playa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIMiuGr5cbU

It's hard to follow the conversation through these quotes, isn't it?

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...

It's hard to follow the conversation through these quotes, isn't it?