The intention of the person getting the tat might or might not be important to the accused crime
Posted on 07/25/2016 2:41:46 PM PDT by PROCON
Certainly not neo-nazi tattoos :-)
What is he on trial for?
“The man chose by his own free will to present himself to the world with those tattoos - he put them on his face in places nobody could miss them, to advertise these qualities he saw in himself.”
Sure, but people can change while tattoos are fairly permanent. They may only be evidence of a person’s state of mind at some point in the past, not necessarily at the time the crime in question took place.
In a perfect world, the jury should just disregard them, but this isn’t a perfect world, so if they are likely to be prejudicial, he should have the opportunity to conceal them.
I agree with you too. But what the jury needs to decide is what he actually DID ( or not). Not his prejudices or what he believes or “thinks”. Such is the rule as I understand it - anyway. Yes, I’d otherwise prefer to let him go into court just as he is. IF he’s guilty, he deserves it. But just in case he’s innocent of the charged conduct, he shouldn’t have to face a likely- prejudiced jury ( even tho, as you correctly point out, he would’ve done it to himself).
A rapidly-spreading trend among law enforcement agencies is the practice of wrapping a towel around all the arrestees' necks and shoulders for mugshot photos, because *some* have visible neck tattoos. Witnesses were looking for only the tattoo and were identifying the wrong person based on that.
Wow, that man is some poor mama’s baby boy. What in the world went wrong.
“fair trial does not cover up relevant information.”
That’s right.
Seems unfair to the victims.
..........looking at this guy the old phrase “you can’t fix stupid” comes to mind.........
As long as the taxpayer doesn’t have to pay some cosmetology person or plastic surgeon even one dollar to, in effect, altar who he REALLY is so he will look good for the jury then what will be will be.
The only “tats” I want associated with this psycho-hatemonger killer is that of the sound of “ratta-tat-tat” when he is executed by a machinegun firing squad.
Then he’ll be tattooed forever - a holey guy at last.
#20 - where did you get the photos/ Need definitive source and point of publication (If newspaper, name of paper, date and story title).
Remember - Trayvon Martin’s mother is going to speak tonight at the DNC convention.
FR readers should know, if your photos are authentic, that his father is or was “ganged-up”.
The intention of the person getting the tat might or might not be important to the accused crime
Really? I find it hard to believe that. The marking of ones body to that extent is intimately connected to that persons beliefs and inner workings and some of those marks are direct claims of responsibility for criminal acts IIRC. To hide them, in my opinion, is to commit fraud upon the jury.
Conservative treehouse:
Their photo of the CAT tattoo appears to be from this article (and many others):
And credited to a photographer named Red Huber, in Orlando.
Another photo, merely credited to the AP, is at the Daily Mail (have to scroll a while):
I believe these photos were taken on March 16, 2012...at a press conference/Sharpton event. It was surely taped, and shown on the news - but I cannot find the video, to save my life.
This ‘rap dictionary’ lists the word CAT as crippin all the time:
http://www.rapdict.org/Talk:Crips
Thanks CT. This is the way to give FR readers searchable sources to use both the verify the authenticity of what we see/read, and also as a source/link to send to friends and detractors alike. They can then make up their own minds.
Our job is to get this kind of information/sources out to our FReepers, friends and even strangers because we are not going to see this in most of the mainstream media.
No problem. I think Conservative Treehouse may have recently fallen out of favor for being pro-Cruz or something like that...but they still do excellent work digging into the media stories de jour.
well, my note was how I understand the law
the idea being to test the prosector’s evidence of what the accused actually may have DONE
and not prejudice a jury
it is, after all, just possible that the defendant is a total Nazi slimeball (sure looks that way) but maybe he did not do the crime of which he is accused
juries can be prejudiced or inflamed by being shown certain inflammatory things like, say, swaztikas or KKK costumes or
“Piss Christ” or whatever like that...
the law wants a non=prejudiced jury
anyway....that’s how I understand it.
I DO UNDERSTAND your POV....
Best,
fhc
Why not just put a paper bag over his head.
There is something strange about that site.
The judge is a duplicitous fool. No legal precedent requires this. What next, give every ugly defendant a makeover, make every fat defendant look slim, give bald defendants wigs? Nonsense. The defendant proudly walked the streets with this look. He reveled in that look, wanting his peers to see.
Now it’s time for a jury of his peers to see. Judge wrong, period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.