Covering offensive tattoos

[firefightn15]

If this topic needs to go, so be it.  I just think it's stupid that the public needs to pay for this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579587,00.html?test=latestnews

His attorney says it would be unfair for him to be judged because of his tattoos. :

[Root beer]

If this topic needs to go, so be it. I just think it's stupid that the public needs to pay for this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579587,00.html?test=latestnews

His attorney says it would be unfair for him to be judged because of his tattoos. :

It would be unfair.

I didn't read the entire story related to this, just that little paragraph. I mean, if I had a tattoo of a gun that was visible to the public, and I'm accused for murder, I wouldn't want the prosecutor using my gun tattoo as a image that I look like someone willing to commit murder. Which is exactly what the prosecutor is trying to do to this guy. And that a no-no, if the prosecutor had solid evidence he wouldn't even need to point out the tattoo.

Just my 2 cent.

[preach4bass]

If this topic needs to go, so be it. I just think it's stupid that the public needs to pay for this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579587,00.html?test=latestnews

His attorney says it would be unfair for him to be judged because of his tattoos. :

It would be unfair.

I didn't read the entire story related to this, just that little paragraph. I mean, if I had a tattoo of a gun that was visible to the public, and I'm accused for murderer, I wouldn't want the prosecutor using my gun tattoo as a image that I look like someone willing to commit murder. Which is exactly what the prosecutor is trying to do to this guy. And that a no-no, if the prosecutor had solid evidence he wouldn't even need to point out the tattoo.

Just my 2 cent.

If that's how YOU feel, then YOU pay a make-up artist to cover up YOUR stupid decision to get a stupid tattoo.  But, don't expect me (the taxpayer) to pay for YOUR stupidity.  Just my 2 cents.

BTW, what ever happened to personal responsibility?

[Root beer]

If this topic needs to go, so be it. I just think it's stupid that the public needs to pay for this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579587,00.html?test=latestnews

His attorney says it would be unfair for him to be judged because of his tattoos. :

It would be unfair.

I didn't read the entire story related to this, just that little paragraph. I mean, if I had a tattoo of a gun that was visible to the public, and I'm accused for murderer, I wouldn't want the prosecutor using my gun tattoo as a image that I look like someone willing to commit murder. Which is exactly what the prosecutor is trying to do to this guy. And that a no-no, if the prosecutor had solid evidence he wouldn't even need to point out the tattoo.

Just my 2 cent.

If that's how YOU feel, then YOU pay a make-up artist to cover up YOUR stupid decision to get a stupid tattoo. But, don't expect me (the taxpayer) to pay for YOUR stupidity. Just my 2 cents.

BTW, what ever happened to personal responsibility?

You're already paying for a lawyer for their stupidity anyway. When they commit a crime with solid evidence that doesn't even requires going to court, you still buy them a lawyer.

That all I got to say for this thread. No need for it to get out of hand.

[preach4bass]

Nothing's out of hand.  You put your 2 cents in, I put my 2 cents in, and now we've got 4 cents in the pot.  $149.96 more and we could hire a make-up artist. ;D

[moby bass]

Nothing's out of hand. You put your 2 cents in, I put my 2 cents in, and now we've got 4 cents in the pot. $149.96 more and we could hire a make-up artist. ;D

...per day

[Redlinerobert]

lol.  What a turd.

[K_Mac]

I'll add my .02, just for the sake of conversation. The prosecutor had nothing to do with this; it was the defense attorney. He knows that his client's appearance will be judged by the jury. He also knows that judgement will likely be negative, so he is doing everything he can to get his knot-headed client an innocent verdict.

It sets an interesting precedent. Since being overweight is viewed negatively by many, including many of us who are overweight, an obese defendant might ask for a few months of Jenny Craig so that his obesity would not negatively influence his jurors. Or maybe a defendant who needs dental work because of his addiction to drugs should have the work done before his trial, so as not to negatively influence his jurors with a less than perfect smile?

If the victim was murdered by a thug with visible tattoos, whether they were of Nazi symbols and profanity or bunnies and flowers, then that is the person who should stand before his accusers. He does not have any right to be cosmetically altered to improve his chances and I certainly have no obligation to pay for it.

[SirSnookalot]

I'm siding with the defense on this one, the case is about the crime and the evidence presented, the tattoos may create preconceived notions about innocence or guilt.  That being said, I'm Jewish and I find any Neo Nazi symbol highly offensive, but I don't feel anyone should be denied a proper due process of law, that's our system like it or not.  In many countries you are guilty until proven innocent, is that a better system, I think not.

[Koop]

If he didn't have certain beliefs he wouldn't have gotten the tattoo. 

If he was young and stupid when he got it and realizes that it was wrong, then HE should have paid to have it covered up.

If he hasn't made that effort then in my mind he still has those beliefs and there is nothing preconceived about it.

What I am tired of is paying for lawyers for criminals. 

If my house is robbed, the robber is caught, I will pay for his lawyer, I will pay for his housing, food, cable, gym and internet for X years until he is released and robs someone else's house.

Nothing we can do about it but smile because thats just the way things are.

[SirSnookalot]

I'll play devils advocate...........a belief does not mean the party is guilty, I'm not saying this man is innocent or guilty but has the right to have his day in court just like anyone else.  Legal cases are based on evidence not opinions.

To decide a person's guilt or innocence  based on the way the look is just plain wrong.

What I am tired of is paying for lawyers for criminals. 

I've read nothing to indicate that is a court appointed defense attorney for this case, although it well may be.

[roadwarrior]

http://unattributed.net/html/whiskey.html

8-)

[K_Mac]

I'll play devils advocate...........a belief does not mean the party is guilty, I'm not saying this man is innocent or guilty but has the right to have his day in court just like anyone else. Legal cases are based on evidence not opinions.

To decide a person's guilt or innocence based on the way the look is just plain wrong.

What I am tired of is paying for lawyers for criminals.

I've read nothing to indicate that is a court appointed defense attorney for this case, although it well may be.

I usually find myself in the devil's advocate role. I am glad not to be the one this time. 8-)

To decide a persons guilt based on their looks is absolutely wrong. That a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is foundational to our society. I completely agree with you on this. That is not the issue here in my opinion. The issue is altering appearance to try to influence a jury. I don't think he has that right. He certainly doesn't have the right for me to pay for it. This guy has obscene and racially offensive tattoos in plain sight. That is not a crime, but it does say something about him. It speaks to his judgement if nothing else, but the truth is it doesn't make any difference as far as the trial is concerned. He has a right to a fair trial, the right to an attorney, and a right to speak on his own behalf. He also has the right to be found innocent if there is reasonable doubt that he committed the crime.

If there are bigots on the jury panel, the defense attorney has the responsibility, and right to weed them out. It is a system that works pretty well. Let the case be tried on its merits, and let the facts decide.

[roadwarrior]

It took the State of Tennessee 28 years to

execute this POS last week:

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Pending/09/dec09.htm

>