So I'm serving on a jury

[Orrex]

Actually, I'm one of the alternates, and the trial is to resume on January 5th after an extended recess. The jury convened yesterday in the courtroom, along with the judge, counsel, and clerks, to go over some basic procedural matters, etc. I have to say that the judge is positively and sincerely effusive in his praise for citizens serving jury duty.

In the course of all of this, I happened to recall something. During the original set-up way back in June, when the judge was giving us our instructions, he was very specific in pointing out that the testimony of police officers is no more guaranteed (inherently) to be objective fact than that of any other witness. I suspect that this would also apply to military personnel and airline pilots.

What he said is true, of course, but then yesterday I got to thinking about it again...

Have you ever visited a "UFO Sighting" thread here on DU in which someone did not offer the testimony of a police officer or an airline pilot as a sort of trump card to overpower any objection? I know that I've seen it dozens of times, and there's a sort of hushed reverence each time, as though we're hearing the account of the Voice of Truth itself.

It's also funny that DU has a kind of kneejerk "cops are teh evul" undercurrent, too. I guess that they're objective factualists where interstellar craft are concerned, but they're hopelessly corrupt when they ticket you for having a broken tail light...

[TZ]

1. There is a lot of this on DU...

Where if said expert is on your side in an argument, they are a genius, if not crackpots, shills etc....
As for the testemony of police officers...I've actually found that to some people they consider their testimony LESS credible than a normal citizen.
Most jurors have biases and no matter what a judge says you can't get rid of them obviously (when I was on a jury on juror insisted that the main witness--a retired police officer was NOT credible because he was on disability for his back..and anybody on disability was not credible..:crazy:

[Orrex]

3. Good point about genius/crackpots

A million doctors can assert that urine therapy doesn't cure anything, and the woos will embrace the one crank who says that it does. Doesn't matter if that one has been condemned by the establishment; in fact, such condemnation actually boosts his credibility!

[cosmik debris]

2. This morning I noticed a thread in GD

about a Lieutenant Colonel's take on the Kennedy assassination and I wondered if he had more credibility on that subject than a Captain or a Sargent.

"LTC Daniel Marvin, US Army Special Forces (Retired)"

Are the Special Forces more credible than the regular troops?

[Deep13]

4. One thing our office points out during trials...

...is that while police officers generally are no more trustworthy than the average person, in the particular case on trial, they are often the only witnesses with no reason to lie. They don't usually know the victim or the defendant etc.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. just because someone is knowledgeable does not mean they are

does not mean they are credible. :shrug:

I don't keep up with the UFO threads so, I will take your word on the way the game is played around here. However, who on here is either knowledgeable OR credible when it comes to UFOs. much less knowledgeable AND credible.

[Orrex]

6. Well, I wasn't addressing any particular person specifically

Rather, I was describing the oft-repeated tactic of rolling out a cop or a 747 pilot as a be-all-end-all when it comes to amorphous globs of light as they pertain to interstellar vehicles.

So, without identifying any one person as knowledgeable or credible per se, I am instead addressing a rhetorical tactic favored by those who believe that UFOs are something much more significant than they appear.

In fairness, I must admit that a good many UFO-believers here on DU do NOT claim that UFOs are space craft; I should make this point clear so that my OP doesn't seem too quickly dismissive.

[Orrex]

7. Minor follow-up

Well, we resumed today. I was originally Alternate #1, but thanks to three drop-outs I'm now Juror #1, which means that I have a better view of the charts and diagrams from my new seat in the box. The trial's expected to close at the end of the week, after which we'll get it for deliberation.

No mention of UFO sightings or cold fusion so far.

[trotsky]

8. As Homer Simpson once said...

the secret to getting out of jury duty is to tell them you're prejudiced against ALL races. Remember that next time, fool. ;-)

[Orrex]

9. Hey, I wore my Starfleet uniform on the first day, and they still didn't discqualify me

Well, actually I didn't, but if I'd known that the trial would start in June and end in January, maybe I'd have donned a pair of Vulcan ears.

[TZ]

10. Just you wait...

Until you go into that Jury room for deliberation, then ANY hint of crazy woo-woo shit becomes magnified by 100..:eyes:

[onager]

11. My judicial double-whammy...

Completely off-topic, as usual.

This happened in the bad old days, when jury duty in Los Angeles County meant a sentence of 10 consecutive days at the courthouse.

For 3 of my 10 days, I was on a jury where a guy was clearly trying to get a windfall from Hertz Rental Cars. He had a minor collision with a Hertz car and was claiming all sorts of outrageous BS. We the jury awarded him his medical costs and nothing more. That was about a tenth of what he tried to collect for "pain and suffering" etc. Asshat.

So I go sit around the courthouse a few more days. And on my TENTH AND LAST DAY OF JURY SERVICE, of all effing things, I was called in for another jury selection.

They filled the 12 real jurors pretty quickly, and I was chomping at the bit to get outta there.

And son-of-a-bitch, they called me for voir dire as the second and LAST alternate juror.

The case was very similar to the one I had already tried. But in this case, it was a woman claiming all sorts of deadly injuries in a minor accident.

The judge asked the usual by-the-book question: Did I have any prejudices against the plaintiff?

I said I probably did, that I was prejudiced against people trying to bilk the system for a windfall due to a minor accident. Especially since I had just served on a similar case the week before.

Woo! Plaintiff's attorney shot out of his chair like he had a rocket up his butt. Asked how I could possibly tell the extent of injuries by simply looking at his client.

I responded that his client could obviously move under her own power and didn't have any disfigurements that I could see, so she was probably running a con. Or words to that effect.

The judge seemed to know what I was up to. He allowed that I could probably still be an impartial juror.

Plaintiff's attorney strongly disagreed and used one of his challenges to knock me off. Heh! I went downstairs to Jury Dragon Lady and told her to sign my damn form, it was my tenth day of service and I was outta there.