uh oh, lawyer arrested for chanting, "i hate the police", and allegedly called the f word

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As usual, this is a one-sided piece of news. Perhpas I missed the investigation, trial and ajudication of guilt against the police officer. It is appears that your opinions regarding Mr. Tuma's allegations are most biased based on your personal history with him. BTW--I dont think Mr. Tuma's position as an attorney on the Senate Judiciary Committee grants him more credibility. FWIW, I think it takes away from his credibility if I was sitting on the jury. A bunch of scoundrels, they are.

Actually it was his friend, a witness, who worked for SJC. And you are dead wrong-- the charge was dropped because it would not stick.

I don't know why it is so hard to understand that the police can't arrest you for saying something disrespectful.

Anyone who goes out and taunts anyone like that needs to go and get some serious psychological help. What a complete jackass.

I don't see why. It was a theatrical but not crazy test of the policeman's First Amendment literacy in the wake of a very public incident that spotlighted a real social problem. The policeman failed. Think of it as quality control for policeman, who can do a lot of damage to the citizenry if they stray beyond the bounds of the jobs we authorize them to do.

[Anonymous]

... "quality control for policemen"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exacty are the facts? Yes, I have heard one story, but not the other side. The last time I heard, there are three sides to a story. The two sides delivering their version of the story and the truth, ususually some where in the middle. No, I think you should be the one to remain out of the jury box, because you have already made up your mind and rendered a guilty verdict WITHOUT all the facts. You have decided to be the prosecutor, jury and sentencing judge. And I am not a booster fan for the police or anyone else, but I do know that in this city they are damned and flamed without all the facts.

The last time I was on jury duty, I didn't decide whether someone was guilty based on who they worked for -- which is what you were implying in your earlier post. You're the one who can't be trusted.

[Anonymous]

The last time I was on jury duty, I didn't decide whether someone was guilty based on who they worked for -- which is what you were implying in your earlier post. You're the one who can't be trusted.


No, actually you obvously misread, misunderstood, or simply chose to ignore what I posted. I stated that a person should not be granted more credibility based on where they worked. But, you on the hand was and perhaps still are inclined to elevate a higher degree of credibility on someone simply because the individual worked on The Hill. Now, if you don't like police officers, fine, say so. But because someone is an esteemed lawyer, by your accounts, who works on the Senate Judiciary Committee is deemed to be believable, just because. Well, that is hogwash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The last time I was on jury duty, I didn't decide whether someone was guilty based on who they worked for -- which is what you were implying in your earlier post. You're the one who can't be trusted.

No, actually you obvously misread, misunderstood, or simply chose to ignore what I posted. I stated that a person should not be granted more credibility based on where they worked. But, you on the hand was and perhaps still are inclined to elevate a higher degree of credibility on someone simply because the individual worked on The Hill. Now, if you don't like police officers, fine, say so. But because someone is an esteemed lawyer, by your accounts, who works on the Senate Judiciary Committee is deemed to be believable, just because. Well, that is hogwash.

I think you need to work on reading for comprehension. You wrote:

FWIW, I think it takes away from his credibility if I was sitting on the jury.

This is the full extent of what I wrote:

So you would judge him based on his position rather than on the facts of the case? Please do whatever you can to get out of jury duty.

I never said anything about believing the guy because he worked on the hill for the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is the responsibility of any jury member to look carefully at the facts of the case. You said the guy would have less credibility because of where he worked. I said nothing about his job or the police officer's or how I would vote on a jury (if there were to be one -- which there won't because the charges were dropped).

So you decided based on those two sentences that you knew exactly how I felt about this case, police officers, and the Senate Judiciary Committee. That's another reason you should avoid jury duty. You have trouble separating out fact from fancy.