Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Melissajoanshart t1_j82pgnt wrote

Any follow up on the New Year’s Eve events tho?

126

[deleted] t1_j834len wrote

[deleted]

81

enn_sixty_four t1_j84gd4k wrote

Wait it was the STAFF?!? holy shit didn't know that detail

15

[deleted] t1_j84p1wc wrote

[deleted]

4

porkchameleon t1_j84zgjb wrote

> I think there were two separate incidents: one involving patrons, in the bathroom; and one involving staff, in a backroom/upstairs. Just posts I saw on Reddit.

"Just posts I saw on Reddit" - check your facts next time: the latter was Dobbs last week.

11

FishtownYo t1_j85ebmt wrote

If I were the Garage, I’d sue you for making the statement about their staff. That could seriously damage their business.

−6

[deleted] t1_j836b4b wrote

[deleted]

−5

rollingstoner215 t1_j83tgn8 wrote

Oh god I thought it was tagged as in graffiti, not a hashtag. This makes it even worse.

−4

APettyJ OP t1_j84amfp wrote

It was a graffiti tag. He posted to Instagram a video of him tagging the wall, and not with a hashtag!

5

APettyJ OP t1_j82ydu5 wrote

Had no idea what you were talking about (missed all the posts that had been created and deleted). Now that I've read about it, hoping the investigation and search for these guys is swift, if not already completed, and hoping the survivor gets justice from the courts. Served as a foreman on a jury some years ago where looking back, I don't think we gave our survivor justice.

42

rollingstoner215 t1_j830svf wrote

It’s your job as a juror to convict. /s

−17

APettyJ OP t1_j83tesn wrote

If the evidence fits....

I've always loved the film "12 Angry Men". Always loved how one man did not allow himself to be pressured just by being outnumbered, used logic and reason and ability to look at the facts and come to the probable right decision.

In my case, a woman got drunk at a bar, and ended up in bed with a man she hardly knew. She claimed it was one thing, he another. It so happens she's white, looked Italian of the "Jersey Shore" variety, and he's black. The angle the defense took was she was just being racist, especially when she said something to the effect of, "I'd never get in bed with HIM!" Rubbed many of us the wrong way, but I and a couple others towards the end began to have our doubts. Still, we all voted to acquit, and the judge afterwards spoke to us and she said we probably made right decision, given the evidence.

However, I spoke about the case's circumstances (didn't reveal names or anything specific) afterwards with my sister, and also happened to come across the accuser's FB page. Turns out she was a lesbian, but that didn't come up in court. So when she said she'd never sleep with HIM, it may have been about sexual preference rather than race. Also, a couple years had passed before she had finally gotten her day in court, and I believe the whole process with the rape kit took awhile as well. Long story short, my sister pointed out that with all the time that had passed, if the woman was lying or even she had any doubts about what happened herself she wouldn't have kept up the charade through multiple police interviews and tests over the many months it took for everything to transpire. Afterwards, it all made sense, but of course couldn't discuss anything during the trial for an "outside opinion".

It's nagged at me ever since. Been hoping for another chance, however, I've gotten maybe three summons for jury duty in the 8 years or so hence, and am always told to stay home.

13

quixoteland t1_j83vgls wrote

You can only do the best you can when presented with the evidence that's actually allowed to be presented to you. The woman's attorney (or prosecutor) maybe should have brought up the fact that she was a lesbian, you finding out about it after the fact really doesn't have much of a bearing on it.

Or maybe the lawyer knew, but didn't feel they had an adequate way of presenting it to the jury or didn't think it was important. The defense and prosecution are in charge of everything that you're presented as jurors, anything else is strictly not in your purview.

Thinking that somehow you have to make up for a decision you made to the best of your ability when presented with the facts provided is nothing to be ashamed of, or more to the point, something you think you have to "make up" for.

6

APettyJ OP t1_j8446rl wrote

Thank you for this.

I'm reminded of the times I've helped my ex-wife's daughter with reading homework, and we've often talked about "context clues". The lesbian thing, sure, might not have been right out there to see, but being able to put oneself in someone else's shoes could have led us to have more discussion based on the whole time passed angle and likelihood she was doing this to someone she barely knew and didn't hate beforehand. While I can't remember now what the points were, there were a couple of things that gave me and a couple others pause and we initially did not vote to acquit. Maybe we could have had more discussions, and maybe thought of some other reasons a woman would get on the stand and say what she said. One thing that stuck with me was it was only three males who did not vote to acquit, whereas our jury had more females than males. However, just about all of the women jurors were minorities, and so the defense attorney, who was also female, was really effective with the "racial regret" defense.

I don't feel guilty, but have made a promise to be more diligent if and when there is a next time, and pay attention to the "context clues", especially trying to be more empathetic.

−1

SomePaddy t1_j848xto wrote

>It's nagged at me ever since.

It sounds like there was literal reasonable doubt. The lesbian part was not in evidence, and that's on the prosecutor (maybe they were constrained by the victim's preference not to bring it up in open court). But also, you don't KNOW that you made the wrong call. People do things that are out of character when they're drunk. You just have doubt now, and tie goes to the runner - doubt, acquit = legally appropriate outcome.

>Been hoping for another chance

This doesn't seem like healthy mindset for a potential juror...

Make peace with it - as the judge told you "probably the right call given the evidence".

4

SomePaddy t1_j848yjs wrote

>It's nagged at me ever since.

It sounds like there was literal reasonable doubt. The lesbian part was not in evidence, and that's on the prosecutor (maybe they were constrained by the victim's preference not to bring it up in open court). But also, you don't KNOW that you made the wrong call. People do things that are out of character when they're drunk. You just have doubt now, and tie goes to the runner - doubt, acquit = legally appropriate outcome.

>Been hoping for another chance

This doesn't seem like healthy mindset for a potential juror...

Make peace with it - as the judge told you "probably the right call given the evidence".

1

SomePaddy t1_j849344 wrote

>It's nagged at me ever since.

It sounds like there was literal reasonable doubt. The lesbian part was not in evidence, and that's on the prosecutor (maybe they were constrained by the victim's preference not to bring it up in open court). But also, you don't KNOW that you made the wrong call. People do things that are out of character when they're drunk. You just have doubt now, and tie goes to the runner - doubt, acquit = legally appropriate outcome.

>Been hoping for another chance

This doesn't seem like healthy mindset for a potential juror...

Make peace with it - as the judge told you "probably the right call given the evidence".

1

SpreadSharp7476 t1_j86mr7e wrote

It’s in the past, in a short period of time you will laugh about it. You having feelings about it is just the process of getting over it.

−1

SomePaddy t1_j848zm3 wrote

>It's nagged at me ever since.

It sounds like there was literal reasonable doubt. The lesbian part was not in evidence, and that's on the prosecutor (maybe they were constrained by the victim's preference not to bring it up in open court). But also, you don't KNOW that you made the wrong call. People do things that are out of character when they're drunk. You just have doubt now, and tie goes to the runner - doubt, acquit = legally appropriate outcome.

>Been hoping for another chance

This doesn't seem like healthy mindset for a potential juror...

Make peace with it - as the judge told you "probably the right call given the evidence".

0