{Perpetual thread} Today, I learned ...

[MidasKnight]

...but were you guilty?

[gpackin]

...but were you guilty?

The cop wrote the ticket for failure to stop at a steady red arrow, but I actually entered the intersection when the arrow was green. A few cars ahead caused the line of turning cars to get backed up when they wanted to turn left into a parking lot that was blocked by traffic and I got stuck in the intersection. So, to answer you question, no I wasn't.

[MidasKnight]

lol, I wasn't calling you out. Sorry if it seemed that way. I was trying to be funny.

[gpackin]

lol, I wasn't calling you out. Sorry if it seemed that way. I was trying to be funny.

Oh, I didn't think that you were. I figured I'd explain what happened anyway since it was something that I was quite angry about. I even explained the situation to the cop and asked if he could just give me a warning, but he didn't want to hear anything I said.

[CodeBlower]

I'm glad your ticket was dismissed.

I've had plenty of verbal-exchanges with cops like the one you had.

The one ticket I fought & got dropped was written by an officer with a conscience. He didn't think I deserved the ticket (but was obligated to write one) so he wrote it for a court-date when he would be on vacation -- and told me to fight it.

I wish there were more cops like him.

[voralfred]

... that a cat can be ordered to do jury service
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... rvice.html

I also learned that

A website for the US judicial system states that jurors are "not expected to speak perfect English".

And here is this website
http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/jury-system-b.html
This is a Massachusetts website, not a federal one, but the cat juror was precisely in Boston. It does say under "Statutory disqualifications" that total unability to speak and understand English is one:

Unable to speak and understand English. Those U.S. citizens who do not speak and understand English sufficiently well may be disqualified, but those citizens who speak English on the job and socially should report and enhance the diversity of the jury pool. Jurors are not expected to speak perfect English.

But just being able to speak English "on the job" ans "socially" is sufficient, in order to "enhance diversity".
Though this is very PC and nice, unless they provide simultaneous translation for such jurors, I am not sure this is the best way to provide justice. What if one very crucial point, either for the defendant or the accusation, is misunderstood? One might argue that this such an error could be cleared at the time of the deliberations, but if a juror, very early in the trial, gets a wrong idea because of a misunderstanding, and follows (as well as (s)he can) the entire remainder of the trial under this false impression, thus getting it all wrong, deliberation time is very late to correct the situation. Assuming that non-perfect-english-speaker can even communicate exactly why (s)he thinks this way at deliberation time and get the situation correctly explained.

[Mr. Titanic]

Today, I learned that Immunology is a formidable, ruthless and relentless opponent.