I can haz jury service?

[pendell]

seen in the Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8264782/Cat-ordered-to-do-jury-service.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d352c31176f7136%2C0)



A cat has been summoned to do jury service, even after his owners told the court he was "unable to speak and understand English".

Anna Esposito, wrote to Suffolk Superior Crown Court in Boston, US, to explain that a mistake had been made, but a jury commissioner replied saying the cat, named Tabby Sal, "must attend" on March 23.

Mrs Esposito had included a letter from her vet confirming that the cat was "a domestic short-haired neutered feline".

Tabby Sal had been entered by Mrs Esposito under the 'pets' section of the last census. "When they ask him guilty or not guilty? What's he supposed to say - miaow?" She said.

"Sal is a member of the family so I listed him on the last Census form under pets but there has clearly been a mix-up."

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


Cue the internet "I can haz" meme. So long as the cat has access to facebook and a keyboard, she should be fine :).

Not sure how to sign this one,

Brian P.

[shadow_archmagi]

what

Man this ten characters thing really chafes my butter. Sometimes "What" is the only appropriate response, you know?

[Serpentine]

They should totally just take the cat.
Makes you wonder, though... Has someone actually tried to use the "I'm a cat" excuse to get out of jury duty?

[pendell]

I would dearly love to see the jury deliberations.

Juror 1: Oh, I don't think he's guilty as all that.

*Cat stares*

Juror 1: GUILTY! GUILTY! MY BRAIN IS MEEELTING!!!!

*Cat gently washes itself*

They'll also need accommodations at the court house -- a male restroom, a female restroom, and a litter box.

Right?

Respectfully yet laughing himself silly,

Brian P.

[_Zoot_]

Nice one, I love it when the system holds it's ground in the face of overwhelming common-sense. :smalltongue:

[rakkoon]

Think of the possibilities. Toy mice and catnip in the courtroom, party ensues!

[Elder Tsofu]

Animal rights groups have finally managed to get a cat into the legal courts of the USA, a first step towards equal rights and obligations between men and beasts.
It might very well do better than some humans.

[pendell]

Animal rights groups have finally managed to get a cat into the legal courts of the USA, a first step towards equal rights and obligations between men and beasts.
It might very well do better than some humans.

Not without precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitatus). Of course, Caligula wasn't entirely sane ...

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Admiral Squish]

Nice one, I love it when the system holds it's ground in the face of overwhelming common-sense. :smalltongue:

Speaking of holding your ground in the face of common sense.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5onkl2EHV4)

[RndmNumGen]

I... I don't even...

*Mind Breaks*

I welcome our new feline overlords! All hail Cathulhu!

:smallredface:

[Serpentine]

Not without precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitatus). Of course, Caligula wasn't entirely sane ...

Respectfully,

Brian P.Bah! It was nothing but a statement of "my HORSE would make a better consul than you!" to all his polititians!

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Sounds about right... I've been summoned to jury duty. Once. And they chose me.

Was so disillusioned by it. I'd steer clear of trouble just so I'd never have to get in front of a jury. We all found the guy innocent, but as several of them put it, "Yeah, but the guy is a b*stard, let's nail him anyway."

Were in there for over an hour debating with them that while the guy was an obvious PoS, you don't send people to prison for that, otherwise a good chunk of the world would be behind bars.

Would gladly have replaced half of them with the cat.

[pendell]

Bah! It was nothing but a statement of "my HORSE would make a better consul than you!" to all his polititians!

Are you sure? According to the article the horse was made both a Roman citizen and a senator. Caligula joked about making him a consul, but I don't think it actually happened.

Modern historians say it didn't happen. Suetonius and Dio Cassius say they did.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Elder Tsofu]

One step at a time the old rights are reclaimed. Who knows - in a hundred years time none might fell a comment on the USA having a Norwegian forest cat as president?

[Serpentine]

Are you sure? According to the article the horse was made both a Roman citizen and a senator. Caligula joked about making him a consul, but I don't think it actually happened.

Modern historians say it didn't happen. Suetonius and Dio Cassius say they did.

Respectfully,

Brian P.Suetonius was a notorious gossip with an axe to grind writing after the time. As it also says in that article, "Historical revisionists like Anthony A. Barrett in Caligula: The Corruption of Power (Yale, 1990) question the negative portrait of Caligula. They ascribe Caligula's treatment of Incitatus as a way of ridiculing and angering the Senate, rather than a proof of his insanity. They suggest that later historians like Suetonius and Dio Cassius were motivated by the politics of their times and that their histories were distorted by the desire to include more colorful, but perhaps less reliable sources. Barrett states that "Many stories were spread about Incitatus, originating most likely from Caligula's own humorous quips." and that Caligula may have been using satire against opposing centers of Roman power by suggesting even his horse could hold such a position. "Possibly out of perverted sense of humour Caligula would pour libations to Incitatus' Salus [health and well-being], and claimed that he intended to co-opt him as his priest."[1]"

[pendell]

Of course. Because making a horse a senator or putting a cat on a jury or hunting humans instead of foxes is crazy! No one would EVER do something like that. Right?

I personally believe the older historians because I frankly believe humans are $%$$#%# NUTS enough to do anything.

It'll be interesting to see what contortions future historians have to go through to explain the things we do. Doubtless chalk up the Daily Telegraph and the Washington Post as satire magazines.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Serpentine]

People two thousand years ago were just as likely to be bull**** artists and satirists as people now.

[pendell]

So we're agreed that people then and now are likely to be either brazen liars or barking mad? Perhaps we should start "misanthropists in the playground" :smallamused:


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Abies]

The thing being missed here is that the moron owner put a cat on the census. There was no "Pets" section on the most recent census. Look here for what the form lookes like:
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about/interactive-form.php

What this person did was put her cat down in the family members section, used the moronic "One cat year equals seven human years!" math to provide an age that would get her stupid cat to an age where it would be eligible for jury duty, and put "cat" as the race. The only failing here on the part of the government is that they took the straight "Age" as accurate instead of using a derived age from the birthdate (though if the stupid owner didn't know the actual DoB, she likely left that field blank). Race is not a factor in determining whether a person is eligible for jury duty, so that data would not have been pulled into the dataset fro individuals eligible for jury duty.

This person lied on a federal document. Whether it was due to stupidity or malice, or for whatever reason, she should be fined. There are reprucussions for reporting fictional people on a census. (And no, I'm sorry, you cat is not a person. And neither is mine.)

[The Glyphstone]

what

Man this ten characters thing really chafes my butter. Sometimes "What" is the only appropriate response, you know?

'what is this i dont even' works equally well and fits the character limit.

[Sipex]

The thing being missed here is that the moron owner put a cat on the census. There was no "Pets" section on the most recent census. Look here for what the form lookes like:
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about/interactive-form.php

What this person did was put her cat down in the family members section, used the moronic "One cat year equals seven human years!" math to provide an age that would get her stupid cat to an age where it would be eligible for jury duty, and put "cat" as the race. The only failing here on the part of the government is that they took the straight "Age" as accurate instead of using a derived age from the birthdate (though if the stupid owner didn't know the actual DoB, she likely left that field blank). Race is not a factor in determining whether a person is eligible for jury duty, so that data would not have been pulled into the dataset fro individuals eligible for jury duty.

This person lied on a federal document. Whether it was due to stupidity or malice, or for whatever reason, she should be fined. There are reprucussions for reporting fictional people on a census. (And no, I'm sorry, you cat is not a person. And neither is mine.)

Whoa whoa, calm down.

You're talking about a woman who had to fill out a government form. It's completely understandable that she found it confusing.

[Castaras]

This made my day. :smallbiggrin:

[blackouttwo]

My brain.

My brain is trying to kill itself as a result of what I have just read.

It is committing suicide inside my skull.

On the other hand, this'll be hilarious to read about later.

[MonkeyBusiness]

2011 is (or will be in a few weeks) the Year of the Rabbit; which, I believe, is the Year of the Cat in Vietnam. So this seems appropriate.

The only drawback to this realization is that now I'll be humming Al Stewart songs all day. Sheesh ...

If we can have cats in the jury, can we get George Carlin back?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans.

Seems likely that Ms. Esposito listed her cat as a "resident" of the household, which - if Suffolk County does peruse the Federal Census Surveys to do jury selection - means the cat could get selected.

Obviously the Court isn't going to accept a letter saying "she's a cat" on its face. Ms. Esposito and her cat will likely have to attend the jury selection process and then be promptly dismissed by the judge.

I couldn't find much more information about matters than the OP listed, but it is pretty silly if true :smalltongue:

[Asta Kask]

I say this is crap. The point of a jury is to be tried by a group of your peers. Cats are superior to mere humans and should not be used to try us.

Also, if the defendant is a dog-owner, the cat may be prejudiced.

I don't believe for a moment that the cat doesn't understand English. My cat understands every word I say.

[Ravens_cry]

I can haz face palm?
Invisible head desk!

[shadow_archmagi]

Speaking of holding your ground in the face of common sense.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5onkl2EHV4)

Feel the urge to point out that that never happened.

I may not be a huge fan of the military, but give them a little credit (http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthouse.asp)

[GrlumpTheElder]

This is brilliant news :D

Semi-relevant pic:
http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/attachments/other-grids-virtual-worlds/12521d1277230467-now-what-meta7-lawyer-lolcat.jpg

[Admiral Squish]

Feel the urge to point out that that never happened.

I may not be a huge fan of the military, but give them a little credit (http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthouse.asp)

Oh, yeah, I figured it was fake. However, having been in the navy for a time, I can tell you that it's EXTREMELY plausible. I've heard at least four stories of extremely similar occurrences, and it's not hard to imagine since a lot of officers actually act like that.

[Abies]

Whoa whoa, calm down.

You're talking about a woman who had to fill out a government form. It's completely understandable that she found it confusing.

Did you look at the form? Did you find it confusing?

Admittedly I work with various data collection instruments all day every day, so I may not be the best judge as to what is confusing. Misinterpreting a cat as a human being is a pretty big error in comprehension.

[The Glyphstone]

Did you look at the form? Did you find it confusing?

Admittedly I work with various data collection instruments all day every day, so I may not be the best judge as to what is confusing. Misinterpreting a cat as a human being is a pretty big error in comprehension.

Sentimentality can easily stretch enough to consider a beloved pet a member of the family, or even a person, and the form only says 'People', not 'humans'.

[drakir_nosslin]

I don't believe for a moment that the cat doesn't understand English. My cat understands every word I say.

Perhaps the cat speaks spanish, german or some other language? :smalltongue: But then I guess they could just hire a translator and the problem would be solved.

[Sipex]

Did you look at the form? Did you find it confusing?

Admittedly I work with various data collection instruments all day every day, so I may not be the best judge as to what is confusing. Misinterpreting a cat as a human being is a pretty big error in comprehension.

I'm Canadian so we have different forms but I could see how someone would find it confusing. It's government so you're already nervous about getting it wrong and if the Miss isn't a native english speaker (which may or may not be the case) it could also factor in.

Think about it, you get this form and you think "Do they consider my cat as part of the household? They have 'race' as a field. It would really suck not to include my cat then get audited or worse because I didn't."

Many people are very concerned that the government is going to screw them over and there's already a lot fo stigma around how confusing government forms are which wouldn't help either.

[pendell]

Did you look at the form? Did you find it confusing?

Admittedly I work with various data collection instruments all day every day, so I may not be the best judge as to what is confusing. Misinterpreting a cat as a human being is a pretty big error in comprehension.

Speaking as someone who works in the hotel industry, I have been lectured repeatedly because I keep forgetting that our users are primarily minimum-wage employees for whom English is not a first language, not university graduates. Among the crowd I'm writing for, even cell phones are a bit of a mystery.

I suspect that most of the people on this forum are a good 20 points above the bell curve in terms of IQ. There exist a whole universe of people at or below that median IQ of 100 for whom things that seem simple to you simply aren't.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[grimbold]

They should totally just take the cat.
Makes you wonder, though... Has someone actually tried to use the "I'm a cat" excuse to get out of jury duty?
i should try that

[Liriel]

The thing being missed here is that the moron owner put a cat on the census. There was no "Pets" section on the most recent census. Look here for what the form lookes like:
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about/interactive-form.php


That's the short form. I never saw the long form, so I can't say for sure, but maybe it did include a pets section.

It seems like we're hearing a lot of animals getting summoned/credit cards/etc lately.

Really though, the vet's statement isn't enough? :smallconfused:

[HalfTangible]

Speaking of holding your ground in the face of common sense.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5onkl2EHV4)

Not real, but still related and funny. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb4eokdzuBk)

[_Zoot_]

The thing being missed here is that the moron owner put a cat on the census. There was no "Pets" section on the most recent census. Look here for what the form lookes like:
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about/interactive-form.php

What this person did was put her cat down in the family members section, used the moronic "One cat year equals seven human years!" math to provide an age that would get her stupid cat to an age where it would be eligible for jury duty, and put "cat" as the race. The only failing here on the part of the government is that they took the straight "Age" as accurate instead of using a derived age from the birthdate (though if the stupid owner didn't know the actual DoB, she likely left that field blank). Race is not a factor in determining whether a person is eligible for jury duty, so that data would not have been pulled into the dataset fro individuals eligible for jury duty.

This person lied on a federal document. Whether it was due to stupidity or malice, or for whatever reason, she should be fined. There are reprucussions for reporting fictional people on a census. (And no, I'm sorry, you cat is not a person. And neither is mine.)

Actually, I agree, if someone put down the cat on a form that only humans are meant to be listed on, then it doesn't surprise me that the system is not likely to believe that they are not fit for jury duty with out some discussion. Especially given the lengths that some people will go to to get out of jury duty.

[AsteriskAmp]

Just dress him in a Princess Leia outfit and send him over, they'll see he isn't fit for jury duty. 10 points to whoever gets the reference.