color me silly, but I have a cheaper suggestion. turtleneck shirt. (or invent a time machine, have him go back and advise his younger self it is not only tasteless, but a bad idea and do not get 'murder' inked on your neck)
Yea, if I was on the jury that might prejudice me some.
Thank goodness he is not on trial for manslaughter.
If he wears a standard button-down shirt, it would be partially obscured, but the more canny jurors might fixate upon it until they work out what it says. Maybe his lawyer can get a FX makeup artist to render some kind of prosthetic, flesh-tone neck covering.
I think it ENTIRELY appropriate that he hunker down in his defendant seat, ashamed and covering up while twelve of his (presumed? I hate to think so low of a group of people I've never seen) "peers" decide his guilt.
Yeah, I'd like to think I'm pretty objective, but I gotta say, a homage neck tattoo saying "MURDER" combined with a tear tattoo kind of takes all the guilt and second guessing out of convicting the guy of, well, murder. Unless that tat was forced on him by someone else, I kind of have a hard time being objective.
This is why I have "TOTALLY INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES" tattooed on my forehead. You never know when it will come in handy.
Damn. That beats having "I have made some poor decisions" tattooed on your forehead.
Something tells me a "Murder" neck tattoo is actually relevant to ones attitudes towards you know, killing people, and how cool or not cool that might be....
Even if he did manage to get a tattoo artist to help him out, the artist might have a laugh by inking in the letters solid rather than covering them up. What could he do about it?
He should use dermablend to cover it up, and a collared shirt on top of that should obscure it pretty well. In fact, it might make it look even better to the jury than the huge neck tattoo needed to cover it up. And it would be much cheaper than the cover up tattoo,too.
If i was on the jury and somehow found out he had his Murder tattoo covered that would probably prejudice me more then if he just sat there not hiding it.
Yeah. He needs to get a tattoo of a horse on his forehead.
His neck tattoo is evidence at his trial, it'd be perverting the course of justice to have it covered up or removed. It's evidence that the defendant is admitting mens rea from the outset. I'd still listen to a defence that he couldn't possibly have committed the crime because he was not present at the crime scene. I think he wants to take whatever plea bargain is on offer as an Alford plea
Don't cover it up. Enbiggen it!
Turn it into a whimsical homage to Jimmy the Murderdog:
The System - The System 20
All he needs is a Sharpie and a steady hand....
Yeah, I'm wondering if anyone in this thread thinks this guy is innocent of the murder charge...
...granted, I think my wondering that proves that the tat is highly prejudicial - for all I know the cops decided he must have done it for the same reason. And it is even so prejudicial that I just can't bring myself to care for this guy's welfare. But, what if it says "IS WRONG!!" on the back of his neck :-0
Don't cover it up. Enbiggen it!
A perfectly cromulent suggestion
I suppose tattooing "I killed the guy" on his forehead would be prejudicial too. It is the result of an action he took that endorses killing people. If he had written a book about how fun it is to murder people, would that need to be excluded?
next page →