I think that even if he is innocent of the murder charge, he has only himself to blame for getting such a large cop target tattooed on his neck. Of course every cop who sees him will want to arrest him for every unsolved murder case they have on their books.
1 Like
âTattoo it on your forehead.
Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski!
Condolences!
The bums lost!â
1 Like
I recently was an alternate juror in a case where the plaintiff (representing himself) had his full name tattooed in large gothic lettering across his forehead. It was a zany couple of weeks, but at least it didnât involve any cases of identity theft.
6 Likes
I would recommend he wear an ascot. . . but thatâs even worse. What jury wouldnât LOVE to convict an ascot wearer?
5 Likes
This kind of permanent inking is just begging for every cop and DA to advance their career by taking you off of the streets the first time there is a difficult to solve murder.
Knowing nothing about the case I would be suspicious that he was the first dumbass the popo hauled in off of the streets to clear the case, leaving a real murderer out and free thanks to Mr. Distraction and his amazing tattoo.
I dunno. The damage is mostly already done, unless the jury has been sequestered since his capture and knows nothing about the tat. Covering it with something at least shows awareness that it was bloody (pardon the expression) stupid, and possibly some respect for the court.
I tend to agree that concealing makeup ought to do be sufficient for court purposes, though.
The tat doesnât bias me toward his guilt on any particular set of charges. I suspect it would bias me toward throwing the book at him if he was found guilty.
Yes. Since the stateâs job is to present evidence beyond that he committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence being you know⌠evidence. Not some tenuous temporally compromised indicator of supposed character. If he wrote in a notebook, âI killed Johanass Miklaus Beringer the III and I liked it.â That would be relevant. If I got a tattoo of a Mustang that had the words, âDrive it like you stole it.â five years before I was accused of stealing a Mustang, weirdly enough, thatâs not actually evidence that I committed a crime.
9 Likes
The whole, âSure, you can have it covered up except that we wonât allow you to access the means to do soâ on behalf of the state is pretty lousy. Some things really are so prejudicial that I think the state has to make concessions. Though I do agree with commenters that there must be a make-up based way to cover it, and I would think that would be an acceptable way to handle the problem.
4 Likes
Granted. But being murderous doesnât make you a murderer, and even being a murderer doesnât necessarily make you guilty of a particular given murder.
11 Likes
Not me. Itâs just smart to look as much like a normal, law-abiding, upstanding citizen as possible in court. I donât assume that if I see a defendant in a suit that he wears a suit everywhere he goes in his daily life. But itâs the expected standard for dress in the court room. Itâs not a lie or hiding something to wear it. Itâs wisely dressing the part. You put on a suit. You cover your tattoos. Most especially one that says the crime you are accused of.
2 Likes
If a jury had to choose between convicting an ascot wearer vs. convicting a trilby wearer, which do you suppose would be preferable?
Clearly he must have or planned to have a flock of crows tattooed on the rest of his neck.
8 Likes
Since his problem is that heâs in prison and will presumably not be issued a prison standard ascot or turtleneck, nor access to any non-Klan affiliated tattoo artists, he might have to get creative. Maybe toss himself off of a railing just high enough to injure his neck and need a neck brace? Then the jury might think heâs in there for a personal injury case instead and go easy on the whole murder thing.
2 Likes
Or, more specifically, the view of a horse one gets when standing directly behind it 
1 Like
What a waste of protoplasm.
âŚand people in hell want ice water.
Artistic expression. Yes, honestly. In the same way that rap lyrics should not be admitted as evidence in a trial, his poor choice of tattoo has nothing to do with whether he actually wants to kill anyone.
1 Like
My reading: Yep, except when used to rebut evidence he introduced that heâs a good guy.
Kansas Statute 60-447 Character trait as proof of conduct. Subject to K.S.A. 60-448 when a trait of a personâs character is relevant as tending to prove conduct on a specified occasion, such trait may be proved in the same manner as provided by K.S.A. 60-446, except that (a) evidence of specific instances of conduct other than evidence of conviction of a crime which tends to prove the trait to be bad shall be inadmissible, and (b) in a criminal action evidence of a trait of an accusedâs character as tending to prove guilt or innocence of the offense charged, (i) may not be excluded by the judge under K.S.A. 60-445 if offered by the accused to prove innocence, and (ii) if offered by the prosecution to prove guilt, may be admitted only after the accused has introduced evidence of his or her good character.
(Iâm a lawyer, but not yours, and this isnât legal advice.)
7 Likes
Has anyone told the guy the lettering is reversed, or does he think the way he sees it in the mirror is how it looks to everyone else?
No more than any and all rap lyrics about pretending to have committed some crime are.
Do all of these people with Assassinâs Creed tattoos also have guilty minds?
(You may have been being sarcastic in your comment, if so, apologies.)
1 Like
