I wondered if this was legal shenanigans, maybe the lawyer trying to draw this out or mistrial or something slithery like that.
That tattoo will almost certainly color the juries perception of him. It would be illegal to formally introduce it as evidence against him.
That said, the state is under no obligation to make special accommodation to save him from his own poor decisions. He chose to get this tattoo, now he can live with the consequences of having it, and the possibility it might be seen by others.
If I were him, Iād wear a turtle-neck.
3 Likes
I agree the tattoo should not be formally admissible as evidence, but the state is not obligated to help him hide it.
The freedom which permits for that artistic expression, does not insulate you from the impressions that art might informally leave on those who see it.
Bottom line: It was his choice to present himself to the world in this way. It is his burden alone to alter that appearance.
3 Likes
3 Likes
I would suggest him to use large adhesive plaster and pretend he has been injured or something. Or as one of previous posters suggested a neck brace. This night even earn him some sympathy.
Who is going to pay for his ātattoo artistā hired to cover the tattoo?
If he still insists on having the tattoo covered I would suggest a thick black permanent marker. There is no need to cover his tattoo permanently for him to get a fair trial.
At the very least they are all guilty of having really poor taste in tattoos.
I pray to Darwin that no ones reproduces with these people.
1 Like
The State doesnāt oppose Chapmanās covering the tattoo but will not transport him to a licensed tattoo shop, and itās illegal for a tattoo artist to practice anywhere else.
I wonder if this is true, strictly speaking. A lot of people get tats for medical reasons to pinpoint parts of the body targeted for radiotherapy, do they have to go to a tattoo shop as well?
5 Likes
āPOOR IMPULSE CONTROLā springs readily to mind.
9 Likes
Iād be inclined to give him more of a fair shake, because police are basically lazy, and they may have just stopped investigating the minute they met this guy.
4 Likes
I will give you the point, as I am no lawyer clearly. But I think there is a line in here somewhere. There are Character witnesses that can get on the stand and say, āHe is not the kind of guy that would kill someone.ā I think the prosecution could call his neck to rebut that assertion.
Interesting, thanks.
So as long as the defense doesnāt raise his character in the defense its pretty hard raise is chin high neck endorsement of murder.
Seems to me that this is an issue that comes up a lot with the tears. Even I know what a tear tat means and Iām not exactly a hood dweller. I get that a tear tat would be easier to cover with some concealer, but itās not really all that different.
Maybe his best bet is to shoot for an entirely illiterate jury.
1 Like
@Brainspore what an exciting adventure- Iāve bookmarked for the 8 hour plane ride Iāve got coming up- So glad you got a photo of the barbed teeth because thatās a mental image I just couldnāt conjure up
1 Like
Perhaps he is just a big fan of Danny Lloydās acting career?
Iām not being sarcastic - I think that tattoo tends to incriminate rather than exonerate, which is why he wants to disguise it. It sounds like the defendant may be able to exclude the āmurderā tattoo from the trial, although I imagine the prosecution would be able to get it introduced if there were any witnesses, e.g. ādid you see any identifying features on the person you saw?ā āYes, he had the word Murder tattooed across his neckā would be a valid reason to introduce it. The teardrop tattoo should be enough to inform the prejudices of the jury in any case.
The case canāt be decided on the tattoo alone, but it does lead me to believe that heās more likely than the average man to be guilty of some crime at some point. The only argument for ignoring it is a possible miscarriage if they pin the wrong crime on him, (just because he looks as guilty as hell of something), and in doing so leave the criminal responsible for the murder they are trying at large.
I think this should prevent you from being a juror. I think itās a short hop from there to saying that āanyone with ugly tattoos is probably a low-life who is more likely to commit a crime.ā
Likewise, if he likes gangsta rap, or plays God of War on his playstation, that should also be irrelevant.
The case needs to be decided on its merits alone, not on your personal opinion of what kind of person he is. And something that will obviously color the juryās perception is something that could reasonably be hidden, since jurors canāt help but have their opinions colored.
Personally, I donāt know why the jury should be allowed to see the defendant at all, but Iām probably going out on a limb there. I do think it would make justice a lot more āblindā on factors such as race and class.
3 Likes
you missed the āfoā next to the tear.
1 Like
