Trump's mug shot

[Subduction Zone]

Doesn't matter how recognizable he is. He should get treated the same as anyone else.

I guess that Georgia has an honor system on height and weight. Trump gained an inch of height and lost 25 pounds of weight since his booking in New York

Rats! The numbers did not copy. Here they are:

32
OBESITY
White House doctor
244 lbs, 6ft 3
30.5
31
Manhattan booking
240lbs, 6ft 2
30
White House doctor
239lbs, 6ft 3
29.9
30
OVERWEIGHT
Trump
self-reported
236 lbs, 6ft 3
29.5
29
28
Georgia booking
215lbs, 6ft 3
26.9

 

[anna.]

I guess that Georgia has an honor system on height and weight. Trump gained an inch of height and lost 25 pounds of weight since his booking in New York

View attachment 81396

And there's no way he's 215. Or 6'3", for that matter...

 

[anna.]

Absolutely. The rich and powerful shouldn't get special treatment, imo

You'd think everyone would agree with that, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And there's no way he's 215. Or 6'3", for that matter...

It was a special crash diet that included a very very late life growth spurt. It takes a lot of energy to add an inch (or more) in height at his age. Though I would bet that he is closer to 6' 1 " in height. And 240 was being generous to trump. Perhaps a ten pound clothing allowance.

 

[anna.]

It was a special crash diet that included a very very late life growth spurt. It takes a lot of energy to add an inch (or more) in height at his age. Though I would bet that he is closer to 6' 1 " in height. And 240 was being generous to trump. Perhaps a ten pound clothing allowance.

Supposedly he wears lifts in his shoes which may partially explain the odd way he tilts forward. And I'll bet he's 250 if he's an ounce.

 

[Soandso]

You'd think everyone would agree with that, right?

"You'd hope" might be more apt. Unfortunately people are able to justify cognitive dissonance very easily when it comes to their personal values vs. their personal biases. Biases seem to win over values in the end more often than not. Values are then bent into the shape that fits within the boundaries of those biases and everything makes sense within the mind as long as one doesn't think too much about it

 

[anna.]

"You'd hope" might be more apt. Unfortunately people are able to justify cognitive dissonance very easily when it comes to their personal values vs. their personal biases. Biases seem to win over values in the end more often than not. Values are then bent into the shape that fits within the boundaries of those biases and everything makes sense within the mind as long as one doesn't think too much about it

Well said.

 

[fantome profane]

Alleged crime. They have to actually prove it first.

No, actually they don't.

They don't need to prove it before arresting someone, they don't need to prove it before taking fingerprints, they don't need to prove it before taking a mugshot.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's not guilty until proven innocent.

This is how it's done. People are arrested, booked, and then comes the trial.

 

[crossfire]

It was a special crash diet that included a very very late life growth spurt. It takes a lot of energy to add an inch (or more) in height at his age. Though I would bet that he is closer to 6' 1 " in height. And 240 was being generous to trump. Perhaps a ten pound clothing allowance.

Is the height counting his hair?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Cool, you got a source for that?


If that were true the could just show the picture to the victim, no need to make it public.

I agree with you. I am against making mugshots public before people are convicted.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yup. Thats what the entire process is designed to do. And I can ensure you that's the least of the humiliating things that happened to him that are routine and done to all inmates.

But why before he is convincted of anything?

 

[fantome profane]

I agree with you. I am against making mugshots public before people are convicted.

But why before he is convincted of anything?

Is this something you have always been against? Have you complained about this before? Or is this a new position you have come to recently for some reason?

 

[We Never Know]

Is this something you have always been against? Have you complained about this before? Or is this a new position you have come to recently for some reason?

Innocent until proven guilty.

But a person is
-charged
-arrested
-finger printed
-mugshot taken
-have to put up a bond
-limitrd to places they can go
-limited to what they can say
-limited to who they can talk to

That sure screams innocent doesn't it lol

 

[fantome profane]

Innocent until proven guilty.

But a person is
-charged
-arrested
-finger printed
-mugshot taken
-have to put up a bond
-limitrd to places they can go
-limited to what they can say
-limited to who they can talk to

That sure screams innocent doesn't it lol

Have you always held this opinion, or is it something new?

 

[We Never Know]

Have you always held this opinion, or is it something new?

Always

 

[Soandso]

Innocent until proven guilty.

But a person is
-charged
-arrested
-finger printed
-mugshot taken
-have to put up a bond
-limitrd to places they can go
-limited to what they can say
-limited to who they can talk to

That sure screams innocent doesn't it lol

I don't know if "innocence" plays a part in this. I think most of those, such as limiting who people can talk to or where they can go, is meant to limit potential exploits. Imagine if it were allowed for someone accused of white collar crimes to talk to their buddies also accused of that same crimes so they could all keep their story straight or work together to move money or potential evidence, or for violent crime perpetrators to talk to the victims and intimidate them before a trial. Those things are limited for a very good reason

That said, there's some things I don't like about the system such as making bond, but that has more to do with making the state money and making an easy way out for rich people. I do agree that mug shots or finger prints don't need to be made public until after conviction, though

 

[We Never Know]

Have you always held this opinion, or is it something new?

A person is
-charged
-arrested
-finger printed
-mugshot taken
-have to put up a bond
-limitrd to places they can go
-limited to what they can say
-limited to who they can talk to

Does that scream they are innocent?

 

[We Never Know]

I don't know if "innocence" plays a part in this. I think most of those, such as limiting who people can talk to or where they can go, is meant to limit potential exploits. Imagine if it were allowed for someone accused of white collar crimes to talk to their buddies also accused of that same crimes so they could all keep their story straight or work together to move money or potential evidence, or for violent crime perpetrators to talk to the victims and intimidate them before a trial. Those things are limited for a very good reason

That said, there's some things I don't like about the system such as making bond, but that has more to do with making the state money and making an easy way out for rich people. I do agree that mug shots or finger prints don't need to be made public until after conviction, though

I'm referring to the list as a whole.

But we can break it down some and even add to it.

A person is
-charged
-arrested
-finger printed
-mugshot taken
-have to put up a bond(if one can't afford bond they stay in jail(hits the poor hard)
Those are mostly routine

Sometimes with added stipulations.
-limited to places they can go
-limited to what they can say
-limited to who they can talk to

Other stipulations that are sometimes added
-house arrest
-gps ankle monitor
-who they can be around

Doesn't that all scream innocent?

 

[fantome profane]

I'm referring to the list as a whole.

But we can break it down some and even add to it.

A person is
-charged
-arrested
-finger printed
-mugshot taken
-have to put up a bond(if one can't afford bond they stay in jail(hits the poor hard)
Those are mostly routine

Sometimes with added stipulations.
-limited to places they can go
-limited to what they can say
-limited to who they can talk to

Other stipulations that are sometimes added
-house arrest
-gps ankle monitor
-who they can be around

Doesn't that all scream innocent?

I have some concern that we are in danger of going from one extreme to the other, at least in rhetoric if not in reality.

Obviously a suspect is going to be charged before they are convicted. If there is legitimate for the charge to be brought I have no objection to fingerprints or mugshots. The mugshot does not necessarily need to be released to the public. My position is that if there is legitimate reason to release it to the public there should be a separate court order to do that.

The bail system unproportionately punishes the poor. People without sufficient means are forced to spend time in prison just because they can't make bail. Not because the are dangerous, not because they are a flight risk, but just because they are poor.

Limiting places you can go. I don't think it is unreasonable to prevent defendants from leaving the country without approval from the court.

Limiting what they can say. Let's look at the Trump case for this one. All Trump was told is that he cannot interfere with or threaten a witness, he cannot threaten the co-defendants, he cannot threaten the Judge or her staff, the cannot threaten the lawyers or their staff.

This just means he must follow the law. This is not an additional limit to his speech, this has always been the law. It was the law before he was arrested, and it is still the law. It is the law for you, you cannot threaten a witness, you will go to jail if you do that.