If you were on a Jury, would you convict someone charged with carrying W/O license?

Would you convict a man carrying illegally

  • yes

    Votes: 39 32.0%

  • no

    Votes: 83 68.0%
  • Total voters
    122
Eric Rudolph
Click to expand...
Already addressed.

WildneverfeartheenemyyoucancontrolAlaska
Click to expand...
Exactly the point. You can't control human evil by passing laws. In fact, sometimes the evil people are the ones doing the controlling.

You would almost make sense if you left out the Nuremburg Laws..
Click to expand...
As Cobray noted already, the Nazis beliefs were well known before they gained power.

the US legal/political system fixed old Jim Crow didnt it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, after a lot of people brought the problem to national focus by Not obeying the law, because it was the right thing to do.



:)
 
Wild Alska wrote: O well, I have a moral problem with women wearing short skirts, guess Ill just go out and nullify THE LAW in a rape case.
Click to expand...

Of course, you'd have to convince 11 other people of it before one on them run out and notifies a judge for your removal.

If you can convince 11 other people, then I would say that it makes sense and wouldn't be the rantings of a madman..


Basically, all these implications that JN is falling back to anarchy is a crock. Or are states like Indiana just vast spaces of individuals without rule of law?
 
It would be interesting to find out how many people offering their opinions herein on juries have actually ever served on one.
 
VOte not to convict

soapbox, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box

or see the Declartion of Independence - an appeal to principles above the rule of law.
 
You can't control human evil by passing laws. In fact, sometimes the evil people are the ones doing the controlling.
Click to expand...

Wildalaska said he didn't believe this. He said that the state and its laws are the only things keeping all of the white supremacists from knocking down his doors... :rolleyes:

Who the heck is that?
Click to expand...

He is a Jewish comedian who in his satirical film and tv show makes fun of anti-Semites believing the Jew with the tail/lays eggs thing. He is the progenitor of what I wrote. The one with the smiley under it...

really? And I dont even have a "Glock on the rope" in the shower
Click to expand...

Actually you're sort of anti-paranoid. You believe the government is there to protect you against the people :D I've got you beat though, my home defense gun is an unloaded double barrel. Birdshot is kept nearby. But thats a different story.
 
Yeah, after a lot of people brought the problem to national focus by Not obeying the law, because it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Umm.... you need to reread your history. Plenty of people did time in jail for violating segregation laws and alike. MLK was in the klink a time or two. The ONLY thing that changed these things was when someone challenged the law in a court as per our system.

If people here would put down their internet law degree for a moment and think about things this wouldn't be so hard.

Nullification has an effect on a single case. Thats it. Its not some grandiose check on the government. Since some of you are so enamored with Jim crow lets use that as an example. If I were a DA and the jury nullified a certian case, all I have to do is wait until the individual does the same thing again and recharge him. Then I'm going to pick a different jury and convict him. Its that simple. All you have done is postpone the inevitable. If you want to change it then you can't do it through the jury box.

If the law is unconstitutional, then you are going to have people that challenge it in court. If its not, and its simply a matter of "I dont like it" then you likely aren't going to have people challenge it. Why? Because we have a system of laws and not "morals" or "beliefs". These are all different and the law is not.
 
Or are states like Indiana just vast spaces of individuals without rule of law?
Click to expand...

Got any cases regarding jury nullification in Indiana, or are ya just relying on the net ninjas?

WildfullyinformedAlaska
 
What leads to death on the scale of the Holocaust is people doing just as you're advocating - going along with what their gov't tells them because it's the law, regardless of what their conscience tells them.
Click to expand...
Rash generalization there...the Germans had been indoctrinated for years about how the Aryan race was a living entity. They truly believed that by eliminating the 'unwanteds' (not just Jews, but anything that didnt fit their description of perfection) the entity that was the Aryan race would become healthier.

It was more of a biological process to them, not genocide or murder in their eyes. This went on for many years prior to WWII and its atrocities. In fact, the entire concept was perfected on their own citizens, their own families, etc.

If you are going to use the Holocaust in your arguments, helps if you have a full understanding of the mentality behind it.
 
Not only no, but hell no. Anyone who would is a traitor to the constitution, in my opinion. An unjust and unconstitutional law MUST be disobeyed. Wild Alaska is ridiculously out of touch, as usual. He would get along swimmingly with Mr. Zumbo, no doubt. Not to mention Himmler, Hitler, et al - "I vas jus following orders!". If the government says that no one can publish a newspaper, then by damn, that's a law too, and must be obeyed, right? The judicial system, namely the supreme court, has made a mockery of the constitution and the rule of law...it is way past time to make a mockery of the system as the only viable alternative. I truly can't believe people are trying to defend that line of thinking, and that 32% vote that way on a gun board. It's little doubt that regimes like the third reich can come to power...the water is getting very warm!
 
An unjust and unconstitutional law MUST be disobeyed.
Click to expand...

Really...then why are you posting instead of standing on the Courthouse steps with a bag of weed and a Thompson?

Hey check out the new flame....You...you....you...zumbo!:D

WildnowwhoserediculouslyoutoftouchAlaska
 
With due respect - the question was not what course of action is best to change a law but would you vote to convict someone under an unjust law if you were on a jury. While not voting to convict an individual in one particular case may not create a change in the law, it may make a huge difference in that individuals life, and that is important. Additionally, the two courses of action are not mutually or morally exclusive so it is not an either or choice.

So if Jim Crow was still the law of the land, as it was not so very long ago, would you vote to convict someone under it?

At Nuremberg following orders and the law was not an acceptable excuse. Good thing because more people have been killed legally by their own governments this century than have in war or by any other human means. More individuals have been deprived of the free exercise of their rights by their own governments than by any other means.

The fight for freedom may be waged from the soapbox, by the ballot box, in the jury box, and if necessary in the course of human events with the cartridge box. None of these are exclusive of the other.
 
Last edited:
the question was not what course of action is best to change a law but would you vote to convict someone under an unjust law if you were on a jury.
Click to expand...

Dont recall that the illegal carry situation was in any fashion :"unjust"...

I mean lets make the poll realistic.....would you vote to convict a man who is accused of illegally carrying a weapon if the law allegedly violated has been tested and held to be constituional.?

WildhowsthatAlaska
 
Moral responsibility does not end with, well it's the law.

Not so much whether something is constitutional, but whether it is moral. Who decides what is moral or right or just? The same people who always have - each individual human being. That is the way it has always been - law or no law - and that is the way it will always be.
 
I mean lets make the poll realistic.....would you vote to convict a man who is accused of illegally carrying a weapon if the law allegedly violated has been tested and held to be constituional.?
Click to expand...

Are there extenuating circumstances that the law doesn't attend to?

Then what do we need laws for?
Click to expand...

The anarchy argument is a joke. Talk about reaching. . . sheesh.

Or is my morality different than yours?
Click to expand...

Of course. What a silly question to ask. Why else would we be having this conversation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top