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

[sasquatch]

SecDef

"Now, should the melancholy case arise that the judges should give their opinions to the jury against one of these fundamental principles"

You seem to have left out which "fundamental principles" are being referred to. An oversight, I'm sure.

"Fletcher rejects the belief that jury nullification is an affront to the rule of law"

And this would be proof of what???

 

[badbob]

John Adams aint stare decisis, and some article in a Law Journal aint the force of laws.

Deal with it.

Couch the lie in whatever moral terms ya want, its still a lie, its still contemptuous, still a slap in the face of law and justice and just another example of folks thinking they are above the law.

Ill take my chances with the law and the state thank you, not the armed law unto itself rabble.

WildthankgodtheleftiesareusuallywimpsAlaska

Wild, are you implying that that the people who question your beliefs about jury nullification are "lefties" and "wimps" as well?

badbob

 

[invention_45]

I think I inadvertently helped convert this thread to Jury Nullification. Sorry.

I just answered Wildalaska's reference to Florida's rules in the Jury Nullification thread.

If the circumstances warranted it, I would acquit someone or hang a jury in a carrying w/o license case based on what I said in that thread.

Gangbangers should not get too happy about this. All it means is that I'm not going to be any part of jailing someone for being old and forgetful or for not reading the applicable laws with a magnifying glass.

 

[CobrayCommando]

Ill take my chances with the law and the state thank you, not the armed law unto itself rabble.

Wow, I'm glad you finally just came out and said it, this explains a lot. So why do you think the 2nd amendment exists? For duck hunters? Those stupid founding fathers.

What if it was a death sentence to be caught carrying W/O a license like it is in some Asian countries, would you still convict?

 

[invention_45]

I wouldn't get too excited about it, badbob.

It's pretty plain (see Kaylee's post) that the two laws I referred to trump the "rules" he espouses, and those laws probably exist to be consistent with the constitution (again, see Kaylee's post). The legislatures are probably fit to be tied because they have to have such laws to remain constitutional.

That would be their royal problem.

It is an absolute fact that nobody can see into a juror's mind. It is unconstitutional to attempt to probe there at any time. I doubt this situation is accidental and it's obvious where it leads with respect to jury nullification.

 

[Wildalaska]

Wild, are you implying that that the people who question your beliefs about jury nullification are "lefties" and "wimps" as well?

No, obliquely what I am referring to is that there are two threats to freedom and safety as I see it...the armed right with their twisted ideas about freedom and the unarmed left with their twisted ideas of freedom....thank god one group doesnt have guns

I think many of the folks spouting off on these threads about nullification are either genuinely confused, or being misled by internet silliness, or are internet commandos. There are of course thoise certain folks who have jury nullification as part of their fundamental belief system which includes posses, jews with tails, mud people, zog and conspiracies.

WildhopefullynonehereAlaska

 

[CobrayCommando]

You got it all wrong, Jews lay eggs and have claws, not tails.

 

[Wildalaska]

Wow, I'm glad you finally just came out and said it, this explains a lot.

No dude it doesnt explain alot. This will: Simply because I am Jewish, there are folks out there who would kill me just becasue of who I am. Its that simple. They post their anti semitic bull**** theories on the net with all their anti statist rhetoric and rave on and on about the government being bad, conspiracies, posses, jury nullifcation, armed rebellion, white power, blah blah blah.

Thats why I giggle so much to myself when I see postings from folks in suburbia about carrying guns in bathrooms, etc...you know what....the bulk of the carrying commandos run around carrying with no threat other than A POSSIBILITY. Me I dont carry half the time and I got folks that would be dumpin zyklon B on me in half a goergia minute if there wasnt something there to stop them...

And that the LAW....my first line of defense....as long as the law is adhered to and not perverted to meet twisted ideas of morality I have at least that line in the sand. The rest is up to me. And if I see the law getting twisted AS A MATTER OF COURSE, well then thats the next step for me isnt it.

So why do you think the 2nd amendment exists?

To protect and individual right to bear arms subject to constitutional limitations.

What if it was a death sentence to be caught carrying W/O a license like it is in some Asian countries, would you still convict?

Well dude, if the people, by way of their legislators imposed such a draconian law, and same was held constitutional, guess I would have to. Dont think that's going to occur, do you?

WildcrankyAlaska

 

[badbob]

Good explaination, Wild. You have a good mind and I've learned a lot from your posts. I, personally, lean toward questioning the overzealous sentencing in some cases. If there's another way to deal with that, other than jury nullifacation, I'm unaware of it. Hopefully, I fall under the "genuinely confussed" category, as the other classifications don't seem to apply at all.

badbob

 

[Wildalaska]

You got it all wrong, Jews lay eggs and have claws, not tails.

I rest my case.

WildevenhereAlaska

 

[deadin]

It is unconstitutional to attempt to probe there (the mind of a juror) at any time.

Wow! Voir dire is unconstitutional. That ought to throw out a whole lot of convictions.:barf:

 

[Kaylee]

Wow... that's truly amazing.

If *THE LAW* says it's legal to execute someone over owning a weapon, you'd go along with helping to enforce it.

And yet you expect that same law to protect you because of your faith? When other "civilized" cultures have within living memory made it *THE LAW* to adminster that very zyklon B you talk about? When by your own argument you'd be voting to hang Victor Kugler?



That's either blindness of the first order or the worst hypocrisy I've ever heard, I don't know which.

-K

 

[Wildalaska]

I, personally, lean toward questioning the overzealous sentencing in some cases. If there's another way to deal with that, other than jury nullifacation, I'm unaware of it.

Public dont want, it the public wont get it. Call your state/fed venal power hungry lawmaker:barf:

WildmandatorysentencesareforlazyjudgesandlawyersbutregardlessitwouldtakeawholethreadtodisposeofthatoneAlaska

 

[badbob]

half a goergia minute

Is that the same amount of time as we in Georgia call half a "New York minute"? Back on topic, I think the punishment should fit the crime, there's too many variables to just have a blanket "mandatory" sentence. IMHO

badbob

 

[Musketeer]

Public dont want, it the public wont get it. Call your state/fed venal power hungry lawmaker

Prohibition.

Not only laws get passed that are opposed by a majority of citizens but even, by the above example, Amendments!

This is a nation where all power is supposed to originate from The People. Jury nulification is the last stand in the legal system by which The People can overcome a violation of the government. After that it becomes a Second Amendment issue...

 

[invention_45]

Wow! Voir dire is unconstitutional. That ought to throw out a whole lot of convictions.

While recognizing we're doing this on the wrong thread, I say unto you:

Voir dire does not happen to JURORS. It only happens to PROSPECTIVE JURORS.

Unless they changed things.

 

[sasquatch]

Kaylee

"If *THE LAW* says it's legal to execute someone over owning a weapon, you'd go along with helping to enforce it"

But it doesn't. And that is a strawman argument of the worst kind.

 

[invention_45]

This is a nation where all power is supposed to originate from The People. Jury nulification is the last stand in the legal system by which The People can overcome a violation of the government.

That makes 3 times I've had to say this word: AMEN !

 

[invention_45]

public wont get it. Call your state/fed venal power hungry lawmaker

The very reason that Jury Nullification is needed.

 

[Kaylee]

But it doesn't. And that is a strawman argument of the worst kind.

not a strawman at all. His own words.

What if it was a death sentence to be caught carrying W/O a license like it is in some Asian countries, would you still convict?

Well dude, if the people, by way of their legislators imposed such a draconian law, and same was held constitutional, guess I would have to. Dont think that's going to occur, do you?

Which is the most disgustingly Kapo statement I've heard in ages.

:barf: