Jury nullification.

[deadin]

if the only two choices on the plate are "lie to the court" or "assist in sending an otherwise innocent man to prison for defending his life/family" well.. that's an easy choice for me. Even easier if it's "lie to the court or send a man to his death for (carrying a weapon, owning the wrong book, having the wrong faith/etc etc etc)." You bet your sweet Yankee tuckus I'd lie.

What bothers me about this statement is the chronology. You have to lie to the court well before you know whether or not the man was defending his life/family or any other details of what he is being charged with. Or do you plan on blindly lying to the court in all cases so you can get on a jury to sabotage the verdict.

 

[Greg Bell]

Around here, the jury is much more likely to nullify the Consitution and convict despite obvious reasonable doubt. So, if I hear of a few cases where the jury says "screw this" to a dumb law, so be it. I would.

 

[STAGE 2]

And if the government violates your rights, is it incumbent on you to follow its laws?

Its incumbent on you to use the process that has been set for for redress of grievances before you decide to wholly ignore the law.

 

[Wildalaska]

Let's see what YOU have ignored, eh?

My my, we are just so angry arent we

OK lets rock!

I

If all the jury was there for was to judge guilt or innocence alone, there would be no point to having a jury of your peers.

One judge could do that.

One judge can. Any defendant can elect a bench trial (in most jurisdictions), but the prosecution cant. I guess it's not "ignored" anymore I although I dont know what the purpose of raising this elemental procedure is

status : "That is absolutely nonsensical."
No argument, no principles, no reasoning.
Just "that's stupid" and done with it.

Well what do you expect. if someone tried to argue the moon was made of green cheese, would you want to see a debate on it. The statement at issue is green cheese.

So then, when do YOU think it's the right thing to do to break the law?
From your comments, it's somewhere between refusing to convict, and shooting people.
So where is that line?

status: ignored entirely

Dont know if I have been arguing about breaking the law generically that in this thread, perhaps someone else?

"Waaah! People other than Me are referencing the Holocaust in an argument!
And by the way, this isn't Hitler's Germany"

OOOO we are angwy arent we And it isnt. Never was. And those who think there is the slightest bit of comparison btween Nazi Legal Systemsand the US systmes are truly ignorant of civics

You can't control human evil by passing laws. In fact, sometimes the evil people are the ones doing the controlling. "
status: no response

You call that deep philosophy? That statement is such a blatant example of trite and cliche ridden post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning as to be laughable...Cant control human evil with laws? You honestly beleive that? And evil people controlling...duh-uh....What does one have to do with the other?

"The difference is your way gets people killed or oppressed wholesale instead of in ones and twos. "

Another bit of silliness I really think didnt deserve a response mainly becasue I am still asking "Like what does that mean?"...or to phrase it another way...And, so, your point is...???

"evenhere" (From context - "You're a racist "internet commando")
"ellletsgetridoflawsalltogether" (You're an anarchist)
"fullyinformed" (You're ignorant)
"nowwhoserediculouslyoutoftouch" (Pretty much says itself)
"weedgunspornabortiongold..." (You're still an anarchist)
"oyeahanarchy" (You're STILL an anarchist (and I'm running low on insults))
"lielielie" (you're a dirty rotten liar)
falsusinunofalsusinomnibus (you're STILL a dirty rotten liar)
"falsusfalsusfalsus" (you're still a dirty rotten liar (and I'm running out of insults again))
"somenumbskullgunfreakaintzenger" (you don't know this history of what you claim, AND you're a numbskullgunfreak)

addlegalhistorytothecourseofstudy (you're ignorant)
civics (you're ignorant again)
youunderstand? (you're STILL ignorant)
lessons (you're STILL ignorant) (nah, not an insult, just insufferable smugness)

destroyingourwayoflifewiththissilliness (again pretty self explanatory)
betitcomesfromsomepatriotwebsite (back to the numbskullgunfreak)
nawthatneverhappensjusthonorablethingsfromfreepatriots (

repeat

above)

Glad you've been studying I'm always interested in the pyschological perceptions of my bizzare comments...sometimes I see a lot of projection btw but its good for reading folks mind especially when they miss a point Or get a point)...youve missed a few, but not bad.

(

(by the way, why are you bothering to answer me if you've blocked my posts? )

Holy Toldeo Batman I forgot Ask me whAT i HAD FOR DINNER...

The more corrupt the state, the more laws.”

There ya go...and you wonder why I fill my sig with strange, yet sometimes o so pertinent comments.

Lets see, I wonder if, heck the Code of the state of Alaska is bigger than such bastions of freedom as Nigeria or Afghanistan...or Haiti

And that's enough for tonight. Time to go have fun.

You have fun, Im working.

WildsayunclenowyahearandconvictthatguntotinninnyAlaska

 

[Danzig]

According the the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America governments are instituted by the people in order to secure their liberties.

All laws that are in place to protect our freedom from other individuals, outside invasion, or incidence of tyrannical government, are therefore necessary and proper.

However, most of the laws that are on the books are not there to secure our rights but instead infringe upon them. These are the laws which a person could disobey and for which disobedience I would not convict them.

 

[STAGE 2]

According the the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America governments are instituted by the people in order to secure their liberties.

And if the DOI was law you would have a point.

 

[Kaylee]

My my, we are just so angry arent we/OOOO we are angwy arent we

Please, talk down to me some more.
Nothing more encouraging than hearing one's debate partner finally being reduced to playground name calling.

The statement at issue is green cheese...blatant example of trite and cliche ridden...Another bit of silliness...truly ignorant of civics..

In other words "I can't be bothered to argue a point on it's merits (or even remember the context in which I said something myself) so I'll just call it stupid and move on"

See above.

One judge could do that./...
... I guess it's not "ignored" anymore I although I dont know what the purpose of raising this elemental procedure is

Evidently.

Dont know if I have been arguing about breaking the law generically that in this thread, perhaps someone else?

You can look up your own words as well as I can.

Glad you've been studying I'm always interested in the pyschological perceptions of my bizzare comments......youve missed a few, but not bad.

Well, so now that we've established you're intentionally and repeatedly violating Rule Three of the TFL code of conduct ("or other personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled in humor.")... I presume we can say you're cool with blowing off a promise, provided it's not to the state?

Holy Toldeo Batman I forgot Ask me whAT i HAD FOR DINNER...

Salmon bisque?

 

[Danzig]

Stage 2, The Declaration of Independence should have MORE weight than mere law. It is the fundamental principle on which our nation, government, and laws, are supposed to be based lest we end up with another King George, or worse.

 

[badbob]

Looks like fascism is the "hot ticket". State is King S*** and there are laws out the wazoo. It will keep the "rabble" in line.

badbob

 

[STAGE 2]

Stage 2, The Declaration of Independence should have MORE weight than mere law. It is the fundamental principle on which our nation, government, and laws, are supposed to be based lest we end up with another King George, or worse.

Well, given the fact that the people who drafted the DOI were by in large the same people that drafted the constitution, don't you think they would have incorporated the DOI or at least important parts of it if they wanted it to be binding?

Guess not.

 

[gc70]

Well, given the fact that the people who drafted the DOI were by in large the same people that drafted the constitution, don't you think they would have incorporated the DOI or at least important parts of it if they wanted it to be binding?

You emphasize the completeness of the original Constitution, although it did not initially contain a Bill of Rights.

 

[STAGE 2]

You emphasize the completeness of the original Constitution, although it did not initially contain a Bill of Rights.

I emphasize the completeness of the final document. But the fact that they went back and added something because they thought it was so important only further proves my point.

If they wanted it to have the force of law they would have put it in there.

 

[SecDef]

Hey, WildAlaska, I would appreciate a reply to my bolded question in comment #229?

I think that would provide valuable insight into your position. It may be a valid position but all we see is noise from you.

If you could reply in a message instead of unreadably sideways inside your name that would be just great, because because I stopped reading that part long ago as it broke my snarky-meter.

Thanks in advance..

SecblurrylindburgtruthatghonnoreaDef

 

[Wildalaska]

Now, are you saying that when your personal morals and the law clash, the law always wins?

In the USA in 2007 it sure should

WildcanyouseewhyAlaska

 

[gc70]

If they wanted it to have the force of law they would have put it in there.

So concepts not explicitly in the Constitution lack weight and are not binding. How does your construction reconcile privacy rights?

 

[sasquatch]

"No matter the reason, a jury has the right to find any witness credible, or not credible. It doesn't matter if the person on the jury doesn't find a witness credible because he wears a red shirt- it is the jury's decision to make."

This statement has to be the biggest steaming pile I have read here so far. If this is what passes for reason and logic during jury delibertions, our legal system is already in the dumpster.

 

[Wildalaska]

If this is what passes for reason and logic during jury delibertions, our legal system is already in the dumpster.

Considering the lack of understanding among the public on how the system works, do you see why?

WildthecourtswantatabularasaAlaska

 

[Danzig]

Considering everything we've heard from those who advocate the legal system, is there any wonder at all why we have no faith in that system?

Law trumps freedom to them. To the rest of us that is unacceptable.

 

[Wildalaska]

Considering everything we've heard from those who advocate the legal system, is there any wonder at all why we have no faith in that system?

Law trumps freedom to them. To the rest of us that is unacceptable.

Yeah no faith in a system, that overall, and admittedly not perfect, makes this country the beacon of freedom throughout the world.

Of course I could ask for examples of how the system doesnt work, hey yeah, hopw bout some

PS...the rule of law IS freedom.

WildthinkaboutitAlaska

 

[Mister_Dinky]

At the end of the day, it comes down to this. Some have the stones to thwart an immoral law. Others choose to couch their cowardice as an acceptance of bogus pronunciamentos of the political class. The reality?
Some are patriots and some are cowards. AMF.