Remember the Father who pretended to be on the phone at the airport so that, when they brought his son's Rapist past him, we could turn and put a bullet in the animal's head.
I recall the DA having some difficulty in explaining why no charges were pursued against the Father. (basically, "that was not what The People wanted)
I remember that! Not to that level, but a similar thing happened not too long ago. Remember that doctor who worked on Olympic gymnasts & had been molesting a whole bunch of them? A dad listened to his two daughters (both were abused by this guy) speak at the sentencing hearing. He hadn’t heard some of the details in his girls’ statements before. He leapt across the barrier & went after the doctor. The judge did the same with this dad- reprimanded him, consoled him, & released him.
I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
You will probably find incredibly few - if any - legal scholars who will defend jury nullification. It's only ever brought up in cases where people want their 'ideal' outcome, which is to say "the justice system shouldn't operate when I don't want it to". Nobody ever gives thought to the fact that favorability of nullification basically means "the only laws that exist are the laws twelve unelected people decide exist".
Juries intentionally throwing out bad verdicts because of their personal feelings is some liberal-grade faggotry. If you were totally innocent of a gun charge, it would also be along the same lines of "nullification" if the jury was a bunch of gun-hating pricks who just wanted to stick it to a gun owner. You want that? I don't.
One of the OJ jurors said that one of the reasons they voted not-guilty was because of 'payback' for Rodney King.
And so a murderer went free.
Consider the slim chance that the guy actually didn't molest her.
Consider that maybe the girl was coerced to lie somehow, or was confused and misidentified someone.
Consider that maybe the guy was so fucking infuriated that a manlet with a gun showed up and accused him of being a pedophile that he angrily tried to just antagonize him (obviously a stupid thing, but there's a lot of videos of people with guns pointed at them doing equally stupid things).
So this guy just murders an innocent person.
And then maybe you nullify the conviction, and then a few weeks later, the kid shows up to the hospital again, and this time she admits her dad did it to her, and told her to lie and blame the neighbor, because he knew the hospital would ask questions, and needed a scapegoat.
But the guy already walked free on the charges of murder. You can get him for molesting his daughter, but he literally murdered an innocent person and in your righteous zeal to disregard any evidence, you let him walk.
That example right there is exactly why we have a justice system that is supposed to involve impartial jurors.
You are wrong sir. Your view would have insisted on slaves being returned to thier slave owners because of the fugitive slave act. Juries routinely ignored the law because it was wrong.
Learn more about history and precedent of juries...
https://famguardian.org/Publications/CitRulebook/citizen-rule-book.pdf
So you would be 100% okay with an antifa-sympathizing jury letting Michael Reinoehl walk free, if he went before a jury, because "well the guy he shot was probably a white supremacist"?
Or, conversely, you would be 100% okay with a similar jury agreeing with the preposterous, indefensible murder charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, and sentencing him to life in prison?
If your answer is literally anything but a resounding 'yes', then you're as disgusting a hypocrite as any leftist. If you're stupid enough to support "judicial activism" via jury nullification, then you don't get to be mad at other forms of "judicial activism".
The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
Then by your "logic" this is another "retarded Reddit-grade thought" b
"The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America." -Gouverneur Morris
Oh, but sure, do tell me how you, good pede, have a more profound understanding of natural rights and the role of government and legal institutions than one of the Founding Fathers and a signatory of the Constitution.
Oh, you mean you haven't heard of Crown v. Zenger, one of the foundational reasons why the US has different standards of libel and slander than England does and where Truth is an absolute defense against both? Perhaps THE single most common Go-To-Example of Jury Nullification and its integral part in American jurisprudence and law?
Imagine my SHOCK.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
This MIGHT have been true before the judicial revolution of the English speaking world in the 18th century, but it certainly isn't true now. (And I'll also note that the reason the jury was temporarily reduced to such a role was due to the oppression of Stuart absolutism and Hanoverian Martial Law).
The job of the jury is not to simply act as finders of fact or even "merely" to determine if someone broke the law. It is to determine if someone should be punished for that as charged. Which by its nature involves giving verdict on if the law is Just or serves its purpose.
This is AS IT SHOULD BE, in spite of the manifest problems and threats involved. Because the alternative would be far worse and an insult upon the sovereignty and rights of the citizen body.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not.
Correct. It IS However to determine if it is JUST to apply a sentence in a given case, such as if the prosecution proved its charges beyond a reasonable doubt or if those charges are compatible and suitable for a free society.
When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
As is the RIGHT OF A CITIZEN To do so. Or did you not read the part about the "long trail of usurptios..." bit culminating in overthrowing the old system and reconstituting it anew?
The authority of the law abiding citizen is and always shall be superior to that f juror instructions. Failure to respect this is what led to judicial oppression such as the Zenger Trial, and why Jury Nullification is a NECESSARY EVIL and logically follows from the natural rights of man.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system.
A: Implying that the "functioning of a justice system" is always inherently a good thing. Oh, that's Cute. Tell it to Peter Zenger, James Fields, Joe Robinson, or countless other people who were booked up on bogus charges.
and B: The functioning of the natural rights and protections thereof is far more important to a free republic than that of a justice system, and that cannot be divorced from the sovereignty of the law abiding citizen.
Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
No, I wouldn't be.
But Facts Don't Care About My Feelings, and there are far more important principles in constitutional law than whether I am happy or not about a given decision. I freely admit that Jury Nullification is a double edged sword and like any such tool can be MISUSED and ABUSED. It is, However, a vital part of the rights of humanity.
Also, you'll note that the Jim Crow South had far bigger issues than "unjust acquittals", such as unjust convictions, or summary murder. Which further reinforces that you're kicking up dust to try and blame jury nullification for far more profound and darker evils: corruption in the justice system, oppression by magistrates, and racial bias.
The first two of which are are things jury nullification exists to Counteract.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them.
Perhaps, but that itself can be worthy.
So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
That itself CAN be a far nobler alternative to other evils.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store.
Except murder is not the intended or lawful purpose of a gun. Jury nullification very much is an intended and lawful function of the jury system, as established in American legal jurisprudence and precedent.
You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
Let me lay this out very carefully why this is a stupid and idiotic comparison:
You have no right to do business in a given gun store. They are by and large private entities that can refuse to do business with you for almost any reason, and Store A refusing to do business with you is no great impediment to your rights as you can go to Stores B thru ZZZ.
That is not at all comparable with a jury, which is an organ of the state and which it is a right and duty of law abiding Americans to sit on if called and chosen. Except in rare cases of overlapping jurisdictions or Federalism, you can't just exit the court and find another.
Which is important because- again- JURY NULLIFICATION IS INEXTRICABLY MIXED WITH THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS AND BOUND UP DEEPLY IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
You will probably find incredibly few - if any - legal scholars who will defend jury nullification.
Firstly, I don't even think that's True, because Zenger is so prominent in almost any discussion of it and opinion is so clearcut over its merits. In general complaints about Jury Nullification tend to come up about it being unjust in X case or unnecessary/gratuitous in Y rather than over its merits.
But let's pretend otherwise. Why should this shock or surprise me?
Jury nullification is meant as a CHECK upon the untrammeled power of "legal scholars", magistrates, and other big wigs. It is meant to reinforce that their place is as servants of the citizenry, not technocratic lords over them.
It's only ever brought up in cases where people want their 'ideal' outcome, which is to say "the justice system shouldn't operate when I don't want it to".
Yah bruh, that's TOTALLY why people complain about the colonial governor of New York launching a corrupt prosecution of a dissident newspaper author for revealing said corruption, and thins such as the railroading of James Fields and countless victims of Jim Crow.
Because the justice system just "shouldn't operate when I don't want it to", not that in these specific cases it was being abused for utterly unjust and tyrannical purposes.
Nobody ever gives thought to the fact that favorability of nullification basically means "the only laws that exist are the laws twelve unelected people decide exist".
I'll take that seriously as soon as the American populace is diminished to somewhere between 12-16 people in total.
Until then it's just a BS strawman. Because it fails to take into account that the juror's role is a DUTY TO BE PERFORMED that the state calls upon them to do so, and so their biases can be offset by the potential selection of hundreds (at the lower end) of other candidates.
AND MOREOVER, THERE ARE FAR GREATER EVILS IN AMERICA, RIGHT NOW, than the concept that "the only laws that exist are the laws twelve citizens decide exist." That is why Jury Nullification is a necessary evil, even when used for evil. Because the alternative involves undercutting the sovereignty of the citizen over the law.
Juries intentionally throwing out bad verdicts because of their personal feelings is some liberal-grade faggotry.
Correct.
However, juries throwing out "bad" verdicts because of higher principles that the law in question is repugnant towards is certainly not faggotry. Unless you'd like to try and lecture the Founding Fathers on legal philosophy (again).
If you were totally innocent of a gun charge, it would also be along the same lines of "nullification" if the jury was a bunch of gun-hating pricks who just wanted to stick it to a gun owner. You want that? I don't.
Which is why convictions can and are examined and will be overturned for unjust or even allegedly dubious matters, hence "technicalities"
Which is why jury nullification discussions primarily center around innocent verdicts, the one verdict that CANNOT be thrown out upon review without compelling evidence (such as in the one case where the Feds found that the judge was bribed).
One of the OJ jurors said that one of the reasons they voted not-guilty was because of 'payback' for Rodney King. And so a murderer went free.
Yes. And I've never claimed that Jury Nullification cannot be misused. It obviously can be. I have just argued that it is a far lesser evil than it not existing in the first place.
Consider the slim chance that the guy actually didn't molest her.
Ok. Then who did?
And why the F-k did he have lots of videos of "Cheese Pizza" in his house upon examination?
Are you alleging the dad planted the videos? And if so, why did the LEOs not even bother trying to prove this? What is the timeline here?
Consider that maybe the girl was coerced to lie somehow, or was confused and misidentified someone.
I know that the medical professions have not covered themselves in glory lately, but it would be a big oops to MISIDENTIFY the telltale signs of sexual pen on a 6 year old, especially if tit needed surgery.
And since SIX YEAR OLD who COULD NOT "ask for it" or "consent", that means that pure self-delusion doesn't explain. Someone raped her, the question is who.
Can the victim be ruled out?
Consider that maybe the guy was so fucking infuriated that a manlet with a gun showed up and accused him of being a pedophile that he angrily tried to just antagonize him (obviously a stupid thing, but there's a lot of videos of people with guns pointed at them doing equally stupid things).
Ok. Then why the heck were so many videos of "Cheese Pizza" found in his possession, as the LEOs confirmed?
What is the "innocent explanation" for this? Were they some kind of Leet Vigilante Pedo-hunter compiling evidence in the dumbest and most self-indicting way, who JUST SO HAPPENED to be wrongly identified in the rape of a six year old girl?
Yeah, pull the other one.
Stranger things have happened. But they usually don't.
So this guy just murders an innocent person.
Again, give me an "innocent" explanation for the "Cheese Pizza' videos.
And then maybe you nullify the conviction, and then a few weeks later, the kid shows up to the hospital again, and this time she admits her dad did it to her, and told her to lie and blame the neighbor, because he knew the hospital would ask questions, and needed a scapegoat.
I'm sorry, you are clearly talking out of your asshole in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable little strawman you have created in your own mind because JURY NULLIFICATION BAD.
Why should anybody bother dealing with a hypothetical that Did Not Happen?
Especially since juries are DELIBERATIVE BODIES, meant to examine the context of the case. Which you have to ignore in order to get this strawman
That example right there is exactly why we have a justice system that is supposed to involve impartial jurors.
No it's not. There are no impartial jurors, only impartial-enough jurors.
Thank you for your comment. By chance have you ever read Frank Herbert's book "The Dosadi Experiment"? His take on the application of the law in the court was...interesting.
The entire point of jury nullification is that We The People hold the final check and balance against our government via the courts and the ballots. Of course you don't want to nullify for trivial reasons, but if, for instance, you can point to the Bill of Rights and say that a case violates it, then sure, you have a duty to nullify. As for someone being found not guilty for capping a rapist like that, I'd still have trouble convicting him if the overall facts actually rested on his side.
No see I'm not a hypocritical ultrafaggot. The law is the law is the law. There's a process to change it, and I still comply with it.
You take an oath as a juror to be unbiased and impartial and to solely weigh the merits of the case. And it's fascinating how oaths apparently mean literally nothing to people here now. Hope you aren't religious, go ahead and stamp your express ticket to fucking hell for that one, too.
Consistency in laws makes society predictable to live in. Inconsistency in the judiciary at any or every level makes it a nightmare hell where you can be arrested for ridiculous charges and thrown before a kangaroo court and given a sham trial and thrown in prison simply 'because'.
Jury nullification is real folks. Read up on it and if you get picked for a jury, remember what you read in case you have to use it.
Our founders never mentioned the concept of jury nullification in the Constitution, but they wrote the Constitution and specifically the articles that deal with trials in such a way as to allow for it...and for a good reason. Some of the founders did write about the concept in their personal writings, so clearly they were thinking about it when they wrote the Constitution.
One of the most brilliant passages in the Constitution talks about how a jury cannot be held responsible for a WRONG decision, specifically providing protection to jurors who not only might make a mistake, or who are simply misguided, but jurors who are wrong. This gives the state absolutely no avenue what-so-ever to punish jurors over any verdict.
I once orchestrated a jury nullification for a DUI checkpoint stop at a Grand Jury I was a member of. The guy wasn't indicted by the jury I sat on, and it's something I am very proud of.
The fifth amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, should be respected. The Supreme Court does not have the final say on the law. You, as a Juror, do.
I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
The founders talked about nullification as a risk, not some kind of brilliant masterful concept that would make a better justice system. Under a functional justice system, you should be able to largely predict the outcomes of cases, because a jury should be impartial and only consider the evidence.
Nullification means you are celebrating juror bias and personal prejudice. It means you think facts are secondary to feelings.
Now it means the justice system is unpredictable and the rule of law breaks down, because the rule of law is entirely up to whether or not twelve unelected people decide it is.
Fucking OJ's conviction was nullified. They literally nullified it because "boo hoo hoo that cop is kind of a racist" and "omg if we convict, the blacks will chimp out". Seriously.
Also guess what: a District Attorney refusing to prosecute leftist rioters is also a form of nullification.
No the job of the jury is to decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of a crime. As a juror I can decide if someone is guilty or not regardless of the prosecution. Context matters. If I believed an accused murderer killed his daughters rapist I would not vote guilty even with a video showing the murder.
Your analogy of murder talk in a gun store is just wrong. Jury nullification isn't a crime while murder is. It's not illegal to talk about a fact of the justice system.
An all white/black/whatever race jury for a trial is wrong, but that has more to do with court corruption than jury nullification. We already have systems in place for that. The prosecution and defense gets to select jurors to prevent this scenario.
I reject any belief that it's a good thing to keep the jury and the public ignorant of the legal system.
The founders talked about nullification as a risk, not some kind of brilliant masterful concept that would make a better justice system.
Except they talked about it as BOTH. And moreover, they accepted that while it WAS a risk that could be misused for injustice, it was a NECESSARY and UNAVOIDABLE one given the nature of free people and human liberty.
But don't take MY word on it. Let's hear it from one of them, a signatory of the Constitution (which need I remind people is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND) on Crown v. Zenger, perhaps the definitive example of Jury Nullification in North American history and the reason why our libel laws are different from England's:
"The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America." - Gouverneur Morris
So unless "PraiseBe" wants to argue that they have a more profound understanding of the law and natural rights than the freaking Founders, it's clear that Jury Nullification was always meant to be a primordial right of a free people. Not because it could not be misused (the Founders recognized that ALL Freedoms and Rights could be misused, and WOULD BE) but because respecting it was a lesser evil to what would fill the void left by its elimination.
As they knew full well from the recent past.
Under a functional justice system, you should be able to largely predict the outcomes of cases, because a jury should be impartial and only consider the evidence.
Firstly, "Juries should be impartial" is an ideal that is rarely reached, usually they are functional enough.
And secondly: you can predict the outcomes of cases in many Dysfunctional justice systems too, especially oppressive ones. Or do you want to go over the conviction rates of Japanese courts today, let alone the average Soviet Show Trial?
Nullification means you are celebrating juror bias and personal prejudice. It means you think facts are secondary to feelings.
Pathetic strawman, correctly dismissed as it was centuries ago by the Founders.
Nullification is celebrating the FREE WILL and SOVEREIGNTY of the juror, and hence the Citizen Body. Like all exercises of Free Will, that can be used for EVIL, such as succumbing to bias and personal prejudice.
But it can also be used as a valuable check upon the bias, personal prejudice, and oppression of the "functional justice system", as it was when Governor Morris began holding show trials of dissidents for exposing his corruption.
Freedom means shouldering the burdens and downsides of it.
Now it means the justice system is unpredictable and the rule of law breaks down, because the rule of law is entirely up to whether or not twelve unelected people decide it is.
Cute, but no.
You're ignoring the fact that even Jurors do not have untrammeled sovereignty, checked as they are by the Defense, the Prosecution, and a Judge. Which is also why it is such a risk to do jury nullification.
Fucking OJ's conviction was nullified. They literally nullified it because "boo hoo hoo that cop is kind of a racist" and "omg if we convict, the blacks will chimp out". Seriously.
At least in part. And that is STILL less of an evil than a system in which jurors and the citizen body are deprived of their sovereign rights and authority over the "Justice System."
Also guess what: a District Attorney refusing to prosecute leftist rioters is also a form of nullification.
No, it's a form of deselection of duty for which the DA can be charged if it is proven. After all, THEY ARE AN EMPLOYEE of the Justice System in a way Jurors are NOT, and while prosecutorial discretion is an established part of the law, abuse of it can be charged. Just ask Nifong.
Conversely, the Juror has a natural right to Jury Nullification, and can and should use it when appropriate like any other lawful tool at their disposal.
Except he still committed a crime. Or are you saying that you should be totally free to just carry out Judge Dredd justice on anyone you want as long as you can somehow lie enough to the jury to make them believe they deserved it?
The mental twisting in this BS is remarkable.
To those of us who aren't idiots or at least are idiots that have enjoyed some Dredd, the entire THING with Judge Dredd is that HE IS AN AGENT OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, and moreover one unchecked by the customary binds on such a system's authority like the jury. Hence why he is "JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER." Because he needs to answer to nobody else except his superiors, and certainly not to 12 angry people.
It's ironic that in trying to attack Jury Nullification and demonize the autonomy of the citizen body, you instantly have to revert to the mirror opposite extreme, a system where the Jury has been abolished as an independent concept and almost completely unaccountable "lawmen" dispense "binding rulings" at their own discretion.
Now that I've talked about the remarkable dumbness of this comparison... let's talk about it:
You're confusing the liability of the jury with the liability of the perpetrator. Intentionally and dystopianly.
What you are really asking is "should the jury be able to be lied to so that they can believe the victim deserved it?" And the answer is yes. Because as bad and fallible as that is, how the heck would you go about PROSECUTING such a "breach" of it? Juror misconduct is already hard enough to prosecute without expanding it to include almost anything, including "being convinced of a lie."
Obviously, you should not be able to Judge Dredd everywhere (and neither should the legal system, I might add). But that's what the prosecutor's job is to do: to punish it.
You know, by saying something like "Yes, I did smash that guy's skull in with a bike lock, but he was a racist Nazi!"? Sounds like you want to abolish the police.
Fortunately, most Americans recognize valid differences of opinion, and even INVALID differences of opinion. That being a racist Nazi is not grounds to murder someone in Cold Blood.
So in essence, at rock bottom, your stance is that the American people cannot be trusted to adjudicate the law over each other. And I would kind of agree with you there, but the caveat I raise is simple:
WHO ELSE CAN BE TRUSTED TO DO SO?!?
Nobody. We have to do what we have to do.
I spelled out multiple reasons why nullification is a bad thing
And not ONE of them has come close to rocking the foundational justifications for why jury nullification is necessary and proper, as outlined by Constitutional Framers like Madison and Morris.
and you literally ignored all of them.
The same cannot be said of me. I have addressed all of them in great detail, formatting my post to do so.
I even AGREE and CONCUR with some of them.
The issue is, again, simply that the evils of Jury Nullification are far better to bear than the "boons" of a system that removes it, much like 17th and 18th century Britons suffered under. To say nothing of others.
Not telling a jury about nullification isn't "withholding information", you unfathomably stupid retard, because nullification is directly contradictory to the stated purpose of an impartial jury.
Dumb and false on two levels.
Firstly: Yes, yes it is withholding information by definition. The most you can argue is that it is justified to do so, as it is either illegal (hahaha no, and obviously so) or contrary to the smooth running of a justice system (which I can agree with to SOME Degree, with caveats). But the basic is the same, and largely defensible because you can't bring a jury up to date on 400+ years of common law.
and
B: It is NOT in fact "directly contradictory" to the stated purpose of an impartial jury (a being that is like the unicorn I might add, and which can only be approximated in real life). The stated purpose of a jury is to OVERSEE the legal case as a segment of the citizen body, monitoring and managing the conduct of prosecution, defense, and judge by means such as rendering judgement on the sentence.
One such tool is jury nullification, as the Founders recognized and ultimately embraced, even with justified misgivings.
How many fucking times do I have to spell out that nullification literally is saying that juries should decide solely on their feelings with no regard for evidence before you fucking get it?
The problem is that it is simply not true, and chimping out and repeating it over and over again WILL. NEVER. CHANGE. THAT.
At most it means that juries CAN or SHOULD be able to decide solely on their feelings with no regard for evidence, as a necessary evil or shortfall of it. But even that isn't true because it forgets the basic format of a trial, including the role of the Judge and the antagonistic sides.
It also forgets the legal precedent, ironically enough.
I literally pointed out that OJ's obvious guilt for a double murder was nullified and you ignored it.
I didn't. I addressed it. I addressed that it is still less evil than a dictatorship of Judges (like what Stone et. al. are suffering under an approximation of).
I also note now that the Prosecution had several means by which to lessen the risks of this, starting with a change of venue. They bungled or otherwise did not apply several of them. As such, they failed much.
That wasn't a fucking 'impossible circumstance', it actually happened, you degenerate cock-guzzler.
Cute. And I admitted that and never denied it, and indeed stated that such abuses of jury nullification were inherent in the system, as the Founders who recognized it as vital understood.
But you know what else "actually happened"?
The Zengler Case. The railroading of James Fields the mouthbreathing Charlottesville idiot. The prosecution of Jackie Robinson. And I can go on.
So to a SANE mind, the answer is to try and find a system that exposes people to the evils of bias in the system the LEAST. But apparently you don't even feel the NEED to address the fact that Zengler existed and was very much on the minds of the Founders.
I cannot take much more of this, I think, but still I push on. Debate jedi vs c3p0. Need to save these to educate my son in the future how to demolish someone verbally.
Except he still committed a crime. Or are you saying that you should be totally free to just carry out Judge Dredd justice on anyone you want as long as you can somehow lie enough to the jury to make them believe they deserved it?
You know, by saying something like "Yes, I did smash that guy's skull in with a bike lock, but he was a racist Nazi!"?
I bet you would be this sympathetic if you were picked up on a bogus gun charge and all the evidence pointed that you were totally innocent and the DA had zero case, but the jury was a bunch of gun-hating leftists who sent you to prison because they hated guns.
There is a system of checks built into our legal system for that. I, along with the prosecution, get a say in who is on my jury. Ultimately, it would be my fault for selecting a lawyer stupid enough not to bounce anti-gun activists from my jury pool.
Dude, stop. You aren’t thinking that through at all. It would be a VERY bad thing if juries were punished for their verdicts. All power would reside with the state and America would cease to exist if you had your way. I’m not even exaggerating when I say that.
You should tell me about how much liberal justices on the supreme court annoy you when they make decisions based on personal bias and feelings right after you get done explaining how you think a conviction should hinge on the personal bias and feelings of a jury.
Righteous justice served. If more of these animals were taking dirt naps instead of going to booty bois country club, maybe this evil wouldnt be so prevalent. At least I could sleep better knowing my tax dollars didn't keep any more of these filth alive.
Not a joke at all, the guy was 100% a revered and sung hero in prison if his conviction got out to the others. There’s much more respect and virtue in prison than most are led to believe.
Yeah, that probably earned him enough respect out of the gate to have a pretty chill stretch playing spades and reading books withoutmany instancesof note.
Count Dankula just did a mad lads on Grey Plauche. For those who don’t know Grey, He shot his sons abuser in the head as the abuser was be escorted through a airport terminal by police.
https://youtu.be/tlTSDha2T24
You know, I've always thought that if someone did this to my daughter, I'd get my revenge, but I would bide my time, figure out the pedo's routine, figure out my spot, and then drop him from 500 (or so) yards away, and then melt the one-time-use barrel and firing pin.
I'd have convicted him, he did do it after all, and commuted the sentence to time served. Maybe community service. But I think he already performed his community service
Yeah? You do too, if you think jury nullification is a good thing.
Guess what retard: OJ's conviction was nullified. A DA selectively prosecuting cases he agrees with and throwing out cases he doesn't is practicing the same thing as jury nullification. A liberal supreme court justice making decisions with no regard for the written rule of law but only on how they feel is also operating from the same standpoint or jury nullification.
You will find extremely few legal scholars who will talk about nullification as anything but a bad thing.
Yeah? You do too, if you think jury nullification is a good thing.
I certainly think it can be, and the Founders certainly understood it COULD be. Or do you think it's a COINCIDENCE that even before the Revolution, New York had separate standards for Libel and Slander than England did? Ever hear of the Zenger Trial? You think that was a mistake or something the Founders regretted?
Then you have not studied it very closely, even in comparison to me.
Guess what retard: OJ's conviction was nullified.
Debatable, that was what happened in SOME Cases, in others they believed (dumbly IMHO but hey) that the state did not meet the criteria. Which is how it SHOULD Be.
But in any case, that is the other edge of the sword. Like any tool, it can be misused, and in this case it is a much lesser evil than undercutting the sovereignty of We the People.
A DA selectively prosecuting cases he agrees with and throwing out cases he doesn't is practicing the same thing as jury nullification.
No he's not.
For starters, there's a key difference.
A DA is an agent of the state, and thus meant to be a SERVANT OF THE PUBLIC.
A juror, on the other hand, IS THE PUBLIC and thus sovereign in their own right, which is why criminal accusations against them must meet an elevated burden of proof.
Secondly, prosecutorial discretion is a baked-in part of the job and the law; it is something we fully intend our DAs to do, as well as others. That includes resisting unjust laws or diktats, as assorted Sheriffs telling petty legislative tyrants to get F-ked attest.
A liberal supreme court justice making decisions with no regard for the written rule of law but only on how they feel is also operating from the same standpoint or jury nullification.
No, they're not.
Firstly because again, a Juror is a member of The Public, a Supreme Court Judge is an Agent of the Public and thus meant to be subservient.
And secondly, because jury nullification is an established part of American constitutional jurisprudence, going back to before the Constitution or the US was a thing. Indeed, it is a foundational, primordial freedom underwriting the supreme law that is the Constitution and far superior to any creation of it, including the Supreme Court.
You will find extremely few legal scholars who will talk about nullification as anything but a bad thing.
Firstly: even if this was true, imagine my shock: systematic, institutional bias against a legal principle by the people and institutions that concept is meant to keep in Check. Next you'll be telling me that activist judges don't like minimum sentencing laws.
And secondly: I don't even think that is true, because if nothing else Zenger was such an important part of American law, and the opinion on it is so rather uniform and ironclad.
Kids, this person who worships 'science' nominally is a HUMANIST. Public schools were designed by Humanists, to replace Christian morals, family and church with the State. They stamp out independent, critical thought and the scientific method purposely, to produce platitude-spouting, intellectually dishonest, hyperbolic screechers that cannot maintain logical arguments and -telltale sign- must fall back on straw men, ad hominem and 'feelz' to run up the word count. HOME SCHOOL and jailbreak your kids' minds out of that system!
Indeed. I feel they might have used their username as sarcasm (especially arguing that using the natural right of Jury Nullification stamps our ticket "to Hell") but they certainly are lacking in moral fiber and critical thought.
So you would be 100% okay with an antifa-sympathizing jury letting Michael Reinoehl walk free, if he went before a jury, because "well the guy he shot was probably a white supremacist"?
Or, conversely, you would be 100% okay with a similar jury agreeing with the preposterous, indefensible murder charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, and sentencing him to life in prison?
If your answer is literally anything but a resounding 'yes', then you're as disgusting a hypocrite as any leftist. If you're stupid enough to support "judicial activism" via jury nullification, then you don't get to be mad at other forms of "judicial activism".
So you would be 100% okay with an antifa-sympathizing jury letting Michael Reinoehl walk free, if he went before a jury, because "well the guy he shot was probably a white supremacist"?
No, I wouldn't be "100% okay", but I would accept it as a lesser evil compared to allowing untrammeled, politicized prosecutions by thugs like Governor Cosby.... or for that matter Pelosi or countless Postbellum Dixiecrats. Which was my central point. And one that the founders agree with me on.
Which brings me back to another tendency in your posts: the overreliance on straw man. Such as how you had to invent a "hypothetical" case pulled out of your puckered ass in order to make the JURY NULLIFCATION BAD shrieking even SLIGHTLY warranted in this case, without recognizing that
A: It is narrative and logically incoherent, "conveniently" ignoring facts such as the existence of Cheese Pizza Videos in the "vicitm's" possession that LEOs confirmed and arguing that the dad was actually the rapist....because reasons..... in spite of how this making them suddenly chimping out and murdering another party in rage for a rape unlikely.... and doesn't explain the CP...
and
B: That the Jury is first and foremost a DELIBERATIVE BODY, and thus it is its JOB to consider the aforementioned context and evidence.
You also ignore that such a verdict is monumentally unlikely if the DA and/or Feds were doing anything like tenth of a decent job, since there are measures to do things such as weed out jurors with undue Antifa sympathies and the chance to move jurisdiction.
Flynn and Stone show that isn't 100% foolproof, but the fact that they are wrongfully convicted shows the underlying problem is not jury nullification, but a corrupted "justice system."
Or, conversely, you would be 100% okay with a similar jury agreeing with the preposterous, indefensible murder charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, and sentencing him to life in prison?
See above. I obviously would not be "100% okay" with it, but I would also note that guilty verdicts can be OVERTURNED, unlike Innocent ones.
And again, it is still less of an evil than allowing untrammeled oppression by people like Governor Cosby.
If your answer is literally anything but a resounding 'yes', then you're as disgusting a hypocrite as any leftist. If you're stupid enough to support "judicial activism" via jury nullification, then you don't get to be mad at other forms of "judicial activism".
A: I already explained the differences between jury nullification and "other forms of judicial activism", and those still stand, even if you will not address.
B: You're not in a good position to be lecturing me after you were the one dumb and ignorant enough to miss Crown v. Zenger, the decades of constitutional commentary on it and related cases by Morris and other Founders, and hundreds of years of analysis, precedent, and legal think tank pieces based on it.
But sure bruh, I'm the "disgusting hypocrite" for daring to point out the basic fact:
It is the citizen body that is sovereign, not "legal scholars" or the "justice system."
The justice system derives its authority form the consent of the governed citizen body and the authority of the Constitution, which in turn derives from the natural rights of humanity.
Jury Nullification naturally follows from those primordial rights.
We're all hypocrites, "PraiseBeToScience", but some of us are less repugnant and ill-informed than others.
Lawsuit for police officer shooting a black person. The jury found not only did the officer not use excessive force, but that the Sheriff was only very slightly negligent, so the court awarded the family $4. On top of this, the jury determined that the person who was shot was 99% responsible for his own death, so the reward was lowered by 99% to 4 cents.
He should have instead of going to prison been given a check by the government equivalent to the court, lawyers fees, food, housing, investigative overtime, and any other costs the state may have had to spend to prosecute this pedo.
This one’s tough, because you know his little girl needed to have grown up with her daddy at home. This sounds like a completely unacceptable failure of law enforcement & the judicial system, though. That daddy should have gotten a hard slap on wrist, not 13 years- especially after evidence was found. Common sense yields that the chance he would do this type of crime again is pretty damn low. The police department should have been investigated for being incompetent & irresponsible.
13 years is a bit excessive for killing a confessed child rapist. How about just 20 hours of community service and writing an "I promise I won't do it again" letter
That dad is a hero. If we had a justice system that was interested in protecting the public and keeping these degenerates away from society, I'd be more opposed to vigilante justice but I'm not. Our justice system is more interested in appearing to be not racist than it is in keeping little girls safe. I'm sorry that criminals were raised in such a way as to become criminals (sometimes, it's not the parents' fault though) but the fact is, something went awry in their heads and hearts and the vulnerable need to be protected from them.
Sir i agree with what you did though i would have made him suffer for what was done. You should have started at his knee caps and then his elbows then both ears then right between his eyes.
Don't be silly. Ankles, Knees, Shoulders, Elbows, Wrists. Still just assault. All of that can be fixed, sort of, and that's the beauty of it. Not a single day will go by without a painful reminder of his actions. Guaranteed. Saves you at least 8 years at the worst. Of course if he's the vengeful type, just do the 13 years.
This is one of those things I """love""" about our government sometimes, is they won't do a damn thing about something until someone else does the dirty work for them, THEN when it's all said and done, the person/people that did the dirty work they were too afraid to do are the ones that go to jail cuz "muh due process", then of course while the person/people are in jail, they FINALLY conduct a proper investigation.
This is a reoccurring theme in Japanese anime. The heroes beat up the bad guys, then the government comes in to take credit and arrest the heroes on some technicality and were actually secretly working with the bad guys the whole time.
Japan has an interesting perspective on government corruption, they seem to accept it as an unavoidable symptom of a necessary system.
If this case is true, a good attorney should have successfully argued leniency or dismissal under the statue and/or case law for “extreme emotional distress”. I can’t even be argued when premeditation is present. It’s been argued many times successfully for far more than this. (-Retired Detective)
He should have gotten the gary treatment
Remember the Father who pretended to be on the phone at the airport so that, when they brought his son's Rapist past him, we could turn and put a bullet in the animal's head.
I recall the DA having some difficulty in explaining why no charges were pursued against the Father. (basically, "that was not what The People wanted)
That is how this Father should have been treated.
^^^ This 1,000%
I remember that! Not to that level, but a similar thing happened not too long ago. Remember that doctor who worked on Olympic gymnasts & had been molesting a whole bunch of them? A dad listened to his two daughters (both were abused by this guy) speak at the sentencing hearing. He hadn’t heard some of the details in his girls’ statements before. He leapt across the barrier & went after the doctor. The judge did the same with this dad- reprimanded him, consoled him, & released him.
Nasser still breathes though.
I never heard about this. Got a link to an article?
https://youtu.be/tlTSDha2T24
I couldn't watch that video. It literally starts with someone rubbing their neckbeard for a solid 10 seconds while looking into the camera.
Here's the wiki on the guy (Gary Plauche) for people who don't want to sit through 20 minutes of that shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauch%C3%A9
Disrespect the great and honorable Count Dankula again and we're going to throw hands.
Might wanna learn who countdankula is. Yeah, I know his name is dumb, but look him up.
Pretty good story teller. Thanks.
That was a long video but it was worth it.
Is there a source to the OP post though?
https://youtu.be/jmx8fZ5XC_Q
This post is about a 6 year old girl who was molested. Gary Plauche killed a man who molested his son's karate instructor.
The not-to-be-believed Wiki Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauch%C3%A9
The best recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUM32LIx0_w
Good Riddance to a deadbeat!
Michael: Rocko. Is it impossible?
Rocko: Difficult. But not impossible.
Perhaps also the Deepest part of the Deep State....along with the Intelligence Agencies.
Why, Gary?! Why?!!
pedos everywhere
This. I would NEVER convict the man.
Jurry nullification anyone?
Or if you bring it up or anything remotely near it, you'll be excused from the jury pool
It's far worse than that:
https://www.rt.com/usa/324359-man-arrested-jury-nullification/
Looks like he was fighting it and refused to take a plea deal. Any news on if he won his case or not?
I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
You will probably find incredibly few - if any - legal scholars who will defend jury nullification. It's only ever brought up in cases where people want their 'ideal' outcome, which is to say "the justice system shouldn't operate when I don't want it to". Nobody ever gives thought to the fact that favorability of nullification basically means "the only laws that exist are the laws twelve unelected people decide exist".
Juries intentionally throwing out bad verdicts because of their personal feelings is some liberal-grade faggotry. If you were totally innocent of a gun charge, it would also be along the same lines of "nullification" if the jury was a bunch of gun-hating pricks who just wanted to stick it to a gun owner. You want that? I don't.
One of the OJ jurors said that one of the reasons they voted not-guilty was because of 'payback' for Rodney King.
And so a murderer went free.
Consider the slim chance that the guy actually didn't molest her.
Consider that maybe the girl was coerced to lie somehow, or was confused and misidentified someone.
Consider that maybe the guy was so fucking infuriated that a manlet with a gun showed up and accused him of being a pedophile that he angrily tried to just antagonize him (obviously a stupid thing, but there's a lot of videos of people with guns pointed at them doing equally stupid things).
So this guy just murders an innocent person.
And then maybe you nullify the conviction, and then a few weeks later, the kid shows up to the hospital again, and this time she admits her dad did it to her, and told her to lie and blame the neighbor, because he knew the hospital would ask questions, and needed a scapegoat.
But the guy already walked free on the charges of murder. You can get him for molesting his daughter, but he literally murdered an innocent person and in your righteous zeal to disregard any evidence, you let him walk.
That example right there is exactly why we have a justice system that is supposed to involve impartial jurors.
You are wrong sir. Your view would have insisted on slaves being returned to thier slave owners because of the fugitive slave act. Juries routinely ignored the law because it was wrong. Learn more about history and precedent of juries... https://famguardian.org/Publications/CitRulebook/citizen-rule-book.pdf
So you would be 100% okay with an antifa-sympathizing jury letting Michael Reinoehl walk free, if he went before a jury, because "well the guy he shot was probably a white supremacist"?
Or, conversely, you would be 100% okay with a similar jury agreeing with the preposterous, indefensible murder charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, and sentencing him to life in prison?
If your answer is literally anything but a resounding 'yes', then you're as disgusting a hypocrite as any leftist. If you're stupid enough to support "judicial activism" via jury nullification, then you don't get to be mad at other forms of "judicial activism".
Sure but not positively.
Then by your "logic" this is another "retarded Reddit-grade thought" b
Oh, but sure, do tell me how you, good pede, have a more profound understanding of natural rights and the role of government and legal institutions than one of the Founding Fathers and a signatory of the Constitution.
Oh, you mean you haven't heard of Crown v. Zenger, one of the foundational reasons why the US has different standards of libel and slander than England does and where Truth is an absolute defense against both? Perhaps THE single most common Go-To-Example of Jury Nullification and its integral part in American jurisprudence and law?
Imagine my SHOCK.
This MIGHT have been true before the judicial revolution of the English speaking world in the 18th century, but it certainly isn't true now. (And I'll also note that the reason the jury was temporarily reduced to such a role was due to the oppression of Stuart absolutism and Hanoverian Martial Law).
The job of the jury is not to simply act as finders of fact or even "merely" to determine if someone broke the law. It is to determine if someone should be punished for that as charged. Which by its nature involves giving verdict on if the law is Just or serves its purpose.
This is AS IT SHOULD BE, in spite of the manifest problems and threats involved. Because the alternative would be far worse and an insult upon the sovereignty and rights of the citizen body.
Correct. It IS However to determine if it is JUST to apply a sentence in a given case, such as if the prosecution proved its charges beyond a reasonable doubt or if those charges are compatible and suitable for a free society.
As is the RIGHT OF A CITIZEN To do so. Or did you not read the part about the "long trail of usurptios..." bit culminating in overthrowing the old system and reconstituting it anew?
The authority of the law abiding citizen is and always shall be superior to that f juror instructions. Failure to respect this is what led to judicial oppression such as the Zenger Trial, and why Jury Nullification is a NECESSARY EVIL and logically follows from the natural rights of man.
A: Implying that the "functioning of a justice system" is always inherently a good thing. Oh, that's Cute. Tell it to Peter Zenger, James Fields, Joe Robinson, or countless other people who were booked up on bogus charges.
and B: The functioning of the natural rights and protections thereof is far more important to a free republic than that of a justice system, and that cannot be divorced from the sovereignty of the law abiding citizen.
No, I wouldn't be.
But Facts Don't Care About My Feelings, and there are far more important principles in constitutional law than whether I am happy or not about a given decision. I freely admit that Jury Nullification is a double edged sword and like any such tool can be MISUSED and ABUSED. It is, However, a vital part of the rights of humanity.
Also, you'll note that the Jim Crow South had far bigger issues than "unjust acquittals", such as unjust convictions, or summary murder. Which further reinforces that you're kicking up dust to try and blame jury nullification for far more profound and darker evils: corruption in the justice system, oppression by magistrates, and racial bias.
The first two of which are are things jury nullification exists to Counteract.
Perhaps, but that itself can be worthy.
That itself CAN be a far nobler alternative to other evils.
Except murder is not the intended or lawful purpose of a gun. Jury nullification very much is an intended and lawful function of the jury system, as established in American legal jurisprudence and precedent.
Let me lay this out very carefully why this is a stupid and idiotic comparison:
You have no right to do business in a given gun store. They are by and large private entities that can refuse to do business with you for almost any reason, and Store A refusing to do business with you is no great impediment to your rights as you can go to Stores B thru ZZZ.
That is not at all comparable with a jury, which is an organ of the state and which it is a right and duty of law abiding Americans to sit on if called and chosen. Except in rare cases of overlapping jurisdictions or Federalism, you can't just exit the court and find another.
Which is important because- again- JURY NULLIFICATION IS INEXTRICABLY MIXED WITH THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS AND BOUND UP DEEPLY IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Firstly, I don't even think that's True, because Zenger is so prominent in almost any discussion of it and opinion is so clearcut over its merits. In general complaints about Jury Nullification tend to come up about it being unjust in X case or unnecessary/gratuitous in Y rather than over its merits.
But let's pretend otherwise. Why should this shock or surprise me?
Jury nullification is meant as a CHECK upon the untrammeled power of "legal scholars", magistrates, and other big wigs. It is meant to reinforce that their place is as servants of the citizenry, not technocratic lords over them.
Yah bruh, that's TOTALLY why people complain about the colonial governor of New York launching a corrupt prosecution of a dissident newspaper author for revealing said corruption, and thins such as the railroading of James Fields and countless victims of Jim Crow.
Because the justice system just "shouldn't operate when I don't want it to", not that in these specific cases it was being abused for utterly unjust and tyrannical purposes.
I'll take that seriously as soon as the American populace is diminished to somewhere between 12-16 people in total.
Until then it's just a BS strawman. Because it fails to take into account that the juror's role is a DUTY TO BE PERFORMED that the state calls upon them to do so, and so their biases can be offset by the potential selection of hundreds (at the lower end) of other candidates.
AND MOREOVER, THERE ARE FAR GREATER EVILS IN AMERICA, RIGHT NOW, than the concept that "the only laws that exist are the laws twelve citizens decide exist." That is why Jury Nullification is a necessary evil, even when used for evil. Because the alternative involves undercutting the sovereignty of the citizen over the law.
Correct.
However, juries throwing out "bad" verdicts because of higher principles that the law in question is repugnant towards is certainly not faggotry. Unless you'd like to try and lecture the Founding Fathers on legal philosophy (again).
Which is why convictions can and are examined and will be overturned for unjust or even allegedly dubious matters, hence "technicalities"
Which is why jury nullification discussions primarily center around innocent verdicts, the one verdict that CANNOT be thrown out upon review without compelling evidence (such as in the one case where the Feds found that the judge was bribed).
Yes. And I've never claimed that Jury Nullification cannot be misused. It obviously can be. I have just argued that it is a far lesser evil than it not existing in the first place.
Ok. Then who did?
And why the F-k did he have lots of videos of "Cheese Pizza" in his house upon examination?
Are you alleging the dad planted the videos? And if so, why did the LEOs not even bother trying to prove this? What is the timeline here?
I know that the medical professions have not covered themselves in glory lately, but it would be a big oops to MISIDENTIFY the telltale signs of sexual pen on a 6 year old, especially if tit needed surgery.
And since SIX YEAR OLD who COULD NOT "ask for it" or "consent", that means that pure self-delusion doesn't explain. Someone raped her, the question is who.
Can the victim be ruled out?
Ok. Then why the heck were so many videos of "Cheese Pizza" found in his possession, as the LEOs confirmed?
What is the "innocent explanation" for this? Were they some kind of Leet Vigilante Pedo-hunter compiling evidence in the dumbest and most self-indicting way, who JUST SO HAPPENED to be wrongly identified in the rape of a six year old girl?
Yeah, pull the other one.
Stranger things have happened. But they usually don't.
Again, give me an "innocent" explanation for the "Cheese Pizza' videos.
I'm sorry, you are clearly talking out of your asshole in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable little strawman you have created in your own mind because JURY NULLIFICATION BAD.
Why should anybody bother dealing with a hypothetical that Did Not Happen?
Especially since juries are DELIBERATIVE BODIES, meant to examine the context of the case. Which you have to ignore in order to get this strawman
No it's not. There are no impartial jurors, only impartial-enough jurors.
THANK YOU.
I feel like I just watched Rambo unload that full machine gun strip on one spot. And followed up with a flame thrower. I need a drink.
Thank you for your comment. By chance have you ever read Frank Herbert's book "The Dosadi Experiment"? His take on the application of the law in the court was...interesting.
The entire point of jury nullification is that We The People hold the final check and balance against our government via the courts and the ballots. Of course you don't want to nullify for trivial reasons, but if, for instance, you can point to the Bill of Rights and say that a case violates it, then sure, you have a duty to nullify. As for someone being found not guilty for capping a rapist like that, I'd still have trouble convicting him if the overall facts actually rested on his side.
How about unconstitutional laws, ie 2A restrictions?
No see I'm not a hypocritical ultrafaggot. The law is the law is the law. There's a process to change it, and I still comply with it.
You take an oath as a juror to be unbiased and impartial and to solely weigh the merits of the case. And it's fascinating how oaths apparently mean literally nothing to people here now. Hope you aren't religious, go ahead and stamp your express ticket to fucking hell for that one, too.
Consistency in laws makes society predictable to live in. Inconsistency in the judiciary at any or every level makes it a nightmare hell where you can be arrested for ridiculous charges and thrown before a kangaroo court and given a sham trial and thrown in prison simply 'because'.
And you'd never get chosen for a jury.
Jury nullification is real folks. Read up on it and if you get picked for a jury, remember what you read in case you have to use it.
Our founders never mentioned the concept of jury nullification in the Constitution, but they wrote the Constitution and specifically the articles that deal with trials in such a way as to allow for it...and for a good reason. Some of the founders did write about the concept in their personal writings, so clearly they were thinking about it when they wrote the Constitution.
One of the most brilliant passages in the Constitution talks about how a jury cannot be held responsible for a WRONG decision, specifically providing protection to jurors who not only might make a mistake, or who are simply misguided, but jurors who are wrong. This gives the state absolutely no avenue what-so-ever to punish jurors over any verdict.
I once orchestrated a jury nullification for a DUI checkpoint stop at a Grand Jury I was a member of. The guy wasn't indicted by the jury I sat on, and it's something I am very proud of.
The fifth amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, should be respected. The Supreme Court does not have the final say on the law. You, as a Juror, do.
Well written, pede.
Exactly. And you should not give a reason. Also don't mention jury nullification in the selection process. Don't even let them know you know about it.
Unless of course you don't want jury duty!
Exactly! Always demand a jury trial. Every time.
Not if you're in D.C. Ask Roger Stone.
Agreed, but 12 people getting a unanimous guilty decison is harder to get than from one corrupt judge.
Great comment. Every citizen should know about Jury Nullification, but our legal system purposefully suppresses the info .
Yes, for very good reasons.
The founders talked about nullification as a risk, not some kind of brilliant masterful concept that would make a better justice system. Under a functional justice system, you should be able to largely predict the outcomes of cases, because a jury should be impartial and only consider the evidence.
Nullification means you are celebrating juror bias and personal prejudice. It means you think facts are secondary to feelings.
Now it means the justice system is unpredictable and the rule of law breaks down, because the rule of law is entirely up to whether or not twelve unelected people decide it is.
Fucking OJ's conviction was nullified. They literally nullified it because "boo hoo hoo that cop is kind of a racist" and "omg if we convict, the blacks will chimp out". Seriously.
Also guess what: a District Attorney refusing to prosecute leftist rioters is also a form of nullification.
No the job of the jury is to decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of a crime. As a juror I can decide if someone is guilty or not regardless of the prosecution. Context matters. If I believed an accused murderer killed his daughters rapist I would not vote guilty even with a video showing the murder.
Your analogy of murder talk in a gun store is just wrong. Jury nullification isn't a crime while murder is. It's not illegal to talk about a fact of the justice system.
An all white/black/whatever race jury for a trial is wrong, but that has more to do with court corruption than jury nullification. We already have systems in place for that. The prosecution and defense gets to select jurors to prevent this scenario.
I reject any belief that it's a good thing to keep the jury and the public ignorant of the legal system.
Who gets to judge what classifies as a "very, very good reason?"
I've already addressed your first bit of quoted word vomit in great detail earlier, so I will simply link anybody interested in it for my comments.
So I'll move on.
Except they talked about it as BOTH. And moreover, they accepted that while it WAS a risk that could be misused for injustice, it was a NECESSARY and UNAVOIDABLE one given the nature of free people and human liberty.
But don't take MY word on it. Let's hear it from one of them, a signatory of the Constitution (which need I remind people is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND) on Crown v. Zenger, perhaps the definitive example of Jury Nullification in North American history and the reason why our libel laws are different from England's:
So unless "PraiseBe" wants to argue that they have a more profound understanding of the law and natural rights than the freaking Founders, it's clear that Jury Nullification was always meant to be a primordial right of a free people. Not because it could not be misused (the Founders recognized that ALL Freedoms and Rights could be misused, and WOULD BE) but because respecting it was a lesser evil to what would fill the void left by its elimination.
As they knew full well from the recent past.
Firstly, "Juries should be impartial" is an ideal that is rarely reached, usually they are functional enough.
And secondly: you can predict the outcomes of cases in many Dysfunctional justice systems too, especially oppressive ones. Or do you want to go over the conviction rates of Japanese courts today, let alone the average Soviet Show Trial?
Pathetic strawman, correctly dismissed as it was centuries ago by the Founders.
Nullification is celebrating the FREE WILL and SOVEREIGNTY of the juror, and hence the Citizen Body. Like all exercises of Free Will, that can be used for EVIL, such as succumbing to bias and personal prejudice.
But it can also be used as a valuable check upon the bias, personal prejudice, and oppression of the "functional justice system", as it was when Governor Morris began holding show trials of dissidents for exposing his corruption.
Freedom means shouldering the burdens and downsides of it.
Cute, but no.
You're ignoring the fact that even Jurors do not have untrammeled sovereignty, checked as they are by the Defense, the Prosecution, and a Judge. Which is also why it is such a risk to do jury nullification.
At least in part. And that is STILL less of an evil than a system in which jurors and the citizen body are deprived of their sovereign rights and authority over the "Justice System."
No, it's a form of deselection of duty for which the DA can be charged if it is proven. After all, THEY ARE AN EMPLOYEE of the Justice System in a way Jurors are NOT, and while prosecutorial discretion is an established part of the law, abuse of it can be charged. Just ask Nifong.
Conversely, the Juror has a natural right to Jury Nullification, and can and should use it when appropriate like any other lawful tool at their disposal.
The mental twisting in this BS is remarkable.
To those of us who aren't idiots or at least are idiots that have enjoyed some Dredd, the entire THING with Judge Dredd is that HE IS AN AGENT OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, and moreover one unchecked by the customary binds on such a system's authority like the jury. Hence why he is "JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER." Because he needs to answer to nobody else except his superiors, and certainly not to 12 angry people.
It's ironic that in trying to attack Jury Nullification and demonize the autonomy of the citizen body, you instantly have to revert to the mirror opposite extreme, a system where the Jury has been abolished as an independent concept and almost completely unaccountable "lawmen" dispense "binding rulings" at their own discretion.
Now that I've talked about the remarkable dumbness of this comparison... let's talk about it:
You're confusing the liability of the jury with the liability of the perpetrator. Intentionally and dystopianly.
What you are really asking is "should the jury be able to be lied to so that they can believe the victim deserved it?" And the answer is yes. Because as bad and fallible as that is, how the heck would you go about PROSECUTING such a "breach" of it? Juror misconduct is already hard enough to prosecute without expanding it to include almost anything, including "being convinced of a lie."
Obviously, you should not be able to Judge Dredd everywhere (and neither should the legal system, I might add). But that's what the prosecutor's job is to do: to punish it.
Fortunately, most Americans recognize valid differences of opinion, and even INVALID differences of opinion. That being a racist Nazi is not grounds to murder someone in Cold Blood.
So in essence, at rock bottom, your stance is that the American people cannot be trusted to adjudicate the law over each other. And I would kind of agree with you there, but the caveat I raise is simple:
WHO ELSE CAN BE TRUSTED TO DO SO?!?
Nobody. We have to do what we have to do.
And not ONE of them has come close to rocking the foundational justifications for why jury nullification is necessary and proper, as outlined by Constitutional Framers like Madison and Morris.
The same cannot be said of me. I have addressed all of them in great detail, formatting my post to do so.
I even AGREE and CONCUR with some of them.
The issue is, again, simply that the evils of Jury Nullification are far better to bear than the "boons" of a system that removes it, much like 17th and 18th century Britons suffered under. To say nothing of others.
Dumb and false on two levels.
Firstly: Yes, yes it is withholding information by definition. The most you can argue is that it is justified to do so, as it is either illegal (hahaha no, and obviously so) or contrary to the smooth running of a justice system (which I can agree with to SOME Degree, with caveats). But the basic is the same, and largely defensible because you can't bring a jury up to date on 400+ years of common law.
and
B: It is NOT in fact "directly contradictory" to the stated purpose of an impartial jury (a being that is like the unicorn I might add, and which can only be approximated in real life). The stated purpose of a jury is to OVERSEE the legal case as a segment of the citizen body, monitoring and managing the conduct of prosecution, defense, and judge by means such as rendering judgement on the sentence.
One such tool is jury nullification, as the Founders recognized and ultimately embraced, even with justified misgivings.
The problem is that it is simply not true, and chimping out and repeating it over and over again WILL. NEVER. CHANGE. THAT.
At most it means that juries CAN or SHOULD be able to decide solely on their feelings with no regard for evidence, as a necessary evil or shortfall of it. But even that isn't true because it forgets the basic format of a trial, including the role of the Judge and the antagonistic sides.
It also forgets the legal precedent, ironically enough.
I didn't. I addressed it. I addressed that it is still less evil than a dictatorship of Judges (like what Stone et. al. are suffering under an approximation of).
I also note now that the Prosecution had several means by which to lessen the risks of this, starting with a change of venue. They bungled or otherwise did not apply several of them. As such, they failed much.
Cute. And I admitted that and never denied it, and indeed stated that such abuses of jury nullification were inherent in the system, as the Founders who recognized it as vital understood.
But you know what else "actually happened"?
The Zengler Case. The railroading of James Fields the mouthbreathing Charlottesville idiot. The prosecution of Jackie Robinson. And I can go on.
So to a SANE mind, the answer is to try and find a system that exposes people to the evils of bias in the system the LEAST. But apparently you don't even feel the NEED to address the fact that Zengler existed and was very much on the minds of the Founders.
Why am I not surprised?
I cannot take much more of this, I think, but still I push on. Debate jedi vs c3p0. Need to save these to educate my son in the future how to demolish someone verbally.
Fair. Any way I can help?
Except he still committed a crime. Or are you saying that you should be totally free to just carry out Judge Dredd justice on anyone you want as long as you can somehow lie enough to the jury to make them believe they deserved it?
You know, by saying something like "Yes, I did smash that guy's skull in with a bike lock, but he was a racist Nazi!"?
Sounds like you want to abolish the police.
Again your analogy is wrong.
Judge dread was judge, jury and executioner.
No obviously you can't just kill someone and then justify it later. However: nothing I said suggest that argument.
The jury gets to decide. Can you defend a reason to keep information from the jury?
Seems like you want to attack an argument I didn't make instead of defending your position.
I bet you would be this sympathetic if you were picked up on a bogus gun charge and all the evidence pointed that you were totally innocent and the DA had zero case, but the jury was a bunch of gun-hating leftists who sent you to prison because they hated guns.
There is a system of checks built into our legal system for that. I, along with the prosecution, get a say in who is on my jury. Ultimately, it would be my fault for selecting a lawyer stupid enough not to bounce anti-gun activists from my jury pool.
Maybe he took a shitty plea deal instead of going to trial.
Yeah, that makes the most sense.
The found evidence was probably suppressed from the jury.
He should have gotten no time. Pedos Aren’t humans.
He should’ve got a damn award. Who knows how many other little girls he saved from being victims.
Agreed. If I was in that jury he would be found innocent.
Go after the prosecutor, not the jury.
Unconstitutional to hold a jury responsible for their verdict.
Sadly, I only have one downvote to give. The jury is sacrosanct.
But the community can keep a watchful eye upon those who would defend the indefensible.
Child rapists should be treated as enemies of mankind, like pirates and then torturers used to be, beyond legal protection.
13 years? WTF. 6 months tops.
Our justice system is designed to protect the criminals from us.
it certainly seems that way.
Proof: Kyle Rittenhouse is in jail while the one-armed-bandit runs free.
Of paid time off? I guess thats enough.
In Fiji, maybe.
I'd be good with 3 hours of community service.
He killed a pedo. Should have got 6 months of paid vacation.
13 years for being human?
I was thinking a clear case of assisted suicide, or suicide by dad.
I get it and this father saved may more girls from harm but his daughter also grew up without her father.
He should have never been sent to prison, the jury fucked up.
Dude, stop. You aren’t thinking that through at all. It would be a VERY bad thing if juries were punished for their verdicts. All power would reside with the state and America would cease to exist if you had your way. I’m not even exaggerating when I say that.
You should tell me about how much liberal justices on the supreme court annoy you when they make decisions based on personal bias and feelings right after you get done explaining how you think a conviction should hinge on the personal bias and feelings of a jury.
He did as any good father should
Righteous justice served. If more of these animals were taking dirt naps instead of going to booty bois country club, maybe this evil wouldnt be so prevalent. At least I could sleep better knowing my tax dollars didn't keep any more of these filth alive.
If more of those animals were taking dirt naps, there would be far less movies made and a lot less Democrat politicians also.
Convict: "Why you here, man?"
Hero: "I murdered my daughter's rapist."
Convict: "Respect."
Not even a joke. This is how it probably went!
Not a joke at all, the guy was 100% a revered and sung hero in prison if his conviction got out to the others. There’s much more respect and virtue in prison than most are led to believe.
In prison, they don’t like pedophiles. Can’t say that about society too much anymore
Yeah, that probably earned him enough respect out of the gate to have a pretty chill stretch playing spades and reading books withoutmany instancesof note.
And if the fathers of Joseph Rosenbaum's victims had done the same, Kyle wouldn't have had to.
Count Dankula just did a mad lads on Grey Plauche. For those who don’t know Grey, He shot his sons abuser in the head as the abuser was be escorted through a airport terminal by police. https://youtu.be/tlTSDha2T24
You know, I've always thought that if someone did this to my daughter, I'd get my revenge, but I would bide my time, figure out the pedo's routine, figure out my spot, and then drop him from 500 (or so) yards away, and then melt the one-time-use barrel and firing pin.
It's about fixing the problem and still being able to go home and take care of the family.
I wonder how the other inmates in prison treated him??
Can’t say I’d had done any different.
Maybe put a weapon in pedos hand?
Fuckem. This man should have been at most, given parole or house arrest.
I’d consider killing a rapist of a 6 year old community service.
He already did his community service so sentence served.
I'd have convicted him, he did do it after all, and commuted the sentence to time served. Maybe community service. But I think he already performed his community service
Yeah? You do too, if you think jury nullification is a good thing.
Guess what retard: OJ's conviction was nullified. A DA selectively prosecuting cases he agrees with and throwing out cases he doesn't is practicing the same thing as jury nullification. A liberal supreme court justice making decisions with no regard for the written rule of law but only on how they feel is also operating from the same standpoint or jury nullification.
You will find extremely few legal scholars who will talk about nullification as anything but a bad thing.
I certainly think it can be, and the Founders certainly understood it COULD be. Or do you think it's a COINCIDENCE that even before the Revolution, New York had separate standards for Libel and Slander than England did? Ever hear of the Zenger Trial? You think that was a mistake or something the Founders regretted?
Then you have not studied it very closely, even in comparison to me.
Debatable, that was what happened in SOME Cases, in others they believed (dumbly IMHO but hey) that the state did not meet the criteria. Which is how it SHOULD Be.
But in any case, that is the other edge of the sword. Like any tool, it can be misused, and in this case it is a much lesser evil than undercutting the sovereignty of We the People.
No he's not.
For starters, there's a key difference.
A DA is an agent of the state, and thus meant to be a SERVANT OF THE PUBLIC.
A juror, on the other hand, IS THE PUBLIC and thus sovereign in their own right, which is why criminal accusations against them must meet an elevated burden of proof.
Secondly, prosecutorial discretion is a baked-in part of the job and the law; it is something we fully intend our DAs to do, as well as others. That includes resisting unjust laws or diktats, as assorted Sheriffs telling petty legislative tyrants to get F-ked attest.
No, they're not.
Firstly because again, a Juror is a member of The Public, a Supreme Court Judge is an Agent of the Public and thus meant to be subservient.
And secondly, because jury nullification is an established part of American constitutional jurisprudence, going back to before the Constitution or the US was a thing. Indeed, it is a foundational, primordial freedom underwriting the supreme law that is the Constitution and far superior to any creation of it, including the Supreme Court.
Firstly: even if this was true, imagine my shock: systematic, institutional bias against a legal principle by the people and institutions that concept is meant to keep in Check. Next you'll be telling me that activist judges don't like minimum sentencing laws.
And secondly: I don't even think that is true, because if nothing else Zenger was such an important part of American law, and the opinion on it is so rather uniform and ironclad.
Kids, this person who worships 'science' nominally is a HUMANIST. Public schools were designed by Humanists, to replace Christian morals, family and church with the State. They stamp out independent, critical thought and the scientific method purposely, to produce platitude-spouting, intellectually dishonest, hyperbolic screechers that cannot maintain logical arguments and -telltale sign- must fall back on straw men, ad hominem and 'feelz' to run up the word count. HOME SCHOOL and jailbreak your kids' minds out of that system!
Indeed. I feel they might have used their username as sarcasm (especially arguing that using the natural right of Jury Nullification stamps our ticket "to Hell") but they certainly are lacking in moral fiber and critical thought.
So you would be 100% okay with an antifa-sympathizing jury letting Michael Reinoehl walk free, if he went before a jury, because "well the guy he shot was probably a white supremacist"?
Or, conversely, you would be 100% okay with a similar jury agreeing with the preposterous, indefensible murder charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, and sentencing him to life in prison?
If your answer is literally anything but a resounding 'yes', then you're as disgusting a hypocrite as any leftist. If you're stupid enough to support "judicial activism" via jury nullification, then you don't get to be mad at other forms of "judicial activism".
No, I wouldn't be "100% okay", but I would accept it as a lesser evil compared to allowing untrammeled, politicized prosecutions by thugs like Governor Cosby.... or for that matter Pelosi or countless Postbellum Dixiecrats. Which was my central point. And one that the founders agree with me on.
Which brings me back to another tendency in your posts: the overreliance on straw man. Such as how you had to invent a "hypothetical" case pulled out of your puckered ass in order to make the JURY NULLIFCATION BAD shrieking even SLIGHTLY warranted in this case, without recognizing that
A: It is narrative and logically incoherent, "conveniently" ignoring facts such as the existence of Cheese Pizza Videos in the "vicitm's" possession that LEOs confirmed and arguing that the dad was actually the rapist....because reasons..... in spite of how this making them suddenly chimping out and murdering another party in rage for a rape unlikely.... and doesn't explain the CP...
and
B: That the Jury is first and foremost a DELIBERATIVE BODY, and thus it is its JOB to consider the aforementioned context and evidence.
You also ignore that such a verdict is monumentally unlikely if the DA and/or Feds were doing anything like tenth of a decent job, since there are measures to do things such as weed out jurors with undue Antifa sympathies and the chance to move jurisdiction.
Flynn and Stone show that isn't 100% foolproof, but the fact that they are wrongfully convicted shows the underlying problem is not jury nullification, but a corrupted "justice system."
See above. I obviously would not be "100% okay" with it, but I would also note that guilty verdicts can be OVERTURNED, unlike Innocent ones.
And again, it is still less of an evil than allowing untrammeled oppression by people like Governor Cosby.
A: I already explained the differences between jury nullification and "other forms of judicial activism", and those still stand, even if you will not address.
B: You're not in a good position to be lecturing me after you were the one dumb and ignorant enough to miss Crown v. Zenger, the decades of constitutional commentary on it and related cases by Morris and other Founders, and hundreds of years of analysis, precedent, and legal think tank pieces based on it.
But sure bruh, I'm the "disgusting hypocrite" for daring to point out the basic fact:
It is the citizen body that is sovereign, not "legal scholars" or the "justice system."
The justice system derives its authority form the consent of the governed citizen body and the authority of the Constitution, which in turn derives from the natural rights of humanity.
Jury Nullification naturally follows from those primordial rights.
We're all hypocrites, "PraiseBeToScience", but some of us are less repugnant and ill-informed than others.
Jury nullification my fellow pede
That could also work
Fine him $1.
Littering by leaving that garbage on the floor
Littering? On the contrary, he took out the trash
That reminds me of this case https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2018/06/07/black-lives-apparently-dont-matter/681821002/
Lawsuit for police officer shooting a black person. The jury found not only did the officer not use excessive force, but that the Sheriff was only very slightly negligent, so the court awarded the family $4. On top of this, the jury determined that the person who was shot was 99% responsible for his own death, so the reward was lowered by 99% to 4 cents.
There a source on this?
This can't be real. Who would send him to jail?
I remember this come up on reddit a few years back and a couple of people were saying it was a larp, for a couple reasons I don't recall.
I don't know of course if that was correct.
Of course! https://media.thedonald.win/post/EZNDYg3e.jpeg
And then everyone clapped!
source or this is fake. Lets not be like legacy media and make up stuff.
It's as real as pimples on OP's ass: https://media.thedonald.win/post/EZNDYg3e.jpeg
This is a shitty quality picture with no names and no link to story. This is what CNN (legacy media) calls news. We are better than this.
https://media.giphy.com/media/u52gRNybAmAy4/giphy.gif
Oh. I get it. A joke. That's great laugh. Thank you. Fren
https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnnqcYg7yvFLxlK/giphy.gif
Do a Barrell roll https://images.app.goo.gl/4KReQwsW4GqUE6ZQA
https://gfycat.com/closedsorehornedtoad
More people need to know about jury nullification.
Physical Pain is NOTHING compared to Psychological Pain.
This Hero is also a Genius.
He should have instead of going to prison been given a check by the government equivalent to the court, lawyers fees, food, housing, investigative overtime, and any other costs the state may have had to spend to prosecute this pedo.
Damn...
The world needs more heroes
This one’s tough, because you know his little girl needed to have grown up with her daddy at home. This sounds like a completely unacceptable failure of law enforcement & the judicial system, though. That daddy should have gotten a hard slap on wrist, not 13 years- especially after evidence was found. Common sense yields that the chance he would do this type of crime again is pretty damn low. The police department should have been investigated for being incompetent & irresponsible.
I worry about TD when I scroll through the comments and see not one person questioning this shitty jpg.
You going to give a source for this? Because everyone thinks it is Gary Plauche. Get this unsourced garbage off of here.
13 years is a bit excessive for killing a confessed child rapist. How about just 20 hours of community service and writing an "I promise I won't do it again" letter
We need ama
That dad is a hero. If we had a justice system that was interested in protecting the public and keeping these degenerates away from society, I'd be more opposed to vigilante justice but I'm not. Our justice system is more interested in appearing to be not racist than it is in keeping little girls safe. I'm sorry that criminals were raised in such a way as to become criminals (sometimes, it's not the parents' fault though) but the fact is, something went awry in their heads and hearts and the vulnerable need to be protected from them.
I wish I had been on his jury.
Sir i agree with what you did though i would have made him suffer for what was done. You should have started at his knee caps and then his elbows then both ears then right between his eyes.
Don't be silly. Ankles, Knees, Shoulders, Elbows, Wrists. Still just assault. All of that can be fixed, sort of, and that's the beauty of it. Not a single day will go by without a painful reminder of his actions. Guaranteed. Saves you at least 8 years at the worst. Of course if he's the vengeful type, just do the 13 years.
Your going to do the time so hell you might as well do the crime.
You would have got more time for that. I'm sure hell will take care of all the torture you're looking for.
This straight up needs to happen more often... it should become a meme... it is a sign of true masculinity.
This is one of those things I """love""" about our government sometimes, is they won't do a damn thing about something until someone else does the dirty work for them, THEN when it's all said and done, the person/people that did the dirty work they were too afraid to do are the ones that go to jail cuz "muh due process", then of course while the person/people are in jail, they FINALLY conduct a proper investigation.
This is a reoccurring theme in Japanese anime. The heroes beat up the bad guys, then the government comes in to take credit and arrest the heroes on some technicality and were actually secretly working with the bad guys the whole time. Japan has an interesting perspective on government corruption, they seem to accept it as an unavoidable symptom of a necessary system.
To be honest, in this situation, I would have likely had revenge in private. And made it hurt. Probably 3 months later.
Revenge is sweeter if you plan it out.
What fucking jury would convict this man?
God bless this hero!
Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE&ab_channel=GregRobinson
I'd go straight to prison for the exact same thing. I hope the piece of shit he shot rots in hell.
Bravo. Would appreciate a link to the story if possible.
Too quick for what he did.... but the weight and height difference is significant so I understand. Good job. I am surprised they convicted you.
Judge: Do you regret taking this man’s life?
Defendant: No and I’d do it again.
Touching story.
If this case is true, a good attorney should have successfully argued leniency or dismissal under the statue and/or case law for “extreme emotional distress”. I can’t even be argued when premeditation is present. It’s been argued many times successfully for far more than this. (-Retired Detective)