"Juror nullification" Have any of your heros done this?

reply to post by cindyremains

I was not arguing against any of that.

Obviously you are arguing against that, when you make this argument:

I am not in a court of law. You are going way out of your way to ignore a definition you yourself just posted in order to make your point. You can pretend certain definitions do not exist but there it is, right there.

The definition I provided was a legal definition of the term criminal and it did not declare the popular usage of the word as the overriding definition and only provided the popular usage to contrast it with the legal definition of which it made clear was the proper usage.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by cindyremains

 

Jury nullification is relevant to a court of law, thus its concomitant terminology, and not a vernacular interpretation of "criminal".

Here is the entire original context the word started this discussion with -

Originally posted by Greensage
I am confused, you acquitted a criminal despite the evidence against them?

This question on a discussion forum about a "criminal." I see no jury, no judge, no lawyers. What I see is a person posting a question in English on a forum. What is that pesky English definition of criminal again? Oh, right, someone who commits a crime. The question clearly asks if the person is making the claim they acquitted someone who comitted a crime (a criminal.) If you see a different context than I do, please share.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by cindyremains

 

I was not arguing against any of that.

Obviously you are arguing against that, when you make this argument:

I am not in a court of law. You are going way out of your way to ignore a definition you yourself just posted in order to make your point. You can pretend certain definitions do not exist but there it is, right there.

The definition I provided was a legal definition of the term criminal and it did not declare the popular usage of the word as the overriding definition and only provided the popular usage to contrast it with the legal definition of which it made clear was the proper usage.

If you say so. I see someone asking a question in English on a discussion forum that uses the word "criminal." I do not see testimoney or any official statements. I guess either you do or you are two posters and are trying to clarify what you meant by "criminal" under the other name? Justify your petty argument anyway you like, it still comes down to English and in English a criminal is someone who commits crime.

Originally posted by cindyremains
This question on a discussion forum about a "criminal." I see no jury, no judge, no lawyers. What I see is a person posting a question in English on a forum.

Fair enough on that one, as stated. As has been pointed out, technically they're not a criminal until found guilty. The statement made was rather strong seemingly with the intention to inflame the boardmembers.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Fair enough on that one, as stated. As has been pointed out, technically they're not a criminal until found guilty. The statement made was rather strong seemingly with the intention to inflame the boardmembers.

Which statement would that be? I was and am still referring to what was a question.

reply to post by cindyremains

If you say so. I see someone asking a question in English on a discussion forum that uses the word "criminal." I do not see testimoney or any official statements. I guess either you do or you are two posters and are trying to clarify what you meant by "criminal" under the other name? Justify your petty argument anyway you like, it still comes down to English and in English a criminal is someone who commits crime.

It is not I who has said so, but the standard legal definition that has said so, a definition in which you chose to ignore:

More properly it should apply only to those actually convicted of a crime.

In order to reach your conclusions.

reply to post by cindyremains

Which statement would that be? I was and am still referring to what was a question.

"So, are you still beating your wife" is a question, albeit a loaded question where a simple yes or no answer will not suffice if the person being asked the question never once beat his wife.

Originally posted by cindyremains
Which statement would that be? I was and am still referring to what was a question.

The one you quoted, above.

Originally posted by Greensage
I am confused, you acquitted a criminal despite the evidence against them?

ETA: Yes, good trolling though and I commend that. It is technically interrogative, yet with a rhetorical tone, which can be taken as a statement and claimed later to be a question. Now you're being technical?

[edit on 8/30/2010 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
"So, are you still beating your wife" is a question, albeit a loaded question where a simple yes or no answer will not suffice if the person being asked the question never once beat his wife.

The proper answer to that is "Mu".

reply to post by EnlightenUp

The proper answer to that is "Mu".

Which is to say that the question itself has "no meaning" or "indicates the absence of something" as in the case of a man who has never beat his wife what is in absence in the question itself is any relevance or truth.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If the man were a known wife beater, then it would be relevent and meaningful. In the case of that not having been determined, it's a loaded question, presupposing a condition. In the case of that knowingly being false, it's slanderous.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

If the man were a known wife beater, then it would be relevent and meaningful. In the case of that not having been determined, it's a loaded question, presupposing a condition. In the case of that knowingly being false, it's slanderous.

The lesson here being that not all questions are innocent nor do all questions lack the capacity to cause another person harm.

I know it seems odd to run into someone that is not connected to these names other than the occasion view over the News from time to time such as Obama, Palin and so forth, but I really do not see any of these people as heroes.

Alex Jones--Don't know him because I have never listened to him.

Gerald Celente--Just hearing the name, ...nope blank, don't know him.

Max Kiaser--Very german sounding, cannot say I could tell you what he does.

Glenn Beck--Tearful, emotional, addicted to attention, somewhat spastic and hard to watch. I bet he has a bunker that is all I know other than he is a bit extreme.

Sarah Palin--She seems about as reasonable as anyone can get; her ex-son-in-law wants and desires attention and looks like the love child of a Bush. I do not take political thoughts well from conjecture so I leave it mostly as "what ever", distractions.

Obama--This is the False Prophet. He will unite Islam with Christianity and save his own hide without us. That is all I know and want to know of him.


With that aside, in all Seriousness, I haven't a clue what this thread is about other than I do understand the principles behind "Juror Nullification". Outside of that and telling a judge to put it somewhere is all I got, am I missing something? Were there details? I did catch the examples but did not rationalize them with the original list of individuals above.

I am not going to try to understand at this point but rather stated myself more clearly that none of the OP registered in my mind. It still doesn't!

reply to post by Greensage


Would any of us be able answer the OP inquiry about specific people? Is that data even accessible or even recorded anywhere besides in each respective person's memory? If we have no data, no meaningful statement can be made about them.

Unless I missed it (I'll go back to peek), I never got an answer about the nature of the charge against the person.

reply to post by Greensage

I am not going to try to understand at this point but rather stated myself more clearly that none of the OP registered in my mind. It still doesn't!

In fairness to you and your question, which at this point has been debated ad nauseum, I most certainly agree that the O.P. wrote a rather vague opening post, and any confusion regarding that post is understandable. We can not know from the O.P. whether or not that person acquitted a person clearly guilty of a crime, or simply acquitted a person who was unfairly charged with a crime for some sort of consensual act that caused no other person harm. His response to your question did not offer any real clarification on the matter.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Greensage

 

I am not going to try to understand at this point but rather stated myself more clearly that none of the OP registered in my mind. It still doesn't!

In fairness to you and your question, which at this point has been debated ad nauseum, I most certainly agree that the O.P. wrote a rather vague opening post, and any confusion regarding that post is understandable. We can not know from the O.P. whether or not that person acquitted a person clearly guilty of a crime, or simply acquitted a person who was unfairly charged with a crime for some sort of consensual act that caused no other person harm. His response to your question did not offer any real clarification on the matter.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Awesome, because I love knowing I haven't cracked up yet! LOL In time I am sure!

I was once summoned to be a Juror in a Drug related case. During the screening process the matter of "possession" was presented to us. The case was a 60-yr-old, non-english speaking kitchen worker who was doing her job at a local restaurant in El Paso, TX. A young waiter walked through the kitchen and handed her a sealed envelope and asked her if she would hold it for him. He quickly exited out the back of the kitchen. The police walked into the kitchen and she was busted for "Possession of Cocaine with the Intent to Distribute".

The DA explained "Possession" and requested that each of us acknowledge his interpretation of it being her "property" once she took it from the waiter, even if she did not know its contents. The key to his request was accepting responsibility for "property" and taking ownership. I failed to agree.

Had I not said what I said to the Judge and the DA, I would likely have gone through this ordeal and "Acquitted" her. Clearly it was a crime by Law, but was it a crime punishable by Law. No way!

My conviction on this thought process which was presented prevented me from going any further. I simply told them no, that it was not "ownership" and that Drugs should be Legalized! LOL oh well, I guess I could have helped her by keeping quiet. She was eventually acquitted and I was never sent another summons again, ever!

reply to post by Greensage


Then it seems that we are in agreement on the power of the jury to judge the law as well as judge the facts.

For the record, you could have agreed with the prosecutor and still judged the law. Since, presumably, the prosecutor did not ask you what your views were on judging the legislation, but simply asked you to agree with the facts of what possession meant, you could have agreed with this and still been a part of the subsequent acquittal. It is heartening to hear that this poor person unfairly charged with a crime was ultimately acquitted of any crime, and most certainly deserves to be spoken of in terms of an innocent person.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I must agree with Jean Paul. I didn't like people calling O.J. a killer. He was acquited. Now I understand thats a bad example, but the juror is the deciding factor with law. I could do something very bad, but if the jury doesn't find me guilty, I am not a criminal. That doesn't mean I may not need some sorta counciling, it just means, I wasn't seen as a criminal under the law.

I love jurors acquiting, granted the person didn't commit a serious offense.

But just be nice to people and we need not worry going to jail.

reply to post by cindyremains
The silly thing about spouting off about those who "commit criminal acts",is that most people in the U.S. do not even consider the fact that nearly anything they do can be considered a crime by the system,until they get a taste of it themselves.

The constitution was written,I believe,to get rid of a lot of the clutter of the legal system,and deal with real crimes that cause real harm to people.

The original intent was lost so long ago that most people have no real cognition of right and wrong,they just believe what they are told by those phonies appointed over them.

The more laws that are written,the less rights you have.

Lots of laws = Tyranny.

Ignorance is bliss.

Respect and obey your tyrants........