Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity[1][2] (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK)[3][4] describes a not guilty verdict of a criminal trial's jury despite a defendant having clearly broken the law.
"I'm saying God bless the piece of shit juror who provided another opportunity to bring jury nullification back into the mainstream conversation."
That's not what you said. That is what you must have been thinking when you wrote this:
"I'm happy to see this. Jury nullification is an excellent tool for fighting legal fuckery. "I don't think this person should be thrown in a cage for this" is a perfectly legal reason to find someone not guilty."
I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
"And your brain has less wrinkles than a bed on Parris Island."
Right. And if I unpack that analogy my reward is what? ̴̤͋̊ ̸͖̆͠¡̷̗̚͝
This is an excellent tool, and more people should be aware of it. Jurors can't be punished for their vote, and the jury instructions that they must rule according to the law are a bluff.
NO. You are simply encouraging jurors to lie, which can be used for any means. Your notion of moral grounding is a fallacy, and can only be used to undermine law and order.
Parents arrested for speaking at a school board? Not guilty. Your neighbor got rolled up for his oil filter suppressor? Not guilty. Refusal to wear a mask on a plane? Not guilty. Breaking quarantine? Not guilty.
None of that was the topic at hand, and I'm not going to play 'what if' on the topics of mandates, and illegal arrests orders. Those are bad faith arguments, and you are promoting the notion of people acting in bad faith, as a means to an end.
This is a blessing and an excellent opportunity to educate those around you about how to fight a corrupt system.
So true. In fact, I'm educating you currently. Now go to drunk. You're bed.
That is for unjust laws. There is nothing unjust about punishing people who illegally tamper with democracy.
This is the most important political issue of our time!
You're incompetent corrupt scum.
That's not what you said. That is what you must have been thinking when you wrote this:
I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
Right. And if I unpack that analogy my reward is what? ̴̤͋̊ ̸͖̆͠¡̷̗̚͝
NO. You are simply encouraging jurors to lie, which can be used for any means. Your notion of moral grounding is a fallacy, and can only be used to undermine law and order.
None of that was the topic at hand, and I'm not going to play 'what if' on the topics of mandates, and illegal arrests orders. Those are bad faith arguments, and you are promoting the notion of people acting in bad faith, as a means to an end.
So true. In fact, I'm educating you currently. Now go to drunk. You're bed.