"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.
0̽̎. Words hold no meaning to you, just as you do not understand that ends do not justify their means. Your lack of understanding of governance, legal proceedings, causes your ideology to come into Question. You seem to lack a moral bases, or logical process for understanding or developing one.
Ź̸̗̚. I will not argue your vague theoretical points, as this thread already has a true factual topic, may I remind you. Nor will I agree with your assumptions that jurors should wield power, such as how they did so in this actual case, that you are refusing the acknowledge while making up your fictional scenarios that ignore long term ramifications.
Given that many of my posts have been relevant and informative...wake the fuck up.
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.
-1. Ends do not justify their means.
0̽̎. Words hold no meaning to you, just as you do not understand that ends do not justify their means. Your lack of understanding of governance, legal proceedings, causes your ideology to come into Question. You seem to lack a moral bases, or logical process for understanding or developing one.
Ź̸̗̚. I will not argue your vague theoretical points, as this thread already has a true factual topic, may I remind you. Nor will I agree with your assumptions that jurors should wield power, such as how they did so in this actual case, that you are refusing the acknowledge while making up your fictional scenarios that ignore long term ramifications.
Given that many of my posts have been relevant and informative...wake the fuck up.
You are arguing in support of the corruption of juries. That is not a straw man. You are an idiot.