You dont have feee speech if you can be arrested for jokes. (Page 17/18) ray b AUG 14, 02:50 PM quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I've actually never heard of this either. I'm wondering if perhaps we're misunderstanding what was being conveyed. Laws are made by legislatures, and decisions (from a judge) can affirm or reject the interpretation of a law and helps set future precedence. A jury serves no other purpose than to determine guilt (as a jury of your peers) for various crimes that are defined in the penal code. And... to that point, the judge is still the one that determines sentencing... which is entirely at his/her own discretion unless the particular penal code defines a minimum (or maximum) sentencing. I'm open to being proven wrong, but this is new to me... unless I'm misunderstanding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification it is a thing in that it happens in the law books I have no idea in the hearts of the citizen they know if the law is WRONG you avoid the law that is the real why the jury is a fuse and the crime is in hiding that fact from them is the pig showing how pig they are when give a chance to NOT allow the jury to rule on the laws and tell them they must follow the law even when the law is an ass ray b AUG 14, 03:31 PM Chief Justice John Jay's nuanced instructions to the jury have been cited frequently in discussions of jury nullification: FROM https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...in_the_United_States '' It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.'' basicly I do not like it BUT IT IS LEGAL to do but some how is now custom to hide the FACT FROM THE JURY 82-T/A [At Work] AUG 14, 03:34 PM quote Originally posted by ray b: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification it is a thing in that it happens in the law books I have no idea in the hearts of the citizen they know if the law is WRONG you avoid the law that is the real why the jury is a fuse and the crime is in hiding that fact from them is the pig showing how pig they are when give a chance to NOT allow the jury to rule on the laws and tell them they must follow the law even when the law is an ass Ok, I get what you're saying. That's a little bit different though to be fair... probably just needed to explain better. What you're saying is they find a NOT-GUILTY verdict, even though it's totally clear and obvious the person is guilty of said crime, but because the jury pool things the particular crime is bull **** . Like... let's say, a dad walks in on a child molester raping his daughter, and the dad then beats him to absolute **** ... and the jury is like... hell nah, that dad was totally justified so they say he's NOT GUILTY. That's what you're saying, right? cliffw AUG 15, 09:04 AM quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I've actually never heard of this either. I'm wondering if perhaps we're misunderstanding what was being conveyed. Laws are made by legislatures, and decisions (from a judge) can affirm or reject the interpretation of a law and helps set future precedence. A jury serves no other purpose than to determine guilt (as a jury of your peers) for various crimes that are defined in the penal code. And... to that point, the judge is still the one that determines sentencing... which is entirely at his/her own discretion unless the particular penal code defines a minimum (or maximum) sentencing. I'm open to being proven wrong, but this is new to me... unless I'm misunderstanding. Well, one can be tried by judge, or jury. Decisions from judges ? Just as a prosecutor has prosecutorial discretion, so does a judge. As does a member of a jury. Also not all cases are criminal. Obama, in a State of the Union address, mentioned political judges exist, in front of the whole US Supreme Court. The judges there now are decried for being conservative. cliffw AUG 15, 09:19 AM quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ok, I get what you're saying. That's a little bit different though to be fair... probably just needed to explain better. What you're saying is they find a NOT-GUILTY verdict, even though it's totally clear and obvious the person is guilty of said crime, but because the jury pool things the particular crime is bull **** . Like... let's say, a dad walks in on a child molester raping his daughter, and the dad then beats him to absolute **** ... and the jury is like... hell nah, that dad was totally justified so they say he's NOT GUILTY. That's what you're saying, right? Todd, . A better example please ? Your scenario would be self defense of his daughter. I have doubt he would ever see a trial. Also it does not have to be the jury pool (?). Just one juror can think a law if BS. Perhaps, he can convince others to believe as he does. "Jury Deliberation". williegoat AUG 15, 10:01 AM quote Originally posted by cliffw: Todd, . A better example please ? Your scenario would be self defense of his daughter. I have doubt he would ever see a trial. Also it does not have to be the jury pool (?). Just one juror can think a law if BS. Perhaps, he can convince others to believe as he does. "Jury Deliberation". 82's example would be better if the beating occurred the next day, in another location. 82-T/A [At Work] AUG 15, 10:27 AM quote Originally posted by cliffw: Todd, . A better example please ? Your scenario would be self defense of his daughter. I have doubt he would ever see a trial. Also it does not have to be the jury pool (?). Just one juror can think a law if BS. Perhaps, he can convince others to believe as he does. "Jury Deliberation". I actually used that example because I seem to recall a couple of similar scenarios (though I don't remember how the Jury ruled on it). But I don't think anyone could reasonably find physically beating to death a person as "self defense." To a certain point, one would reasonably be able to assume that you could / should stop and hold the individual while the police arrive. I hate child rapists as much as the next guy, but a beating death of a rapist is not self defense. Unless the death was perhaps accidental in the midst of defense. It's a lot like shooting someone in the back as they flee from your yard (after trying to break in). No reasonable person would consider that "defense." ray b AUG 15, 11:05 AM quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I actually used that example because I seem to recall a couple of similar scenarios (though I don't remember how the Jury ruled on it). But I don't think anyone could reasonably find physically beating to death a person as "self defense." To a certain point, one would reasonably be able to assume that you could / should stop and hold the individual while the police arrive. I hate child rapists as much as the next guy, but a beating death of a rapist is not self defense. Unless the death was perhaps accidental in the midst of defense. It's a lot like shooting someone in the back as they flee from your yard (after trying to break in). No reasonable person would consider that "defense." unless they are in texas yeehaa or maybe fla 82-T/A [At Work] AUG 15, 12:02 PM quote Originally posted by ray b: unless they are in texas yeehaa or maybe fla Yeah, when I was writing that (shooting in the back), I am curious as to whether or not the "Stand Your Ground" law would allow this. I kind of want to look it up, but don't know that I want to go through the effort. To be honest, having my space violated by an attacker or someone breaking into my home, I would want to at least shoot the person in the leg to prevent them from running away... that way at least I could ensure they get arrested. cliffw AUG 15, 12:08 PM quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: But I don't think anyone could reasonably find physically beating to death a person as "self defense." Here, in Texas and I believe elsewhere, including Florida, We can use force to stop an aggressor from harming the life of to our wife, daughter, even a stranger. It would be a tough row to hoe for someone to decide what was needed, not being there. You actually do not need to beat them to death. We can just shoot them.