This is pretty ridiculous... and pretty upsetting. Freedom of speech means that you can basically say almost anything... short of actually creating a panic which results in injury to others (like yelling fire in a theater). Worse still, the DAs should not be charging these individuals with totally unrelated and fake crimes.
I'm glad that we finally have a Constitutionalist Supreme Court now... and likely will overturn the qualified immunity laws that they've been using. Something like this should be completely illegal. A more proper and measured response would be for the police department to call the individual and politely ask them to state that it's parody. Or... for their own social media page (which they all have) to post that this is not real information, and for dumb people to stop reporting it.
Unfortunate incidents, but also proof that our system works. Neither of these men were convicted of anything. IN the first case the District attorney would not even prosecute.
Police make bad arrests all the time. We will never have perfect police, but as long as the mistakes are corrected by the system then the system still works.
Unfortunate incidents, but also proof that our system works. Neither of these men were convicted of anything. IN the first case the District attorney would not even prosecute.
Police make bad arrests all the time. We will never have perfect police, but as long as the mistakes are corrected by the system then the system still works.
That's not at question here though... what's at question is whether or not the police deserve immunity from law suits.
I don't know that I think this immunity should be challenged entirely... but I do think there needs to be some mechanism for curing the problem. Who made the decision to go arrest either of these people? In this case... it was likely the Chief of Police. Or perhaps the elected Sheriff? By what mechanisms for retribution, deterrence, restitution, or even rehabilitation of the officials do we have to ensure this doesn't happen again?
I absolutely respect the institution of police, and have many friends who are police officers. But I'm reminded of my own incident which still irks me from time to time as a much older adult. When I was 19, I was driving my Fiero and pulling into a bank. Two construction workers in a white panel van backed into my Fiero, damaging it. So I called the police to file a report, which is what you do to get a claim for who's at fault.
The police came, and talked with the van driver and the other guy. I overheard the police officer say... "don't worry, I'll take care of this."
The police officer came over and told me he smelled marijuana in my car. And then told my friend and I to sit on the curb while he searched my car. They found nothing of course... because I've never used drugs in my life, but it was humiliating to have to sit on the curb while my neighbors drove by (slowly), and have my Fiero basically torn apart and disheveled (I had to put everything back). It was incredibly insulting especially because I was the one who called police.
I was viewed as a "rich kid" even though I was in a 10 year old used Fiero, and lived in an apartment, and was working at a hardware store. I just happened to be wearing a collared shirt and a pair of pants.
I then heard the police go up to the construction workers and say... "Sorry guys, there's nothing I can do..." and he wrote him a citation, and Billy Bob's Insurance (which they had) totally screwed me. I got $250 bucks for frame damage.
I was a kid... barely 19 at the time. As an adult, if this had happened to me now, I would want to know that I could sue for this.
And for the politics... yes, at this time, the town of Davie was a Democrat stronghold... matter of fact, the KKK headquarters still existed there. The FBI raided the Davie Police department, and they had a change-over about a decade ago, and the town is wildly Republican now.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:I was a kid... barely 19 at the time. As an adult, if this had happened to me now, I would want to know that I could sue for this.
Want a definition of "privilege"?
How about "Whines about being a victim when police cite other party"
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This is pretty ridiculous... and pretty upsetting. Freedom of speech means that you can basically say almost anything... short of actually creating a panic which results in injury to others (like yelling fire in a theater). Worse still, the DAs should not be charging these individuals with totally unrelated and fake crimes.
I'm glad that we finally have a Constitutionalist Supreme Court now... and likely will overturn the qualified immunity laws that they've been using. Something like this should be completely illegal. A more proper and measured response would be for the police department to call the individual and politely ask them to state that it's parody. Or... for their own social media page (which they all have) to post that this is not real information, and for dumb people to stop reporting it.
I've more than had my share of handcuff over comments and attitude, especially during the covid protests. The pigsters cant really charge you with anything over vauge remarks, so what they do is use the "mental health act" to haul you to the hospital for an 8-72 hour lockup.
Problem with that is I know the head shrink. He runs 3 Ender printers for fun and lives in the town we moved out of a couple years go...
It goes something like this
Him: You did it again, didnt you Me: yup Him: Never going to learn to keep your mouth shut are you ? Me: Nope Him: Get out of here.
By refusing to be subjugated by the woke-politically-correct-marxist-left ??? Refusing mandates and forced medical experiments (ever heard of Tuskagee?) By speaking out against them ?
Piss off.
You guys arent running crap.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-02-2023).]
By refusing to be subjugated by the woke-politically-correct-marxist-left ??? Refusing mandates and forced medical experiments (ever heard of Tuskagee?) By speaking out against them ?
Uh, no. I read the act you posted and none of those things will get you committed for observation.
There is more that you are not telling us. We have all seen plenty of people speak out against the mandates, but they don't get taken into protective custody.
But like I said. It is your choice and choices have consequences.
Uh, no. I read the act you posted and none of those things will get you committed for observation.
There is more that you are not telling us. We have all seen plenty of people speak out against the mandates, but they don't get taken into protective custody.
But like I said. It is your choice and choices have consequences.
It starts with putting local cops back in their place and reminding them who is boss when it comes to thoughts and words. Or when, where and who I can hang out with.
They dont like that too much. Seems they have an authoritarian attitude problem. Fools think they are in charge. Yeh, right.
How about "Whines about being a victim when police cite other party"
I called the police, the van driver backed into me while I was stopped. That's not privilege, it was the only legal action they could make... which they reluctantly made only after trying a different path.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I called the police, the van driver backed into me while I was stopped. That's not privilege, it was the only legal action they could make... which they reluctantly made only after trying a different path.
My point obviously went over your head. When most people talk about suing the police they were the victim of the police doing something that they were not justified in doing like lying to make an illegal arrest or using excessive force.
As a privileged white man you want to try and play the victim when they police cited the proper person, did not file any false reports, and did not use excessive force. It is like the Karen who wants to sue someone for giving her a nasty look.
Originally posted by fredtoast: My point obviously went over your head. When most people talk about suing the police they were the victim of the police doing something that they were not justified in doing like lying to make an illegal arrest or using excessive force.
As a privileged white man you want to try and play the victim when they police cited the proper person, did not file any false reports, and did not use excessive force. It is like the Karen who wants to sue someone for giving her a nasty look.
What damages would you claim?
For one, I'm actually Hispanic, so yes... that technically makes me white, because Hispanic is not a race, and I come from a European-based South American lineage (rather than African or Native American) in that case. But... just for full disclosure.
The 4th Amendment protects against improper search and seizure. Florida also has some additional laws in place that protect against unreasonable and warrant-less searches. Police must have "probable cause" in order to search a vehicle. His "probable cause" was that he smelled marijuana coming from my car. Probable cause is more strict in Florida, and further in Broward County, in that it must more generally be connected with a crime, or subject to the "Plain View Doctrine" which I'm sure you're aware of. In Florida, the officer bears the burden of proof to show a preponderance of evidence for probable cause. Simply "smelling something" and failing to show why, shows err on his part.
I neither consented to the search, and there was nothing in plain view. To that point, I expressly stated they did not have permission to search my car, and they did not find any contraband because I've never used illegal drugs in my life. They also detained me (as it was expressed to us), that we had to sit on the curb and stay there, or we would be handcuffed. No crime was stated, and no reason was given. Furthermore, they found a steering wheel from a fully loaded Pontiac 6000 STE (that had all the radio controls) and they asked me if this was from a stolen car (accused me). They also broke the seat retract handle on both of my seats (negligence).
Incidentally, I'm not the first person this has happened to in Davie, which was a solid Democrat redneck town at the time in ~1997. The Davie Police department a couple of years later was raided by the FBI for (if I can remember correctly), using the drugs they were confiscating, and taking bribes. This is not to say that I do not support the police, but it doesn't mean I have to like it when a few bad apples do bad things.
EDIT: To answer your question... the lawsuit would be a tort. As the tortfeaser, they: - Performed undo harm to my reputation (neighbors saw me sitting on the curb while my car was searched) - Caused emotional stress and negligence
All of this could be supplemented by the fact that both myself and my friend (who was with me in the car) both overheard the police officer saying to the guys in the van "don't worry, I'll take care of this."
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-03-2023).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: For one, I'm actually Hispanic, so yes... that technically makes me white, because Hispanic is not a race, and I come from a European-based South American lineage (rather than African or Native American) in that case. But... just for full disclosure.
The 4th Amendment protects against improper search and seizure. Florida also has some additional laws in place that protect against unreasonable and warrant-less searches. Police must have "probable cause" in order to search a vehicle. His "probable cause" was that he smelled marijuana coming from my car. Probable cause is more strict in Florida, and further in Broward County, in that it must more generally be connected with a crime, or subject to the "Plain View Doctrine" which I'm sure you're aware of. In Florida, the officer bears the burden of proof to show a preponderance of evidence for probable cause. Simply "smelling something" and failing to show why, shows err on his part.
I neither consented to the search, and there was nothing in plain view. To that point, I expressly stated they did not have permission to search my car, and they did not find any contraband because I've never used illegal drugs in my life. They also detained me (as it was expressed to us), that we had to sit on the curb and stay there, or we would be handcuffed. No crime was stated, and no reason was given. Furthermore, they found a steering wheel from a fully loaded Pontiac 6000 STE (that had all the radio controls) and they asked me if this was from a stolen car (accused me). They also broke the seat retract handle on both of my seats (negligence).
Incidentally, I'm not the first person this has happened to in Davie, which was a solid Democrat redneck town at the time in ~1997. The Davie Police department a couple of years later was raided by the FBI for (if I can remember correctly), using the drugs they were confiscating, and taking bribes. This is not to say that I do not support the police, but it doesn't mean I have to like it when a few bad apples do bad things.
EDIT: To answer your question... the lawsuit would be a tort. As the tortfeaser, they: - Performed undo harm to my reputation (neighbors saw me sitting on the curb while my car was searched) - Caused emotional stress and negligence
All of this could be supplemented by the fact that both myself and my friend (who was with me in the car) both overheard the police officer saying to the guys in the van "don't worry, I'll take care of this."
Sorry, but you lose. As recently as 2021 the Circuit courts in Florida (Owens v Florida, 2nd District) have continued to uphold an officers right to conduct a search based on the smell of marijuana (at least in a car)
Good thing you all have an attorney here to explain this stuff to you. This issue has been challenged in most states that have legalized marijuana, and it may change the grounds for probably cause in a residence, but the Florida court ruled that even though medicinal marijuana is legal in the State it is still not legal to smoke it while driving.
All of this could be supplemented by the fact that both myself and my friend (who was with me in the car) both overheard the police officer saying to the guys in the van "don't worry, I'll take care of this."
Privilege = Believing that a cop will get in trouble because you and your friend claim that you heard him say he was going to harass you.
No person of color would ever even think of saying something like this.
Originally posted by fredtoast: Sorry, but you lose. As recently as 2021 the Circuit courts in Florida (Owens v Florida, 2nd District) have continued to uphold an officers right to conduct a search based on the smell of marijuana (at least in a car)
Good thing you all have an attorney here to explain this stuff to you. This issue has been challenged in most states that have legalized marijuana, and it may change the grounds for probably cause in a residence, but the Florida court ruled that even though medicinal marijuana is legal in the State it is still not legal to smoke it while driving.
Image how much better off we would be if we actually had an "attorney" that knew a Circuit Court from a DCA.
I don't know how it is in your benighted little corner of Appalachia, but here in Florida our Circuit Courts only have persuasive authority with our DCAs.
When you arrogantly and loudly strutted into this forum weeks ago it never once occurred to you that you might not be the only one with a JD here......assuming that you actually have earned a JD and actively practice law.
You also certainly haven't been reluctant to infer, and even claim, that others here do not possess the "marvelous intellect" and education that you continually claim to have, which is astonishing considering how "larval" your tenure here is and consequently how deficient your knowledge of individual member's academic and professional achievement and experience.
A prudent duck would have attempted to get a good measure of the size of the pond and the other ducks before deciding that he is the "big duck" in it.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-03-2023).]
Image how much better off we would be if we actually had an "attorney" that knew a Circuit Court from a DCA.
I don't know how it is in your benighted little corner of Appalachia, but here in Florida our Circuit Courts only have persuasive authority with our DCAs.
When you arrogantly and loudly strutted into this forum weeks ago it never once occurred to you that you might not be the only one with a JD here......assuming that you actually have earned a JD and actively practice law.
You also certainly haven't been reluctant to infer, and even claim, that others here do not possess the "marvelous intellect" and education that you continually claim to have, which is astonishing considering how "larval" your tenure here is and consequently how deficient your knowledge of individual member's academic and professional achievement and experience.
A prudent duck would have attempted to get a good measure of the size of the pond and the other ducks before deciding that he is the "big duck" in it.
- First, Owens had been driving reckless and erratically, and was the reason for him being pulled over in the first place ... e.g., as I stated, "it must more generally be connected with a crime"
- Second, the appeal states: "such use while driving would still support the offense of driving while intoxicated; thus, regardless of whether marijuana becomes decriminalized for recreational use, the smell of the burning substance will continue to provide probable cause for a search of a vehicle." Owens was driving his car, and was pulled over. My car was stopped, in a private business, and I called the police, and I was not behind the wheel when they arrived. All on private property.
- Third, the appeal states: Owens submitted a "guilty plea to the offense of possession of methamphetamine." I.E. he was guilty of a crime, not just of reckless driving for which he was pulled over for, but also had a DWI, and possession of narcotics. None of this applies to me, because for 1, I've never used illegal drugs in my entire life, ever. See item 1, and item 2. There was no crime, they found nothing, and I was on private property.
Learn how to IRAC Fred...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-04-2023).]
Originally posted by randye: Image how much better off we would be if we actually had an "attorney" that knew a Circuit Court from a DCA.
I don't know how it is in your benighted little corner of Appalachia, but here in Florida our Circuit Courts only have persuasive authority with our DCAs.
When you arrogantly and loudly strutted into this forum weeks ago it never once occurred to you that you might not be the only one with a JD here......assuming that you actually have earned a JD and actively practice law.
You also certainly haven't been reluctant to infer, and even claim, that others here do not possess the "marvelous intellect" and education that you continually claim to have, which is astonishing considering how "larval" your tenure here is and consequently how deficient your knowledge of individual member's academic and professional achievement and experience.
A prudent duck would have attempted to get a good measure of the size of the pond and the other ducks before deciding that he is the "big duck" in it.
Here is how legal argument work. I post case law to support my claim. If you disagree then you post caselaw to prove that I am wrong.
Courts are not impressed with squealing.
So I will just wait here for you to post case law to prove that I am wrong.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: - Second, the appeal states: "such use while driving would still support the offense of driving while intoxicated; thus, regardless of whether marijuana becomes decriminalized for recreational use, the smell of the burning substance will continue to provide probable cause for a search of a vehicle." Owens was driving his car, and was pulled over. My car was stopped, in a private business, and I called the police, and I was not behind the wheel when they arrived. All on private property.
Does not matter if your car was parked. If you were drunk or high you could have gotten a DUI. You do not have to be driving to get a DUI. You just have to be "in physical control" of a vehicle that was driven on a public road or parking lot. Usually this just means in possession of the keys.
Besides, back when you had this issue marijuana was not even legal to smoke in a car parked on private property. So officer would have had probable cause.
judges prostituting att all kinds of gov officials claim it
it is WRONG THERE SHOULD BE NO IMMUNITY FOR CRIMINAL ACTS BY OFFICIALS
OUR TRUSTED GOV WORKERS SHOULD BE UNDER THE LAW NEVER OVER IT
ANY AND EVERY TIME THEY VIOLATE ANY ONES RIGHTS SUBJECT TO THE LAW
any one claiming qualified immunity is a PIG
On this, we completely agree Ray... completely.
"Executive Privilege" is not defined anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and Trump should not be able to use this, nor any president (including Nixon's view that he didn't have to turn in the tapes). I also agree with you that no public official has the benefit (or should have the benefit) of "immunity" either. Public servants are to be held to a HIGHER standard, as they are directly in a position where their actions can have a direct impact on those whom they represent.
The disagreement we have is on whether or not what is being claimed as executive privilege is in fact criminal or not.
"Qualified Immunity" is a tricky issue. In general Republicans support it while Democrats think it should be more limited.
It does not apply to cases against institutions like a Sheriff's Department. It only applies to individuals like specific Sheriff's deputies.
It usually covers an individual performing "official actions".
Right now pretty much all courts recognize some form of "qualified immunity" and the debate is over where to draw the line. Basically they are using a SUBJECTIVE test that says "you have no immunity if you do something really, really bad".
It is a tough issue to come up with a clear objective test for courts to follow. But some level is needed to prevent public officials from being harassed by frivolous lawsuits.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-04-2023).]
Originally posted by fredtoast: Does not matter if your car was parked. If you were drunk or high you could have gotten a DUI. You do not have to be driving to get a DUI. You just have to be "in physical control" of a vehicle that was driven on a public road or parking lot. Usually this just means in possession of the keys.
Besides, back when you had this issue marijuana was not even legal to smoke in a car parked on private property. So officer would have had probable cause.
I'm not ignorant to what you're trying to do here... so I will repeat myself so you don't intentionally disparage me. Never in my life have I ever used illegal drugs. I've never been given a DWI, a DUI, or had drugs on my person, ever convicted, charged, or assumed. I've passed a full-scope lifestyle polygraph in service to the country attesting that I've never used drugs in my life.
This incident was the police claiming they smelled marijuana in order to use it as a bargaining chip to call it a night and get his friends off the hook. He made assumptions that because I was in a nice car (or at least what he assumed it was a nice car), and that I was clean-cut... that I would likely have drugs in my car, as most teens in that area probably would. My car was off, and parked in a parking space of private property, and with me out of the car by the time they got there ... and I called them there.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: On this, we completely agree Ray... completely.
"Executive Privilege" is not defined anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and Trump should not be able to use this, nor any president (including Nixon's view that he didn't have to turn in the tapes). I also agree with you that no public official has the benefit (or should have the benefit) of "immunity" either. Public servants are to be held to a HIGHER standard, as they are directly in a position where their actions can have a direct impact on those whom they represent.
The disagreement we have is on whether or not what is being claimed as executive privilege is in fact criminal or not.
"Immunity" is different from "privilege". "Immunity" means a person can not be prosecuted while "privilege" means a person does not have to disclose information.
"Immunity" needs to be very limited. But "privilege" needs to remain in place with a few limitations. Many very important and knowledgeable people, and especially foreign ambassadors and heads of state, would not even talk to the President if they knew everything they said would be public record.
He made assumptions that because I was in a nice car (or at least what he assumed it was a nice car), and that I was clean-cut... that I would likely have drugs in my car,
Based on all the academic studies and court cases I am familiar with regarding police profiling, they never target clean cut white people in nice cars.
Based on all the academic studies and court cases I am familiar with regarding police profiling, they never target clean cut white people in nice cars.
"never target clean cut white people in nice cars"
There you go again... completely changing the argument... having nothing to do with the discussion. I wasn't targeted, I called them.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: "never target clean cut white people in nice cars"
There you go again... completely changing the argument... having nothing to do with the discussion. I wasn't targeted, I called them.
I am talking about the search. You clearly did not request that. And you claimed that the searched you, i.e. "targeted you" because you were a clean cut young man in a nice car.
I know al ot about the academic studies and court cases that address police profiling. And I am not aware of any that involve police targeting clean cut white kids in nice cars.
Originally posted by fredtoast: "Immunity" is different from "privilege". "Immunity" means a person can not be prosecuted while "privilege" means a person does not have to disclose information.
"Immunity" needs to be very limited. But "privilege" needs to remain in place with a few limitations. Many very important and knowledgeable people, and especially foreign ambassadors and heads of state, would not even talk to the President if they knew everything they said would be public record.
IT LOOKS TO ME TO BE
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS A GOOD EXCUSE IF YOU ARE A COP [ or other official ] but never for a citizen in any way shape or form for them IGNORANCE OF THE LAW is not ever a defense allowed
SO ONLY THE PIG GETS TO SAY
''I DID NOT KNOW THAT WAS WRONG ILLEGAL ECT''
AS THERE IS NO CLEAR COURT CASE SAYING THAT IS FORBIDDEN TO ME never mind it is against several laws
and that IS WRONG ON EVERY LEVEL
BTW IT IS AS BAD AS TELLING A JURY THEY CAN'T NULLIFY
AS I BELIEVE THE ONLY REASON TO HAVE A JURY IS TO NULLIFY BAD LAWS
Here is how legal argument work. I post case law to support my claim. If you disagree then you post caselaw to prove that I am wrong.
Courts are not impressed with squealing.
So I will just wait here for you to post case law to prove that I am wrong.
OK,
fredtroll said: "....the Circuit courts in Florida (Owens v Florida, 2nd District) have continued to uphold....."
I responded by stating that you don't know a Circuit Court from a DCA and that our Florida Circuit Courts have only persuasive authority.
Accordingly, we do not generally consider that the Circuit Courts here "uphold" anything as you claimed since they do not technically create stare decisis. Florida DCAs have binding authority over our Circuit Courts, (but not over other Florida DCAs where they have only persuasive authority as well).
Proof of my contention is contained in Judge Villanti's opinion in Owens v Florida, 2nd District, the same case law that you cited, wherein: “We are aware of the decision of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida that held that the smell of marijuana in connection with a traffic stop cannot constitute the sole basis supporting probable cause for a search. See State v. Nord, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 511 (Fla. 20th Cir. Ct. Aug. 8, 2020). With all due respect to the capable and experienced circuit judge who authored that opinion, we cannot agree.”
"Squealing" is one thing, but most serious courts get a real chuckle out of it when someone's own case law cite is used against him by opposing counsel, ....just as yours has now.
.
You obviously don't do any effective appellate work or even motion practice do you?
Perhaps scratching out a meager living by just plea bargaining on behalf of low level drug offenders in hick-town Appalachia is sufficient for you.
As an aside, The Florida 2DCA is actually my home district and, coincidentally enough, I know Judge Craig Villanti quite well.
.....
I have now exhausted all of the time and patience I have for you and I shall return to sitting back, watching, and laughing at you.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-04-2023).]
Originally posted by randye: "Squealing" is one thing, but most serious courts, being outside of Appalachia, get a real chuckle out of it when someone's own case law cite is used against him by opposing counsel, ....just as yours has now.
You don't understand how this works at all. I Quoted a DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS case. That case mentioned a decision from a LOWER COURT (20th Judicial Circuit Court) that you tried to cite to support your position.
And if you read the complete decision you will see this quote in the final conclusion "Our SUPREME COURT has observed that the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from a vehicle—like we have here—provides probable cause to search each of the vehicle's occupants." (citing State v. Betz, 815 So. 2d 627, 633 (Fla. 2002))
The highest court in the state ruled that smell was probable cause. The case I cited just upheld that opinion. The decision from the lower court is meaningless. You have no clue what you are talking about.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-04-2023).]
Originally posted by ray b: AS I BELIEVE THE ONLY REASON TO HAVE A JURY IS TO NULLIFY BAD LAWS
THERE IS NO OTHER REAL REASON FOR A JURY
The only purpose for the jury is for "findings of fact". They decide what facts are proven and what are not. Then they plug the "findings of fact" into the law to come up with a decision. They have no authority (and are not qualified) to change laws.
How could you ever know if you were following the law if a jury could just change the law.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-04-2023).]
You don't understand how this works at all. I Quoted a DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS case. That case mentioned a decision from a LOWER COURT (20th Judicial Circuit Court) that you tried to cite to support your position.
And if you read the complete decision you will see this quote in the final conclusion "Our SUPREME COURT has observed that the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from a vehicle—like we have here—provides probable cause to search each of the vehicle's occupants." (citing State v. Betz, 815 So. 2d 627, 633 (Fla. 2002))
The highest court in the state ruled that smell was probable cause. The case I cited just upheld that opinion. The decision from the lower court is meaningless. You have no clue what you are talking about.
It's even funnier to watch you try to argue the wrong issue .
I really do pity your unfortunate clients, (provided you actually have any).
Perhaps a simple, little, "dirt & death" practice might suit you better.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-04-2023).]
The only purpose for the jury is for "findings of fact". They decide what facts are proven and what are not. Then they plug the "findings of fact" into the law to come up with a decision. They have no authority (and are not qualified) to change laws.
How could you ever know if you were following the law if a jury could just change the law.
like most legal beagles you miss the point of the jury THEY AIN'T THERE FOR YOUR BS nullification should be explained as a JURY DUTY OF THE UP MOST IMPORTANCE NEVER FORBIDDEN OR HIDDEN
the ONLY reason to make people go to jury duty is a fuse on the system TO MAKE SURE IT IS FAIR to allow the citizen to monitor justice NOT to find facts or follow the law but to prevent kangaroo courts stop injustice at the root source BUT THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS AFRAID OF CITIZEN SUPERVISION AND FORBIDS IT
AND YES DEFENDING THE ACTION OF OFFICIALS SHOULD EAZY OPEN AND QUICK NOT HIDDEN BEHIND ANY IMMUNITY WITH NO LONG BS INVESTIGATIONS AND ALWAYS FORBID ANY TRIAL BY RULE THERE IS NO REAL REASON TO MAKE ANYONE ABOVE THE LAW
Jury’s can absolutely nullify a law…period. Just because the system passes a law doesnt mean it’s right. Kinda like seat belt laws….don’t need one on a bus or a motorcycle. …just sayin.
