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.
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
'' 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
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?
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.
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".
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
Here it is "Duty to retreat" and if you even think about standing your ground you get charged with uttering threats at minimum. 99% of the time the charges get tossed but it is still a PITA to deal with.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: 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.
First of all, a recent case in Texas (I will see if I can find it) where a person shot another robbing his neighbors home, as they ran. I don't remember that the culprit died, or if the neighbor was even charged.
They don't really show a video of the altercation, or I am just not seeing it.
I'm not sure how "stand your ground" applies to a parking space on private property that isn't yours. So on first glance, by words alone, it sounds ridiculous. Was the shooter being physically attacked, and he took out his gun to defend himself? Or was he using his gun to try to get a parking space that someone "stole" from him?
Well, since there was no video worthwhile watching at the supplied link... I located the surveillance video Here. (Can't be embedded due to age restriction.)
Guy goes out of his way to provoke an extended altercation, and then shoots someone for pushing him. Seems to me the court made the proper decision.
Thanks for the link Patrick. The law is not a free for all to go out and kill. I think they both where in the wrong as neither one of them needed to act that way.
[This message has been edited by jdv (edited 08-16-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: That was addressed to me, and I'd appreciate a follow-up on it.
Be careful of what you ask for.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Infecting a good organization which ia political neutral organization...Organization? Does that mean the Pennock's forum?
Cancer does not discriminate.
quote
I have never equated my online conversations via Pennock's, which are now the only online conversations that I have, as any kind of political activism or any attempt at being an online "influencer."
Of course not. I am perfect too.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think anyone who thought that way about their online conversations on Pennock's would be having an hallucination—a mystical and mirage-like delusion of grandeur—about what they are doing when they engage with the Pennock's forum. It would be evidence of a narcissistic psychological disorder, and I don't believe I have that kind of psychology, and certainly, not to the extent that I would be succumbing to that severe of a level of self-deception and "daydreams."
Does "anyone" include you ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: (An argument could be made for saying "affect change"—as you have it—but I think what you really wanted to say is "effect change." But that's really neither here nor there, as the old bromide reacts... because what else would a salt compound comprised in part by the element Br be able to do?)
Affect is the reason something is effected. Eat a french fry. Add salt. A french fry was effected.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Does saying "leftoid" instead of "leftist" put a little extra dill in your pickle? (So to speak.)
A rose by any other name ....
What else you got ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-17-2023).]
Well, just the other day some pieces of crap came out of the city to our farm community to break in a farmers bldg, fill their trailer with 2 ATV’s, a GUN SAFE ! And other tools and drive down the road…. A neighbor watched them do it then proceeded to follow the vehicle while on the road with the police…they got caught. Both arrested…one released within 24 hours. The other kept as he was caught with a gun on him with the numbers filed off. Personally, If I was the neighbor, I would have prob shot them both…who knows where the guns in the safe would have ended up. So, yeah in this case I think the neighbor would have been justified….
.
