Spokane pot case has gun rights implications

sudden valley gunner · May 13, 2014

hhofent said:
I know what you mean.. But say in a doctors malpractice suit, his peers could be a doctor or two, a couple nurses, maybe a couple administrative people, and toss in a couple guys from the plaintiffs general line of work... No one from his own hospital of course. No one who knew the guy..

I can think of a couple guys who'd love to be on a cops trial. Haha a few of them have been known to lurk this forum occasionally.

Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2

I understand what you are saying. Folks like Doctors may get railroaded by an uninformed jury.

Dave_pro2a · May 13, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
I understand what you are saying. Folks like Doctors may get railroaded by an uninformed jury.

Or protected by professionals who fear similar lawsuits (or lawsuits in general).

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2...nts-about-their-doctors-or-dentis/#more-35084

sudden valley gunner · May 14, 2014

Dave_pro2a said:
Or protected by professionals who fear similar lawsuits (or lawsuits in general).

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2...nts-about-their-doctors-or-dentis/#more-35084

Yep. Like cops.

Or real estate agents who are subject to the board of other real estate agents.

EMNofSeattle · May 14, 2014

hhofent said:
I agree with the jury of your peers thing. How many of you would consider any random person your peer? I think a good start would be the jury be in the same line of work the accused is. Then they'd be his peers. I'm sure there is a better way, but my point remains, when lawyers fight over the jury, they don't end up with peers. It's like your mommy telling you who you can be friends with.

Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2

So if you're trying a unemployed gang member who would your jury be?

I think we should just throw 12 random names out and bring them in. And eliminate peremptory challenges to jurors. All eliminations from the jury pool should be for cause... And cause should be narrowly defined as something severe like racism.

EMNofSeattle · May 14, 2014

Freedom1Man said:
Can you cite a law the defines what, "marijuana," is?

Marijuana is a name for a specific drug created from the cannabis plant. There is no law that defines marijuana, so plain definition applies.

EMNofSeattle · May 14, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Somehow peers to government means they get to pick them.

The jury system originally was a trial by pais (or country) and done by lots. This whole judge and prosecutor and attorneys weeding out ( no pun intended) jurors, is disastrous to justice.

The defense gets to weed out jurors too. What if you were charged with a gun related crime and your jury lot included 11 moms demand action members? Or on the flip side, a klan member lynching a black man being tried by a lot of klan members.......

Grim_Night · May 14, 2014

Eric... there is this interesting function on the forums that allows you to quote multiple posts at the same time. Instead of making 3 posts back to back and in essence spamming us with your posts, maybe you should take the time to learn how to post only once without trying to get your post count up?

That being said...

I have tried not to post in this thread because yet again, it is more proof that the government or at least certain people within the government that seem to think that they can ignore whatever laws they don't like and do whatever it is that they choose to with no care or consideration for the people for whom they actually serve... the citizens!

Primus · May 14, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
The defense gets to weed out jurors too. What if you were charged with a gun related crime and your jury lot included 11 moms demand action members? Or on the flip side, a klan member lynching a black man being tried by a lot of klan members.......

Correct. There is a balance to it. Defense gets x amount of strikes and prosecution gets x amount of strikes.

Defense will clearly be striking that are likely to find a guilty and prosecution will try to get rid of the not guilty votes.

The point is if both sides are doing it then there should be a balance to it. For example to tie it into a gun case.... if a guy is on trial for any crime (pick one) and he happens to be a gun guy, well then through jury selection the defense will try to eliminate anyone who might hate guns and find guilty based on that and the prosecution will try to strike anyone who is pro gun who would find not guilty just because they like guns too.

The idea is impartiality. Does it happen? Maybe.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Dave_pro2a · May 14, 2014

I've witnessed a Judge lie about the law while serving on Jury duty. He really hated it when I corrected him during the selection process -- got me booted asap.

Interesting read, marginally related to the topic of Feds overstepping their bounds regarding hemp:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/dea-seizes-kentuckys-hemp_n_5318098.html

EMNofSeattle · May 14, 2014

Grim_Night said:
Eric... there is this interesting function on the forums that allows you to quote multiple posts at the same time. Instead of making 3 posts back to back and in essence spamming us with your posts, maybe you should take the time to learn how to post only once without trying to get your post count up?

That being said...

I have tried not to post in this thread because yet again, it is more proof that the government or at least certain people within the government that seem to think that they can ignore whatever laws they don't like and do whatever it is that they choose to with no care or consideration for the people for whom they actually serve... the citizens!

It's not spam if your three different posts each address a different point by a different poster.

Post count is irrelevant, I don't even care anymore how many posts I have.

hhofent · May 14, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
So if you're trying a unemployed gang member who would your jury be?

I think we should just throw 12 random names out and bring them in. And eliminate peremptory challenges to jurors. All eliminations from the jury pool should be for cause... And cause should be narrowly defined as something severe like racism.

If a gang member is on trial, no one is gonna be impartial to the fact that he's in a gang. His being in a gang shouldn't matter, the specific crime should. Yet to an "impartial" jury, the gang affiliation would probably be reason enough to convict.

I'm just looking for a way for everyone on the jury to believe the defendant is innocent until the case is made. Currently its the other way around.

Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2

davidmcbeth · May 14, 2014

Dave_pro2a said:
I've witnessed a Judge lie about the law while serving on Jury duty. He really hated it when I corrected him during the selection process -- got me booted asap.

Interesting read, marginally related to the topic of Feds overstepping their bounds regarding hemp:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/dea-seizes-kentuckys-hemp_n_5318098.html

What did your correct him about?

Dave_pro2a · May 14, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
What did your correct him about?

I don't feel comfortable divulging more info.

I've witnessed plenty of cops lie too, some on the stand.

Freedom1Man · May 14, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
Marijuana is a name for a specific drug created from the cannabis plant. There is no law that defines marijuana, so plain definition applies.

Tetrahydrocannabinol is the "drug" found in the Cannabis plants.

So, then, I ask again, what is the legal definition of Marijuana?

Unless you're a gay man feeling ecstasy over finding the 8ball.

Gay=happy
ecstasy=1.rapturous delight.
2. an overpowering emotion or exaltation; a state of sudden, intense feeling.
3. the frenzy of poetic inspiration.
4. mental transport or rapture from the contemplation of divine things.
8 Ball is the black, typically, colored ball that is used in an American game of billiards.

Last time I checked "Marijuana" is a slang term for the 'cannabis sativa' plant. While other slang names might include such things as, weed, pot, wacky tabbacky, ganja, Mary Jane, and more.

Dave_pro2a · May 14, 2014

Freedom1Man said:
Last time I checked "Marijuana" is a slang term for the 'cannabis sativa' plant. While other slang names might include such things as, weed, pot, wacky tabbacky, ganja, Mary Jane, and more.

I don't get too worked up over nomenclature.

davidmcbeth · May 14, 2014

Dave_pro2a said:
I don't feel comfortable divulging more info.

I've witnessed plenty of cops lie too, some on the stand.

I've seen cops lie under oath ... most don't only because they know that lies are easy to expose. No one remembers lies...only the truth.

Freedom1Man · May 14, 2014

Dave_pro2a said:
I don't get too worked up over nomenclature.

Law is semantics and nomenclature.

sudden valley gunner · May 14, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
The defense gets to weed out jurors too. What if you were charged with a gun related crime and your jury lot included 11 moms demand action members? Or on the flip side, a klan member lynching a black man being tried by a lot of klan members.......

Primus said:
Correct. There is a balance to it. Defense gets x amount of strikes and prosecution gets x amount of strikes.

Defense will clearly be striking that are likely to find a guilty and prosecution will try to get rid of the not guilty votes.

The point is if both sides are doing it then there should be a balance to it. For example to tie it into a gun case.... if a guy is on trial for any crime (pick one) and he happens to be a gun guy, well then through jury selection the defense will try to eliminate anyone who might hate guns and find guilty based on that and the prosecution will try to strike anyone who is pro gun who would find not guilty just because they like guns too.

The idea is impartiality. Does it happen? Maybe.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You guys swallowed the church of state pill. There is no balance in a prosecutor having any say in picking a jury. Zero....there is no justice in it either. The prosecutors are not interested in justice.

Gliechshaltung and you guys praise it.

Tyranny only happens by the fools who support it.

hhofent · May 14, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
You guys swallowed the church of state pill. There is no balance in a prosecutor having any say in picking a jury. Zero....there is no justice in it either. The prosecutors are not interested in justice.

Gliechshaltung and you guys praise it.

Tyranny only happens by the fools who support it.

+1 absolutely correct.

Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2

Dave_pro2a · May 15, 2014

Freedom1Man said:
Law is semantics and nomenclature.

Modern law (legal positivism) is BS stacked on BS.

Spokane pot case has gun rights implications

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member