Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
The Brass balls award has been offered to this guy in a PM.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Juror refused right to be a jury over asking about lock box
- Thread starter sudden valley gunner
- Start date
But that is the prosecutor's call to make, and he has to do it in the courtroom and use his allowances for dismissing jurors to do it. They can't screen prospective jurors, by ANY method, in the lobby.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Brass balls award on the way first thing in the morning.
Bill Starks
State Researcher
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
God I love Jury duty, it let's me flex my Rights.
I can envision finding a defendant guilty, it would just require proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had caused actual damage to property or an actual injury to a living person.
In other words, I'd nullify 99.9% of the cases an average court sees.
I can envision finding a defendant guilty, it would just require proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had caused actual damage to property or an actual injury to a living person.
In other words, I'd nullify 99.9% of the cases an average court sees.
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
I don't think you would, I used to watch trials. At least in kitsap county, the charge has to be severe to take it to jury trial.... The little cases that make for good nullification are always settled.
My prosecutor likes to bring flimsy cases with no evidence, but that's not nullification if you find not guilty....
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
DUI w/o injury or damage = no conviction
Assault where the strong possibility exists for mutually agreed upon combat = no conviction
Drug possession = no conviction
Drug dealing = no conviction
Felon in possession of a gun = no conviction
Plus I try to ruin as many in the pool as possible. By ruin I mean, explain their Right to judge the law itself as well as the facts of the case.
Stretch
Regular Member
JoeSparky
Centurion
My thoughts EXACTLY. And further, on the persons who informed him he was not needed, Did they have AUTHORIZATION from the court to release him or is the potential juror who has now FAILED TO RESPOND at risk from the court for failing to do his required DUTY?
It was not just the potential juror's rights that were violated but also the rights of the accused/defendant in any case he may have heard AS A JUROR!
Last edited:
Difdi
Regular Member
Just one problem with that: Police cannot make a lawful arrest without probable cause to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed. If they have no clue what the law is, they lack probable cause by default.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
That's why they claim to have powers in the non crimes of resisting and obstruction.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
I might be inclined to agree on most, except DUI. Everyone is the victim when someone drives drunk. If you don't punish someone for driving drunk they'll keep doing it until they kill someone. Sometimes they will anyway. But at least we deter a few...
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Well, let's just punish everyone on the basis of what may happen -- before anything actually happens.
That is the anti-gunner logic on banning firearms.
Last edited:
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Last edited:
Not exactly. You must be licensed to drive a motor vehicle. Not being drunk while doing so is a condition to receive the license. You agree to these terms when you ask for the license.
Now some argue you shouldn't need a license to drive, but that's a different argument.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
As a juror, I can judge that 'regulation' as well as the facts of the case.
DUI w/o injury or damage = no conviction
Last edited:
()pen(arry
Regular Member
I demand that you provide any evidence whatsoever to support this claim.
OC for ME
Regular Member
DUI is a bogus law instituted as a means to generate revenue for the state. If the state gave a rat's azz about folks being killed by drunk drivers cops would be camped out at every bar in their jurisdiction.
But, thanks for the statist view.