The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Oregon Occupiers - Not Guilty of Firearms on Federal Property Despite Video Evidence
Posts
I'd imagine I'd be dismissed, but I guess 12 angry men just stuck with me too much to be dismissive of doing jury duty as some kind of mark against a persons intelligence. I mean my wife served on a jury, should I call her an idiot?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well that's a different principle - that's the reason we have a very high standard of proof.
Jury nullification stands for the idea that even if the burden of proof is met, the jury still acquits anyway.
I think you misunderstand the point of the saying.
No I get it, its an incredibly stupid saying that leads to the very problem its supposedly addressing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
No, I'm saying voir dire has nothing to do with whether someone will try to get people disagreeing with them removed.
To be honest, if he'd go that far he could have been pushy enough to get everyone else to agree out of exasperation. They don't all have to be biased, they just have to not care.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
There are usually leaders and followers on a jury. There's a lot of psychology to how humans act in groups. Don't assume everyone just acts like 12 self contained rational beings in there.
He probably just told them he'd hang the jury and keep them there until they agreed with him, and got rid of the one guy who apparently wouldn't go along with the scheme.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah, I was using the terms guilty and innocent regardless of the letter of the law. As in, being guilty of an unjust law you are still an innocent.
The most recent case of clear jury nullification I can think of is the father who watched his children get run down by a drunk driver. Right in front of the family's house. 2 minutes later the drunk driver died of a gunshot wound. The father had access to firearms in his house. He was found not guilty.
But we should assume they were all acting in bad faith, right.
Getting rid of the lone dissenter that way is what smells to me - if someone can't be convinced then it should be a mistrial not negate them and then mob the new guy.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Reacting to the actual experience as listed by one of the Jury members? Projection.
Wild tales of conjecture? Totally relevant and contextually factual.
Yeah, I'm out of this discussion.
They acquitted obvious felons, so yes we should assume that at least some of them were operating in poor faith. Especially with how they removed Nickens specifically to implement their plan? Like you do see they got rid of one person for a perceived offense right before they voted to acquit right? That's fucking hinky as fuck.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, you would probably be dismissed. You know what Jury Nullification is.
Story Time!
I've only been called for Jury Duty once, and I was not selected; in my defense, my number was pretty far back, and they had selected their 6 jurors long before getting anywhere near my number to ask questions of. That said, a friend of mine was in a rather odd coincidence also called, and did get selected for the case in question, and he told me all about it afterward.
As he tells it, the charge was DWI, but there was no breathayzer administered at the time that the defendant was pulled over, and the only test administered was hours later at the precinct and showed under the legal limit at that time. It was literally the defendant's word vs. the cop. The five other jurors all immediately didn't like the defendant and wanted to find "Guilty" and go home despite there being no evidence of the crime. My friend disagreed and stood his ground.
Mistrial, hung jury.
I didn't even have to be in the room to lose my faith in the justice system. A jury of your peers only works if the populace is educated and civic-minded, and that is NOT the America I know and grew up in.
I suspect it is, and you just didn't realize how bad jurors are then. I don't think juror behavior has changed much in the last 50 years.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I don't assume that necessarily. I'm not ruling out stupidity, or unconscious bias. We also have the statement of the juror who was kicked off, which sheds some light on Juror #4's attitude, I think.
Attend enough trials and you'll see juries submit questions out to the judge that are easily answered by the instructions they were given.
Instructions, honestly, don't do that much in my opinion.
I don't see anyone agreeing with Preach's post as a statement of fact. It is speculation based on what Nickens says about what happened.
I guess I would think of a in a combination of things. I would think any ambiguity left available everything else to snowball after. Just a hunch.
It's very easy to take over a jury room and control the flow of discussion and more or less force what you want to have happen. It's easier when one of the jurors hasn't been a part of the discussion. Most likely the jury had two competing outcomes, one pushed by BLM and one by Juror 4. The rest of the members are making up their minds based on the argument by the two domineering jurors. When one gets dumped for bias it's over, juror 4 "wins" the argument.
So if 4 is angling for a specific outcome it would be easy enough for him to dump his opponent and dominate the rest of the conversation. Especially if he can say "the judge pulled him because he was biased".
The strength of the case seems irrelevant in the face of jury nullification; it's an admission that yes, they were guilty, but no, we will not punish them.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
Well at least some.
I find it a stretch of logic so mind-bafflingly extreme that we have videos of them on federal land with weapons and the resulting verdict of not guilty of that exact charge being any sort of good-faith action by one or all of the jurors.
Im still out on my opinion of the judge and how she presided over this case due to a lack of information Ive read, but as of now its not positive.
The crazies always claim in wake of some of them being arrested that people were informants. I don't think anyone involved in the take over were working for the government.
pleasepaypreacher.net
a conspiracy is the action of plotting to do something unlawful or harmful
there is literally video evidence EVERYWHERE of them proudly doing just that.
this is nothing more than a bullshit violation of justice that every sane american should be against. The prosecution shouldn't have had to 'make a case', they could have just pressed play on hours and hours of footage of these dipshits doing everything they were charged with.
The bolded bothers me, particularly because it indicates a much higher standard of proof for these militia types (e.g., white people) than others. Apparently, even though they are on record as saying that they never planned on returning the land and, in fact, desired to seize the facility and turn it over to private interests, that isn't enough to draw the inference that the occupiers intended to impede federal agents.
What I am seeing here is a roadmap for militia types in the future. If a jury can't draw the needed inference of intent to impede from the deliberate and recorded statements of the perpetrators there is simply no way to convict these yahoos in the future under the current law.
It just infuriates me. My god, if I seize someone's house with the goal of giving it to someone else, apparently I can argue that my intent is only to give the house to the other person and not to prevent the first person from ever returning. It's pants on head stupid.
The original facebook message seems to be gone, but like... at what point after taking over a facility and converting it to a base for your organization can we assume that you intend to impede the original employees of that facility from using it?
When they stop being white.
Anybody who has been in a meeting should understand that one person can absolutely sway a group that isn't heavily invested in the outcome.
Even though law enforcement is prejudiced against minorities, white people do get convicted of crimes.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/15_confidential_sources_fed_fb.html
Here's one of them on the stand:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/highlights_from_oregon_standof.html Here's an FBI agent talking about another informant on the stand:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/09/defense_begins_in_case_with_a.html And yet another informant takes the stand:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/defense_resumes_with_testimony.html
All these resources and the prosecutors couldn't get a conviction. When on earth is someone going to interview a jurist?
Was the informants the reason the jury let them go?
So you're best example of why jury nullification is a good thing is... to defend a clear cut case of vigilante justice?
But 1 guy executing people on sight without trial is completely excusable, I guess.
Nullification, besides its importance in being one of the last lines of defense of the people against the state, is also an intrinsic function of a jury. I don't believe there is any way to extract nullification without also saying that a jury is no longer allowed to acquit anyone. In a world without nullification, any acquittal would then require putting all 12 jurors on trial to verify they applied the law 100% correctly. That's obviously ridiculous and the only other option I see is to turn all judgements over to a computer to apply all laws to the letter.
I realize that reframing someone's argument, to say something they didn't say, is your modus operandi but, my off the cuff best example was when jury nullification was used to protect people who harbored runaway slaves.