Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: The FRugitive
but I don't beleive someone can be "guilty" of excercising his natural rights

Ahh...so if someone shoots you because they feel it was their natural right because you were white, you wouldn't have a problem with that? Or if someone robs you because "that's just what I do" and they feel it is their right to earn a living vua income redistribution, that wouldn't bother you. That's jury nullification. That's why it is wrong.

They will ask you questions about your feelings related to the case. Tell the truth and it will work out.

16 posted on 03/12/2003 7:37:33 AM PST by AppyPappy (Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: AppyPappy
Ahh...so if someone shoots you because they feel it was their natural right because you were white, you wouldn't have a problem with that? Or if someone robs you because "that's just what I do" and they feel it is their right to earn a living vua income redistribution, that wouldn't bother you. That's jury nullification. That's why it is wrong.

That's not a natural right. A natural right is anything you wish to do that doesn't violate another's equal rights.

They will ask you questions about your feelings related to the case. Tell the truth and it will work out.

Absolutely, of course, I will be honest to any direct questions I'm asked.

26 posted on 03/12/2003 7:43:13 AM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: AppyPappy
Ahh..so if someone shoots you because they feel it was their natural right because you were white, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

More particularly, if they were charged with the commission of a *hate crime* rather than the shooting, I would indeed prefer to see that charge against them dismissed, even though a *not guilty* verdict would mean that under the constitution, they could not be again charged for that offense, not that that's stopped some corrupt federal prosecutors from applying federal charges to a defendant who has prevailed in a state court. The solution to that problem is to find the defendant not guilty again, despite the unconstitutional railroad job.

Otherwise, you'll be facing an ex post facto charge of treason against the constitution for your own comments, made in violation of the Clinton Anti-terrorism act to be passed next year. Your execution will be held tomorrow; you can appeal any time after that.

-archy-/-

37 posted on 03/12/2003 7:48:36 AM PST by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: AppyPappy
Ahh...so if someone shoots you because they feel it was their natural right because you were white, you wouldn't have a problem with that? Or if someone robs you because "that's just what I do" and they feel it is their right to earn a living vua income redistribution, that wouldn't bother you. That's jury nullification. That's why it is wrong.

Perhaps we give another example a man shoots a burgalar in his home and is prosecuted for having an unregistered gun in his home. He has recently moved to the state and already filed his paperwork for registration but it has not come back. He is charged with possessing an unliscensed handgun and facing jail. He has no criminal record and is an honorably discharged vetran. Does this give you a different view of jury nullification. I do not like it but it does have its uses within the republic and clearly it is one of the protections of citizens.

85 posted on 03/12/2003 8:27:12 AM PST by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: AppyPappy
AP, I believe that the last SC ruling was that we had the right, but we did not need to be informed of it. I could be wrong, but I remember comparing it to how some people are trying to make it so that Miranda doesn't need to be read.
114 posted on 03/12/2003 9:16:34 AM PST by technochick99 (Self defense is a basic human right. http://www.2ASisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: AppyPappy
No, Hank, you are not describing "natural rights," and I suspect you know that. Nobody has a "natural right" to someone else's life (self-defense excepted) or property.

Jury Nullification refers to jurors judging the law or the particulars of the prosecution of the law to be defective in some way in the case they are trying.

In the Simpson case, the jurors apparently decided that the prosecution of the case was improper, specifically the handling of the evidence.

But you knew that.

127 posted on 03/12/2003 9:27:29 AM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson