[The FRugitive]

Yea, but I don't beleive someone can be "guilty" of excercising his natural rights - to self defense, to the keeping the fruits of his labors, etc.

[toothless]

Tell that the the founding fathers....

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...
if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty
they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.
-- Alexander Hamilton, 1804

It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.
--John Adams, 1771

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man
by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789

[AppyPappy]

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.

[Howlin]

Are you a conservative? If you claim to be so, I was under the impression that we, as conservatives, were opposed to activist judges and lawyers.

Why would an 'activist' juror be any different?

You job would be to listen to the evidence and decide how it relates to the laws you'll be given; if you intend to vote your "feelings" stay home.