As per .world worldnews mod, no discussing naughty stuff like jury nullification.
While this post is blowing up, here’s the book referenced by the shooter:
Delay Deny Defend - Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It
By request: Full, uncensored video of the shooting. (Fucking obviously NSFW)
I consider human life sacred
Like the lives of those cut short by denying treatment so CEOs and shareholders can make more money?
only God may judge us
Oh, fuck off. If God exists and actually cared, he/she/they would have “judged” the guy a long time ago for introducing needless suffering and cruelty.
only god may judge us
Is a great argument for jury nullification. Because that will allow for god to decide the shooters verdict.
It’s a TOS violation to discuss one of the very real and legitimate responsibilities you have as a juror?
Like, nullification is a thing because it’s very much the absolute very very last defense against bullshit laws being used against people by a corrupt judicial system.
It’s a moral imperative and something anyone sitting on a jury should understand and be willing to use.
What an absurd take, especially since it sounds like it’s all the .world admins having it.
theres no faster way to get kicked out of the selection process than mentioning it.
if you want out of jury duty, mention jury nullification and you are out of there.
… and in jail for contempt of court.
If all one had to do was utter ‘JN’ to get out of JD for free nobody even slightly inconvenienced would ever serve.
In reality, they dance around the fact. Ask you questions designed to get you to admit you have no ‘valid’ reason to nullify if you did, at which point you are either guilty of lying under oath or contempt of court.
You have to be firm in your convictions and hold your ground with a valid justification if you are going to try using nullification awareness to weasel out of jury duty because the judge will press, and press until they either think you’re a true believer of a valid reason, or are just trying to shirk your duty.
Link me even one case of that happening.
If they think you even might support nullification, they don’t want you on the jury. They wouldn’t risk that you’re joking or trying to get out of serving.
Here’s a particularly outrageous example. If you watch the entire video he goes on to describe a few more examples where the entire jury must be aware of what JN is but are still acting as jurors.
Those are cases of attempting to encourage specific juries to nullify. You’re not gonna be held in contempt for revealing you support jury nullification during selection.
held in contempt for revealing you support jury nullification during selection.
Yes, you will. If you flat out say “I support Jury Nullification” during voir dire the judge will consider it flagrant contempt for the courts and deal with you accordingly.
What will actually happen is you will be asked a vague question that skirts the issue like “do you have any beliefs which would render you unable to convict or acquit based on the evidence alone?”. If you answer in the affirmative an explanation will be demanded at which point what will your answer be? “I support jury nullification”, same deal. If you have an actual belief that gets in the way like say you abhor the death penalty they will say things like ‘case is regarding a traffic ticket, your concerns do not apply. any other reasons?’. Their goal being to show that any of your reasons either do not apply, or are insufficient in the judge’s eyes for you not to do your duty. At that point you’d still be a juror and if you do nullify for whatever reason there’s nothing they can do afaik.
You’re dreaming if you think you wouldn’t be punished for praising jury nullification in front of a judge and an entire slew of potential jurors during voir dire, when someone was handing out fliers outside the court building was convicted despite no court being in session, no actual juror receiving the pamphlet, and it held on appeals.
TBH you want evidence, the evidence is the court system still functioning because if what you said was true it would collapse in on itself.
Yes, you will. If you flat out say “I support Jury Nullification” during voir dire the judge will consider it flagrant contempt for the courts and deal with you accordingly.
Source? Cause this is some wild shit.
It’s likely not actually a TOS violation, that person commenting is almost certainly talking out of their ass, likely to try and push their own agenda and make people comply.
Hey, only God may judge us!
Apparently.
Also crooked courts, ostensibly.
Lemmy.world is a centrist instance. Liberals don’t like the idea that people can do something that the donor class can’t prevent.
Only God may judge us? Which God exactly, you giant fucking DIPSHIT?
My inbox is quite a ride. I keep seeing insults in it and then realise it’s not meant for me
They keep claiming all these things against the TOS yet you can read that and none of it’s in there. I don’t know what it is about these mods but they sure seem to be trying to push their own agenda.
Remember how the !world@lemmy.world mods kept pushing for months the propaganda bot from a pro-Zionist and very rightwing (so much so that their definition of a Rightwing news media was pretty much only the Far-Right ones) organisation trying to tell everybody which news to trust and which to not trust?
Also, curiously and back some months ago when I was making anti-Zionist posts in my Lemmy.world account, all of a sudden I started getting e-mails on the account I used to register on Lemmy.world from an Israeli organisation doing “Education about Israel” courses and they knew not just my e-mail but also the country I lived in (the e-mails were in my native language) even though I didn’t share my email on any posts.
I blocked that bot ages ago, is it still doing its annoying as all fuck thing or did they give up on it?
Around the time they elections were finally over.
After a mod insisted that the .world admins would demod them if they removed the bot and reinstate it anyway, someone pinged an admin who was like ‘what? no.’
After that a poll was held, and the kill it option won.
For people interested
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/29791336?scrollToComments=true
Funny to go through that post now that the bot was killed by popular vote and see commenters adamantly insisting that it was 1% of users who wanted it gone.
Honestly, it felt like a bunch of the pushback was someone just super proud of the bot they made lol. How could their perfect bot ever be bad??
I was questioning a certain mod why they banned someone for TOS violations but left up the offending comments and they were confused why anyone would question them about it.
Like if something is that bad you ban and remove it but they thought it was better to use as an example.
Simply put they just use it as their go to excuse.
wtf
Jury nullification is legal.
You need to lie to the judge under oath to do it. There simply aren’t consequences, but it is very much illegal.
You do not have to lie to the judge. There is no lying to the judge. If the jury decides to ignore evidence and nullify, the judge knows exactly why, and there’s nothing they can do about it.
Wrong. They try to filter out people who know about jury nullification, but the act itself is not illegal, as you do not have to have the knowledge to accidentally do it anyway.
That seems pretty unfair to filter out people who know about it, it’s basically filtering knowledgeable people.
There’s no basically, that’s literally what it is
Just to be clear, one of the standard questions to ask a potential jury is “you must be able to render a verdict solely on the evidence presented at the trial and in the context of the law as I will give it to you in my instructions, disregarding any other ideas, notions, or beliefs about the law. Are you able to do this?”
If you know about jury nullification, with the intent of using it, then you need to lie under oath to get past this question.
The question was taken from the New Mexico US courts
Are you able to do this?
Ahead of time, I could answer truthfully that I am able. I don’t have to say “but when the time comes, I may choose not to for any reason”
I mean that may be “the truth”, but it is purposely not “the whole truth”. Which is a violation of the oath. The only way jury nullification is allowed is if a jury independently decides not to convict, because then jury is unbiased in deciding that the law is wrong or shouldn’t apply.
Again, if you are selected for jury duty, and you already have decided you will ignore the law to avoid convicting the criminal, then there is no way you can make it past the selection without lying to the court.
