hypothectical jury question
if you were on a jury would you convict for:
1. possesion of an NFA weapon(MG,SBR,silencer),no crime just possesion.
2. possesion of marijuana for personal use.
3. income tax evasion (tax protestor)
1. possesion of an NFA weapon(MG,SBR,silencer),no crime just possesion.
2. possesion of marijuana for personal use.
3. income tax evasion (tax protestor)
0
-
1. No
2. Yes
3. No0 -
I have an issue with crimes where there is no victim, so the only "crime" I see listed is the tax evasion... 0 -
1. Depends on the evidence.
2. Depends on the evidence.
3. Depends on the evidence.0 -
Add one to "Depends on evidence". 0 -
Depends upon the evidence and the totality of the circumstances.
Nothing is cut and dried in our criminal justice system, and rightfully so. That's where the word "justice" comes into play.0 -
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box.
+1
My personal views on gun laws and the illegality of marijuana would probably get me bounced as a potential juror in the first two cases, and since I pay taxes and understand the need to do so (despite the rampant waste and abuse in the system) I have no sympathy for "tax protestors". Placed on a jury, though, I'd try to give the benefit of the doubt but would uphold the law, regardless of how much I might disagree with some point about it. I'd expect nothing more or less from the jury if I were on trial.0 -
1. Have to hear the case
2. no, this conviction ruins too many lives
3. have to hear the case, but i think income tax is illegal. taxation without representation. tax what you earn, tax what you own, tax what you buy, tax what you sell.[V] sheesh0 -
quote:Originally posted by slipgate
1. No
2. Yes
3. No
Ditto0 -
1. No, it is an illegal law
2. Yes, it is a legal law
3. Yes, it is a legal law0 -
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box.
You are absolutely, completely, totally wrong. One of the covenants and absolute rights of being a juror is the freedom to judge the person and the LAW THAT HE IS CHARGED WITH BREAKING. If the law is BS then you can find him NOT-GUILTY and walk out knowing you did the American thing.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mongrel1776
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box.
+1
My personal views on gun laws and the illegality of marijuana would probably get me bounced as a potential juror in the first two cases, and since I pay taxes and understand the need to do so (despite the rampant waste and abuse in the system) I have no sympathy for "tax protestors". Placed on a jury, though, I'd try to give the benefit of the doubt but would uphold the law, regardless of how much I might disagree with some point about it. I'd expect nothing more or less from the jury if I were on trial.
Please rethink this opinion.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box.
You are absolutely, completely, totally wrong. One of the covenants and absolute rights of being a juror is the freedom to judge the person and the LAW THAT HE IS CHARGED WITH BREAKING. If the law is BS then you can find him NOT-GUILTY and walk out knowing you did the American thing.
when you sit on a jury, you take an oath to uphold the law as it is and as it is given to you by the judge. If you're willing to lie to the courts to be able to sit on the jury to enact a jury nullification, by all means do so, but be aware that you will be misrepresenting yourself and your integrity to the judicial system. Do the ends justify the means, in other words?0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box.
You are absolutely, completely, totally wrong. One of the covenants and absolute rights of being a juror is the freedom to judge the person and the LAW THAT HE IS CHARGED WITH BREAKING. If the law is BS then you can find him NOT-GUILTY and walk out knowing you did the American thing.
when you sit on a jury, you take an oath to uphold the law as it is and as it is given to you by the judge. If you're willing to lie to the courts to be able to sit on the jury to enact a jury nullification, by all means do so, but be aware that you will be misrepresenting yourself and your integrity to the judicial system. Do the ends justify the means, in other words?
I respectfully disagree; we as Americans are asked to make sure our best efforts are applied to have justice for the accused. If the law is unjust in its application then we are morally bound to acquit. We Americans currently have two border agents in prison because of the misapplication of law by Johnny Sutton and the UNEDUCATED vote of the jury. That is NOT justice; that is orchestrated federal control, plain and simple.0 -
Yes to all three if she was the defendant. [xx(] 
0 -
Iffn ya gonna finds a jury fer me to be on, I hope you can find something more important than those... 0 -
I could convict on all three.
I could acquit on all three.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box.
You are absolutely, completely, totally wrong. One of the covenants and absolute rights of being a juror is the freedom to judge the person and the LAW THAT HE IS CHARGED WITH BREAKING. If the law is BS then you can find him NOT-GUILTY and walk out knowing you did the American thing.
when you sit on a jury, you take an oath to uphold the law as it is and as it is given to you by the judge. If you're willing to lie to the courts to be able to sit on the jury to enact a jury nullification, by all means do so, but be aware that you will be misrepresenting yourself and your integrity to the judicial system. Do the ends justify the means, in other words?
I respectfully disagree; we as Americans are asked to make sure our best efforts are applied to have justice for the accused. If the law is unjust in its application then we are morally bound to acquit. We Americans currently have two border agents in prison because of the misapplication of law by Johnny Sutton and the UNEDUCATED vote of the jury. That is NOT justice; that is orchestrated federal control, plain and simple.
you can't disagree. It is an indisputable FACT that you have to take that oath before being able to sit on a jury. If you take that oath and don't abide by it, you LIED. It's as simple as that.
If you can't apply the law as given or believe that a particular law is unjust, tell the court so. You will be excused. That way, if a person is convicted, at least it won't be on your head and you won't have intentionally deceived a tribunal.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by mongrel1776
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box.
+1
My personal views on gun laws and the illegality of marijuana would probably get me bounced as a potential juror in the first two cases, and since I pay taxes and understand the need to do so (despite the rampant waste and abuse in the system) I have no sympathy for "tax protestors". Placed on a jury, though, I'd try to give the benefit of the doubt but would uphold the law, regardless of how much I might disagree with some point about it. I'd expect nothing more or less from the jury if I were on trial.
Please rethink this opinion.
Can't. Nemesis Enforcer said it already -- you take an oath when you sit on a jury. Been there, done that. I would declare my opinion of the law allegedly broken, declare my complete unwillingness to judge another if I were so unwilling; but, trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of the American way of life, IMHO, and if found acceptable by the judge and competing lawyers I would serve, same as if I were drafted for a war I absolutely disagreed with. And, being called to serve, and having taken the oath -- I don't break my word. It has nothing to do with fear of punishment, though I have been in jail and would as soon never experience that again. My word is my word and I am obligated as an American to serve as called upon to do. When the obligations (as I understand them) of being an American become more than I feel I should be expected to fulfill, I will leave the country for someplace more in line with my personal feelings and beliefs.
Problem would be, no such place exists.
I'm not saying the law is always (or ever) completely just, right, or fair. I just happen to believe that the context specified -- being called to serve on a jury -- is neither the proper time nor place for a protest action.
Your opinion may be different, and another of the fundamental points about this country is that we can disagree with no one getting hurt.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
I could convict on all three. 50.00
I could acquit on all three. 50,000
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
[:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)]
[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tomahawk
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
I could convict on all three. 50.00
I could acquit on all three. 50,000
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
[:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)]
[;)]
My wife is wondering why I just spit my beer all over my screen!! Good one!
[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box.
You are absolutely, completely, totally wrong. One of the covenants and absolute rights of being a juror is the freedom to judge the person and the LAW THAT HE IS CHARGED WITH BREAKING. If the law is BS then you can find him NOT-GUILTY and walk out knowing you did the American thing.
when you sit on a jury, you take an oath to uphold the law as it is and as it is given to you by the judge. If you're willing to lie to the courts to be able to sit on the jury to enact a jury nullification, by all means do so, but be aware that you will be misrepresenting yourself and your integrity to the judicial system. Do the ends justify the means, in other words?
I respectfully disagree; we as Americans are asked to make sure our best efforts are applied to have justice for the accused. If the law is unjust in its application then we are morally bound to acquit. We Americans currently have two border agents in prison because of the misapplication of law by Johnny Sutton and the UNEDUCATED vote of the jury. That is NOT justice; that is orchestrated federal control, plain and simple.
you can't disagree. It is an indisputable FACT that you have to take that oath before being able to sit on a jury. If you take that oath and don't abide by it, you LIED. It's as simple as that.
If you can't apply the law as given or believe that a particular law is unjust, tell the court so. You will be excused. That way, if a person is convicted, at least it won't be on your head and you won't have intentionally deceived a tribunal.
Wrong; but I am too tired to argue the point. Suffice it to say that free men have the absolute right of refusal over the government. It is granted by God and codified in many areas of Juris Prudience.
To prove my point I will offer this. If the LAW says you can't have sex with your wife will you convict a man and women for doing so just because it is the law imposed by the masters???? Think about it.... the law is the law, I grant you that. But mind numbing obedience to authority gives you absolute oppression.0 -
So I can have sex with someone else's wife? 0 -
I haven't read all replies but there is a thing called "jury nullification". You CAN fight stupid laws from the jury box. It has been discussed here before. Read up on it. You might learn something. Tom 0 -
quote:Originally posted by divecop
So I can have sex with someone else's wife?
Absolutely; but when hubby puts a bullet in your butt I may vote to let him walk. [:D]0 -
+1
1. Depends on the evidence.
2. Depends on the evidence.
3. Depends on the evidence.0 -
First of all, the Constitution trumps all other laws and is the supreme law of the land. I would not convict for the mere possession of a NFA item...as a matter of fact, it makes me sick that we have to jump through hoops to own them...and then pay out the yin-yang.
#'s 2 and 3 would depend on the evidence...although I do believe our current tax system is un-Constitutional as well.0 -
wouldn't be on a jury for the nfa weapons charge and don't know for the others 0 -
http://www.fija.org/
If not for jury nullification, lots of us would be drinking moonshine or bathtub gin.........0 -
The link in the post directly above (fija) alerted my McAfee virus protection program. Said it was a "significant" virus and a trojan, what ever that means, and recommended that I purge it from my computer.
....Just a heads-up for those who don't have virus scanning on their computer. Joe0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
82 comments