View Full Version : McCloskeys Indicted!
Did one of you call Dick Cheney and tell him to fire up the Halliburton Weather Machine and set it to Sharknado Shit Storm?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/case-involving-gun-waving-st-162024482.html
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-07-20, 08:55
To be unsealed next week? Gun and evidence tampering?
Let's see what kind of ass-hattery is afoot.
A win on the 2A at SCOTUS is meaningless if any crappy DA can arrest and ruin your life for using that right.
To be unsealed next week? Gun and evidence tampering?
Let's see what kind of ass-hattery is afoot.
A win on the 2A at SCOTUS is meaningless if any crappy DA can arrest and ruin your life for using that right.
Only thing I can think of on the "evidence tampering" was that the pistol was supposedly rendered inoperable- which, if true, would negate any "deadly weapon" charges because you can't kill someone etc...with a weapon that's not a weapon. Be like pointing an airsoft gun at someone. They may be trying to say that the McCloskeys- being smart lawyers, de activated the gun after the fact and before the DA's office got it. Just a totally Wild Ass Guess theory.....
This tells me that if the mob comes to where you lay your head to sleep; you may as well do em all.
Going to jail anyways, give them something worth taking you to jail over.
If law and order doesn’t exist we, invariably, must create our own
This tells me that if the mob comes to where you lay your head to sleep; you may as well do em all.
Going to jail anyways, give them something worth taking you to jail over.
If law and order doesn’t exist we, invariably, must create our own
Might as well set up the Fougasse canisters in the front yard- After the First One they're all Free anyway, right? ...Lol...
I guess private property doesn't mean anything when confronting potentially violent trespassers? The McCloskeys never left their own yard, and the street and sidewalk are part of a joint-use gated community owned by the residents. This happened in Missouri and I thought that State had a Stand Your Ground law where you have no duty to retreat in a public place. This was private property so their position should even be stronger.
Might as well set up the Fougasse canisters in the front yard- After the First One they're all Free anyway, right? ...Lol...
Yep. If it’s to a point where I go to jail just because I don’t want a mob invading my home then good god dammit I am gonna them earn it.
At that point I don’t care about black folks, the most liberal liberal, free college, or any of that other fairy pinko bullshit.
You are an uninvited mob encroaching upon Firebase Firefly and I hope you are as atheist as you claim to be because I will gladly send you to your no-God.
Leave people alone.
This happened in Missouri and I thought that State had a Stand Your Ground law where you have no duty to retreat in a public place. This was private property so their position should even be stronger.
The STL City DA is DIRTY AS ****....
I dont think the STL County DA is to far behind her.
Averageman
10-07-20, 09:53
So Private Property and Self Defense Laws have been tossed out the window?
How in the world can they be stupid enough to throw more gas on the fire at this point?
Looks like the grand jury is stupid and evil...jury nullification anyone?
BoringGuy45
10-07-20, 10:36
A win on the 2A at SCOTUS is meaningless if any crappy DA can arrest and ruin your life for using that right.
This.
The SCOTUS could strike down "assault weapon" and magazine bans, and liberal governors and state AGs could just say screw that, we're going to ignore this ruling and just continue to enforce the ban.
BoringGuy45
10-07-20, 10:39
Looks like the grand jury is stupid and evil...jury nullification anyone?
Nothing to nullify yet. I think nullification only really applies if the jury feels that the government did prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but feels that conviction would be immoral and so they find the defendant not guilty in spite of the evidence.
This.
The SCOTUS could strike down "assault weapon" and magazine bans, and liberal governors and state AGs could just say screw that, we're going to ignore this ruling and just continue to enforce the ban.
Look at the shit show in Michigan right now. Been in violation of their Constitution since April, but she is going to keep on doing it for 3 more weeks. I think Pennsylvania is in a similar situation.
Can the average peon start doing something "illegal" and at some point before a ruling on their activities, is it ok for them to decree they can keep on doing it for some made up period of time no matter what?
Nothing to nullify yet. I think nullification only really applies if the jury feels that the government did prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but feels that conviction would be immoral and so they find the defendant not guilty in spite of the evidence.
Of course a trial is required to nullify. But juries can not only sit in judgement of the facts but also the law itself. The state of course hates such ideas and it should only be used sparingly and for righteous purposes.
Diamondback
10-07-20, 10:49
Of course a trial is required to nullify. But juries can not only sit in judgement of the facts but also the law itself. The state of course hates such ideas and it should only be used sparingly and for righteous purposes.
Most ambulance chasers, if they find out you harbor trier-of-law beliefs they'll exercise a Peremptory just to strike you from the jury pool. If you ever want out of jury duty just blurt that you're a member of Fully Informed Jury Association and they won't be able to show you the door fast enough...
SomeOtherGuy
10-07-20, 11:15
Look at the shit show in Michigan right now. Been in violation of their Constitution since April, but she is going to keep on doing it for 3 more weeks. I think Pennsylvania is in a similar situation.
Can the average peon start doing something "illegal" and at some point before a ruling on their activities, is it ok for them to decree they can keep on doing it for some made up period of time no matter what?
Whitmer is The Incredible Shrinking Governor right now. The Attorney General Dana Nessel, a super far-left Dem (the lead plaintiff and lawyer for making gay marriage legal here some years ago), immediately distanced herself from Whitmer's orders when the Michigan SCT opinion came out, and expressly stated that her office would not be enforcing them, although with the weasel words that other agencies might do whatever they please.
Whitmer had claimed that the SCT decision wouldn't go into effect for 21 days, which is apparently a hilariously bad misunderstanding of the relationship between law, court rules, and judicial decisions. NO ONE in the state believes her view is legally sound, and NO ONE is acting as if it is. Whitmer then went on to ask for 28 days of "stay", still completely misunderstanding that's not how it works given the nature of the court case and the SCT opinion. It would be absurd for a supreme court to say "oh, that's wildly unconstitutional and always has been, but you can keep doing it for four weeks because you're cool." It also doesn't fit the procedural posture of the specific case at issue, where the SCT issued an opinion regarding Michigan law and that now goes back to the federal court case where the federal judge will issue a ruling as appropriate.
Now the practical effect is limited because most of the dictates have already been re-issued under different legal authority, mostly the state health department's authority to control epidemics, and at minimum that presents a different legal question, and there's a good chance that it will actually be deemed legally valid. So we still have most of the same restrictions. BUT... the governor no longer has ANY basis for her unilateral dictates, especially the worst nanny-state crap like banning the sale of garden seeds last spring.
Perhaps more importantly, she was publicly chastised for acting unlawfully and her AG immediately distanced the two, so she's looking dumb and alone right now. The dems in the legislature recognize this and are not going to follow or protect her anywhere near as much as they had been. She will likely be facing a recall election next year (petitions in progress, early stage). Whitmer is somewhat in the mold of Hillary, as she is quite obviously out for her own power above all. She is neither well tied in with the traditional sources of Dem votes (UAW, teacher unions, black organizations) nor with the far-left Marxist Soros stuff, although she obviously aspires to be supported by and control both of those wings. I would bet on her having a Dem primary challenge in 2022, assuming she survives any recall election.
Diamondback
10-07-20, 11:19
My suspicion is that Nessel is distancing herself as part of jockeying for position in a possible Primary challenge, or to step into the void should Nazi Bitchmer be recalled or otherwise not seek re-election. (Unlikely as the latter is with her colossal ego...)
I remember the Missouri governor promising he would intervene on their behalf? Hopefully he makes right on his words.
SomeOtherGuy
10-07-20, 11:30
Anything's possible but I don't see that Nessel is looking to be the next governor. I suspect she is more interested in being AG for multiple terms. And that she recognizes a sinking ship and doesn't want to be dragged down with it.
Whitmer ran as if she were a centrist, defeating some rather offensive primary alternatives and then beating a very forgettable Republican candidate. She was helped enormously by (1) a recreational marijuana ballot initiative that brought ALL the potheads and other assorted losers, and (2) the Flint water crisis, which was massively misrepresented in the national media and made out to be the fault of prior Gov. Snyder, who was falsely painted as callous over the whole thing. She was simply in the right place at the right time, and would never have won a D primary against better options, nor a typical general election.
This case, as well as Kenosha, highlights one of the things that I find most disconcerting about what’s coming. In the impending national shitshow you have their side, operating with political cover, who can act with near-impunity, and “our” side who if we act in our own defense, are tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, doxxed, and subject to persecution by the very legal system that we tell ourselves that we must remain in compliance with as “law abiding citizens”. Feeling hamstrung by the law, worrying about having to shoot but then losing everything in the process anyway, including your freedom, might make some people reluctant to act and put them in jeopardy.
What i’d really like to see is for some states to starting changing their laws so that in a state of civil unrest or riots, deadly force can be used to defend property.
Probably a sort of controversial thing I’m going to say here, but I feel like in a mob/riot situation it isn’t always safe or reasonable for the defender to have to just sit and wait for *each* individual in the crowd to present a direct deadly threat. trying to do that seems like it would result in your being just totally Zerg-rushed by the masses. You almost need to view the mob itself as a single lethal entity. A rioting crowd of enraged people, even unarmed, presents an obvious deadly threat even if the individuals that comprise said crowd, on their own, do not.
Not an endorsement or advocation of any particular action, just my take on how the laws are unfairly restrictive under some circumstances.
SomeOtherGuy
10-07-20, 12:00
This case, as well as Kenosha, highlights one of the things that I find most disconcerting about what’s coming. In the impending national shitshow you have their side, operating with political cover, who can act with near-impunity, and “our” side who if we act in our own defense, are tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, doxxed, and subject to persecution by the very legal system that we tell ourselves that we must remain in compliance with as “law abiding citizens”. Feeling hamstrung by the law, worrying about having to shoot but then losing everything in the process anyway, including your freedom, might make some people reluctant to act and put them in jeopardy.
These are huge issues. Some thoughts:
1) Our side needs its own media channels. There are some decent news websites that have a right-wing viewpoint, but most are tabloid level and hard to share with the undecideds. Fox News was friendlier a few years ago but was never great, and seems to be just another ABCNBCBS now.
Most of all, our side needs something like Twitter but controlled by us, not by hostiles. Trumps' reliance on Twitter might be his biggest mistake.
2) We need to recognize the importance of controlling ALL public offices. Right now it's quite obvious that the Dems across the US have gained a major advantage by taking control of state AGs, state Secretary of State posts that control elections, and all sorts of county and local prosecutors. We need to control all of these things, and frankly I don't know where our business-focused, freedom-loving side will find enough people who want to be ordinary public officials, heading up massive bureaucracies with dull meetings and dull issues, for modest (not bad, but not huge) government salaries.
3) Ultimately, no system of law and justice is possible when a significant group refuses to participate in a good-faith way. The right has basically become a doormat because most of us still believe in a set of principles that the left doesn't. The left has zero hesitation to judge and prosecute us by that set of principles while completely ignoring it when it's to their benefit. Look at EVERYTHING that has happened in 2020, not to mention all the DC BS since Trump's election, to see this in action.
To be unsealed next week? Gun and evidence tampering?
Let's see what kind of ass-hattery is afoot.
A win on the 2A at SCOTUS is meaningless if any crappy DA can arrest and ruin your life for using that right.
I'm thinking perhaps the gate. That's the only physical evidence I can think of and perhaps they went and damaged it to make the event seem worse than it was. That was the only thing that came to mind.
Diamondback
10-07-20, 12:36
There is a precedent for Circle_10's last post, historically Disparity of Numbers has itself been statutorily declared a Deadly Force threat in its own right in many jurisdictions.
This case, as well as Kenosha, highlights one of the things that I find most disconcerting about what’s coming. In the impending national shitshow you have their side, operating with political cover, who can act with near-impunity, and “our” side who if we act in our own defense, are tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, doxxed, and subject to persecution by the very legal system that we tell ourselves that we must remain in compliance with as “law abiding citizens”. Feeling hamstrung by the law, worrying about having to shoot but then losing everything in the process anyway, including your freedom, might make some people reluctant to act and put them in jeopardy.
What i’d really like to see is for some states to starting changing their laws so that in a state of civil unrest or riots, deadly force can be used to defend property.
Probably a sort of controversial thing I’m going to say here, but I feel like in a mob/riot situation it isn’t always safe or reasonable for the defender to have to just sit and wait for *each* individual in the crowd to present a direct deadly threat. trying to do that seems like it would result in your being just totally Zerg-rushed by the masses. You almost need to view the mob itself as a single lethal entity. A rioting crowd of enraged people, even unarmed, presents an obvious deadly threat even if the individuals that comprise said crowd, on their own, do not.
Not an endorsement or advocation of any particular action, just my take on how the laws are unfairly restrictive under some circumstances.
Gee, if only someone had seen all this shit coming.....hmm.....I recall discussions earlier this year in fact about certain situations--- "Just call the police" was the standard refrain. Lol....What a joke.....
63953
Gee, if only someone had seen all this shit coming.....hmm.....I recall discussions earlier this year in fact about certain situations--- "Just call the police" was the standard refrain. Lol....What a joke.....
63953
I think I had the same opinion back then about the Right’s misplaced reverence for “The Law” and the consequences for those who are forced to defend themselves. It’s just that now we have some very prominent test cases to confirm the fears that many of us had.
I think I had the same opinion back then about the Right’s misplaced reverence for “The Law” and the consequences for those who are forced to defend themselves. It’s just that now we have some very prominent test cases to confirm the fears that many of us had.
For YEARS I have been taking self defense classes with "fringe" instructors. Not High Speed .Mil guys, not cops etc....Guys who train people in places like Brazil, South Africa, the Phillipines....... It's a different perspective for sure!
ChattanoogaPhil
10-07-20, 14:16
Back in July the governor of Missouri said he would pardon the McCloskeys. At the same time, the Missouri AG said he would seek to have any charges against the McCloskeys dismissed.
The Soro's DAs are a big problem. None of the criminals face any consequence, but the law abiding citizens do? How do you combat this obvious wrong?
The Soro's DAs are a big problem. None of the criminals face any consequence, but the law abiding citizens do? How do you combat this obvious wrong?
“Armed struggle is a necessary and morally correct form of resistance in the Six Counties against a government whose presence is rejected by the vast majority of the Irish people… There are those who tell us that the British government will not be moved by armed struggle. As has been said before, the history of Ireland and of British colonial involvement throughout the world tells us that they will not be moved by anything else.”
Gerry Adams, 1983
Averageman
10-07-20, 14:27
When you remove the enforcement of Laws you remove the thin candy coating of civilized society. Laws are rules we live by in order to have equality and fairness and to keep everyone moving somewhat in the same direction, under penalty of course.
So you've got a population of armed and scared people who suddenly have come to understand, "Help isn't coming." and if it does come, they are likely as not to arrest you for defending yourself, your Family and your Property.
You do understand what's been created here don't you? You do understand that certain segments of society are feeling like they are now living in the new version of Southern Reconstruction. Justice is being less than equally dealt out and the Left is making no bones about threatening white folks in the suburbs now right?
I'm just saying that we are not divided strictly by lines of color, but by ideology. All that will be blurred by the media, violence will escalate and this will go sideways at the speed of light.
That's how lynchings happen
When you remove the enforcement of Laws you remove the thin candy coating of civilized society. Laws are rules we live by in order to have equality and fairness and to keep everyone moving somewhat in the same direction, under penalty of course.
So you've got a population of armed and scared people who suddenly have come to understand, "Help isn't coming." and if it does come, they are likely as not to arrest you for defending yourself, your Family and your Property.
You do understand what's been created here don't you? You do understand that certain segments of society are feeling like they are now living in the new version of Southern Reconstruction. Justice is being less than equally dealt out and the Left is making no bones about threatening white folks in the suburbs now right?
I'm just saying that we are not divided strictly by lines of color, but by ideology. All that will be blurred by the media, violence will escalate and this will go sideways at the speed of light.
That's how lynchings happen
It's an unfortunate reality of civil wars that race/ethnicity is a uniform you don't get to take off.
Back in July the governor of Missouri said he would pardon the McCloskeys. At the same time, the Missouri AG said he would seek to have any charges against the McCloskeys dismissed.
They still have to spend time and treasure to defend themselves until someone makes good on that promise. You also have to wonder how long it will be until the Peaceful Protesters take another run at them to try and goad them since all of the consequences are on one side of the ledger.
This case, as well as Kenosha, highlights one of the things that I find most disconcerting about what’s coming. In the impending national shitshow you have their side, operating with political cover, who can act with near-impunity, and “our” side who if we act in our own defense, are tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, doxxed, and subject to persecution by the very legal system that we tell ourselves that we must remain in compliance with as “law abiding citizens”. Feeling hamstrung by the law, worrying about having to shoot but then losing everything in the process anyway, including your freedom, might make some people reluctant to act and put them in jeopardy.
What i’d really like to see is for some states to starting changing their laws so that in a state of civil unrest or riots, deadly force can be used to defend property.
Probably a sort of controversial thing I’m going to say here, but I feel like in a mob/riot situation it isn’t always safe or reasonable for the defender to have to just sit and wait for *each* individual in the crowd to present a direct deadly threat. trying to do that seems like it would result in your being just totally Zerg-rushed by the masses. You almost need to view the mob itself as a single lethal entity. A rioting crowd of enraged people, even unarmed, presents an obvious deadly threat even if the individuals that comprise said crowd, on their own, do not.
Not an endorsement or advocation of any particular action, just my take on how the laws are unfairly restrictive under some circumstances.
I'd like to point out that Kyle did target discrimination and "weapons tight" at a seasoned operator level, and he's just a 17 year old kid. It didn't matter because he's been decreed an enemy of the state. The McCloskey's exhibited fair to poor weapons handling and pretty much stayed in weapons hold, with the exact same result, decreed enemies of the state. When our enemies control the narrative, the stage and the operative legal power bases, we can perform flawlessly and still be decreed enemies of the state.
The problem isn't how the laws are written. The problem is how the laws are wielded.
These are huge issues. Some thoughts:
1) Our side needs its own media channels. There are some decent news websites that have a right-wing viewpoint, but most are tabloid level and hard to share with the undecideds. Fox News was friendlier a few years ago but was never great, and seems to be just another ABCNBCBS now.
Most of all, our side needs something like Twitter but controlled by us, not by hostiles. Trumps' reliance on Twitter might be his biggest mistake.
2) We need to recognize the importance of controlling ALL public offices. Right now it's quite obvious that the Dems across the US have gained a major advantage by taking control of state AGs, state Secretary of State posts that control elections, and all sorts of county and local prosecutors. We need to control all of these things, and frankly I don't know where our business-focused, freedom-loving side will find enough people who want to be ordinary public officials, heading up massive bureaucracies with dull meetings and dull issues, for modest (not bad, but not huge) government salaries.
3) Ultimately, no system of law and justice is possible when a significant group refuses to participate in a good-faith way. The right has basically become a doormat because most of us still believe in a set of principles that the left doesn't. The left has zero hesitation to judge and prosecute us by that set of principles while completely ignoring it when it's to their benefit. Look at EVERYTHING that has happened in 2020, not to mention all the DC BS since Trump's election, to see this in action.
At some point the masses simply get tired of endlessly fighting for their everything. I believe there a LOT of people who just want to know when it's time to start slotting pols.
I'd like to point out that Kyle did target discrimination and "weapons tight" at a seasoned operator level, and he's just a 17 year old kid. It didn't matter because he's been decreed an enemy of the state. The McCloskey's exhibited fair to poor weapons handling and pretty much stated in weapons hold, with the exact same result, decreed enemies of the state. When our enemies control the narrative, the stage and the operative legal power bases, we can perform flawlessly and still be decreed enemies of the state.
The problem isn't how the laws are written. The problem is how the laws are wielded.
At some point the masses simply get tired of endlessly fighting for their everything. I believe there a LOT of people who just want to know when it's time to start slotting pols.
Bingo!
And the St. Louis police arrested them for this nonsense. I wish I could say the police are my friend, but some of them keep doing the bidding of the corrupt state.
Well, thankfully the McCloskeys are hyper litigious and appear to have deep pockets. They will fight this in the courts and hopefully set the proper precedent when they win.
Well, thankfully the McCloskeys are hyper litigious and appear to have deep pockets. They will fight this in the courts and hopefully set the proper precedent when they win.
I agree with this sentiment, but the fact it has come to that is THE PROBLEM.
Looks like the grand jury is stupid and evil...jury nullification anyone?
Won't happen. One of the things they ask before you become a juror is that you swear to apply the law as written. It's a almost perjury thing if you do not.
Well, thankfully the McCloskeys are hyper litigious and appear to have deep pockets. They will fight this in the courts and hopefully set the proper precedent when they win.
Yep. So better them than me but wishing them well.
I agree with this sentiment, but the fact it has come to that is THE PROBLEM.
Agreed.
Yep. So better them than me but wishing them well.
And agreed.
I'd like to point out that Kyle did target discrimination and "weapons tight" at a seasoned operator level, and he's just a 17 year old kid. It didn't matter because he's been decreed an enemy of the state. The McCloskey's exhibited fair to poor weapons handling and pretty much stayed in weapons hold, with the exact same result, decreed enemies of the state. When our enemies control the narrative, the stage and the operative legal power bases, we can perform flawlessly and still be decreed enemies of the state.
The problem isn't how the laws are written. The problem is how the laws are wielded.
At some point the masses simply get tired of endlessly fighting for their everything. I believe there a LOT of people who just want to know when it's time to start slotting pols.
A Fing Men.
That's where I'm at. Thankfully I'm in an area unlikely to be mobbed.
Won't happen. One of the things they ask before you become a juror is that you swear to apply the law as written. It's a almost perjury thing if you do not.
Well, concerning the actual law as written that could put you in a bind for sure, but maybe a person just might see the facts a bit different.
titsonritz
10-07-20, 22:19
Back in July the governor of Missouri said he would pardon the McCloskeys. At the same time, the Missouri AG said he would seek to have any charges against the McCloskeys dismissed.
He says he will...
Missouri Gov. Michael Parson (R) vowed on Wednesday to pardon Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the white couple who drew national attention over the summer after footage of them pointing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters outside their home went viral, after the pair was indicted on charges related to the incident the day before.
Parson said at a news conference on Wednesday that he "most certainly would" issue a pardon for the couple should they be convicted on counts of exhibiting a weapon and tampering with evidence brought against them over the June incident, according to The Associated Press.
Missouri governor says he'll pardon St. Louis couple who pointed guns at protesters after indictment (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/missouri-governor-says-hell-pardon-st-louis-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-protesters-after-indictment/ar-BB19O5vi?li=BBnbfcL)
Well, concerning the actual law as written that could put you in a bind for sure, but maybe a person just might see the facts a bit different.
I don't think you understand.
At the end of the trial you are presented with 1 to 3 possible options as a juror. None of them is nullification and you've basically have sworn to apply the law according to how it is written.
All the tools that a juror once possessed have also been stripped away. It's not like movies and tv, it's the part where I get excused from jury duty every single time. When I refuse to agree to apply state laws as they are written because it is my right as a juror to disagree with the validity of certain laws that is the LAST thing anyone hears out of my mouth.
The bailiffs can't usher me out of the room fast enough.
I don't think you understand.
At the end of the trial you are presented with 1 to 3 possible options as a juror. None of them is nullification and you've basically have sworn to apply the law according to how it is written.
All the tools that a juror once possessed have also been stripped away. It's not like movies and tv, it's the part where I get excused from jury duty every single time. When I refuse to agree to apply state laws as they are written because it is my right as a juror to disagree with the validity of certain laws that is the LAST thing anyone hears out of my mouth.
The bailiffs can't usher me out of the room fast enough.
I think I understand what you're saying, you're up front and tell them you will sit in judgement of the law. I get excused for even more radical reasons. The last time I told the judge I don't recognize her's or the court's authority to adjudicate based upon my religious beliefs. And you are right to not swear a false oath or swear falsely to do something you have no intention of doing. It's been so long that I've actually sat on a jury that I guess I'm behind the times on how restrictive the courts are now.
I think I understand what you're saying, you're up front and tell them you will sit in judgement of the law. I get excused for even more radical reasons. The last time I told the judge I don't recognize her's or the court's authority to adjudicate based upon my religious beliefs. And you are right to not swear a false oath or swear falsely to do something you have no intention of doing. It's been so long that I've actually sat on a jury that I guess I'm behind the times on how restrictive the courts are now.
It's a little worse than that.
During selection that ask you to swear to apply the law as it is written. I always refuse because once I swear to do so, I am forced to choose from very limited options and "I don't think he's guilty" isn't always there and if I don't choose from the selection of choices, I might find myself in legal trouble.
Last one I saw, because the evidence showed the action of a store owner going outside to return fire on the guy who just robbed him and fired several shots at him, the jury was not allowed the option of "Not guilty because he didn't start it."
And because he actually hit the robber, the choices were.
Attempted Murder, attempted manslaughter and something else. This was before Florida applied Castle Doctrine outdoors in all areas. So a 7-11 owner ended up fined and doing time because a scumbag tried to rob him and he had the audacity to fire back and wasn't savvy enough to discontinue the fight outside the door even though the parking lot was technically still on his property.
It was disgusting and the first time I realized things are rigged.
It's a little worse than that.
During selection that ask you to swear to apply the law as it is written. I always refuse because once I swear to do so, I am forced to choose from very limited options and "I don't think he's guilty" isn't always there and if I don't choose from the selection of choices, I might find myself in legal trouble.
Last one I saw, because the evidence showed the action of a store owner going outside to return fire on the guy who just robbed him and fired several shots at him, the jury was not allowed the option of "Not guilty because he didn't start it."
And because he actually hit the robber, the choices were.
Attempted Murder, attempted manslaughter and something else. This was before Florida applied Castle Doctrine outdoors in all areas. So a 7-11 owner ended up fined and doing time because a scumbag tried to rob him and he had the audacity to fire back and wasn't savvy enough to discontinue the fight outside the door even though the parking lot was technically still on his property.
It was disgusting and the first time I realized things are rigged.
Not really. You always have the option, always, to vote NOT GUILTY.
There is no need to qualify it with "Because he started it etc...." Just vote not guilty and hang the jury or argue for a straight acquittal.
The_War_Wagon
10-08-20, 07:03
Thankfully I'm in an area unlikely to be mobbed.
What are you doing Nov.4? I think I'm gonna need a hand. :eek:
Not really. You always have the option, always, to vote NOT GUILTY.
There is no need to qualify it with "Because he started it etc...." Just vote not guilty and hang the jury or argue for a straight acquittal.
I think the issue is because you have sworn to only adjudicate the laws they give you, backing you into their corner, a not guilty in relation to those specific laws would not be possible without breaking your oath.
You all are over thinking this.
The jury can always vote how they feel. The lawyers are not entitled to know why you vote a certain way.
Jury nullification is always a risk in any trial. When you go to trial it is always a roll of the dice. No matter what! If your lawyer tells you different, they haven’t tried enough cases.
The real problem in this instance, is that it has gotten to this point. They should have never been charged.
Not really. You always have the option, always, to vote NOT GUILTY.
There is no need to qualify it with "Because he started it etc...." Just vote not guilty and hang the jury or argue for a straight acquittal.
This is my stance. I try to educate everyone I can on the fact that we have a legal system, NOT a "justice" system. Actual justice is a byproduct of the legal system that doesn't always occur. So you have to know how to play the game if you want a positive outcome. The United States Constitution is the law of the land and if a legislatively derived law is in conflict with it, I will always revert to the superior law. So if they require me to swear to apply the laws as written, I'll affirm that Oath truthfully. That doesn't mean they and I agree on what that means in practice. If they very specifically require me to swear to apply the laws as interpreted by the court? Then I can't swear to that because courts routinely misinterpret laws, otherwise court verdicts would never be overturned on appeals. They get overturned all the time.
In the debate over jury nullification, words and precision are the key component. According to the SCOTUS, juries don't have a right to jury nullification, but they do have the power (Georgia v. Brailsford 1794). That's an important distinction and here's why. If I swear to apply the laws as written, knowing full well I disagree with the law in question and intend to vote not guilty before hearing evidence, then I'm guilty of juror misconduct and liable to be expelled as a juror by the court. However, if I swear to apply the laws as written with the intent of hearing the facts of both the case and law, and I find that the law is unconstitutional, unjust or misapplied so as to prejudice the jury against the defendant in an unjust manner, then I can and will vote Not Guilty in accordance with ALL applicable laws.
It's important to note that I wouldn't be relying solely on my personal feelings or "conscience" about a law as the basis of my decision. Jurors don't have that right. Feelings or conscience may coincide with the proper application of all applicable laws, but they can't be the basis for an abject disregard for them (U.S. v. Thomas 1997). You may however consider whether a specific application of a law would constitute a grave injustice that would incite moral or ethical outrage in a reasonable person (U.S. v. Anderson 1973). That's different than your feelings being hurt by a specific law.
Sparf v. U.S. 1895 is frequently cited by jury nullification advocates, but I find that to be a flawed basis. The reason being that the law in question is murder. Sparf revolves more properly around jury instructions regarding trial of multiple defendants together vs. separately. No sane person is going to nullify laws against murder. A better argument would be the role jury nullification played in repealing the 18th Amendment. In some locales the nullification verdicts were above 50% on liquor laws. The same goes for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
Even armed with all this information, you might be struck from a jury and/or a mistrial declared if you present a poor case for the basis of your vote during deliberations. You can't just say "I've decided this case warrants jury nullification and that's that". If the rest of the jury disagrees with you or a deadlock results in a jury poll, your efforts may be voided.
Tl;DR: Don't offer information you're not specifically asked for in court. Don't lie, but don't elaborate either. You do have the power to nullify an unjust prosecution, but doing it successfully isn't always as easy as just saying "Not Guilty".
I think the issue is because you have sworn to only adjudicate the laws they give you, backing you into their corner, a not guilty in relation to those specific laws would not be possible without breaking your oath.
Not necessarily true as described in my post above. In the specific case of the McCloskeys, you might find the circumstances of the case to be a technical violation of the laws as alleged by the prosecution, but the circumstances themselves constitute an exigency on the part of the defendants and in light of that, the prosecution is in fact a grave injustice that offends the morals, ethics or sensibilities of the community at large. I consider the McCloskey case to be a perfect example where jury nullification could be exercised on behalf of the defendants, but not with the intent of voiding the law itself under all circumstances.
I'd say the same applies to the drunk guy arming himself inside his own home, due to an aggressive mob outside his home targeting him for his political beliefs.
Not necessarily true as described in my post above. In the specific case of the McCloskeys, you might find the circumstances of the case to be a technical violation of the laws as alleged by the prosecution, but the circumstances themselves constitute an exigency on the part of the defendants and in light of that, the prosecution is in fact a grave injustice that offends the morals, ethics or sensibilities of the community at large. I consider the McCloskey case to be a perfect example where jury nullification could be exercised on behalf of the defendants, but not with the intent of voiding the law itself under all circumstances.
I'd say the same applies to the drunk guy arming himself inside his own home, due to an aggressive mob outside his home targeting him for his political beliefs.
That's why I mentioned in a previous post that the facts of the case can be use to effect a better outcome in accordance with higher law.
I think the issue is because you have sworn to only adjudicate the laws they give you, backing you into their corner, a not guilty in relation to those specific laws would not be possible without breaking your oath.
So what?
Literally BFD.
If you need to think about it this way, do so--- We supposedly have a "social contract" with THE GOVERNMENT, right? That's the basis for our entire society. They are supposed to keep us safe, look out for our best interests, provide a reasonable means to arbitrate disputes etc....In exchange we agree to a few things- We will pay to fund such things, we will follow reasonable rules that bring about the agreed "goods" they are providing and we will give up some of our SOVEREIGN authority to Smoke Check people who are pissing us off by attempting to hurt us, steal from us...That was our right in a State of Nature.
Has Uncle Sugar lived up to "his oath", his "part of the contract"?
No? My Oath is binding when I give it to PEOPLE WHO RESPECT IT- who HONOR THEIR OATHS TO ME.
Then clearly, you are no longer bound by your agreements to honor his requests/demands. Contracts are like that- if one side breaches, the other side has remedies. USE YOUR REMEDIES. Nullification, if practiced often enough and righteously by enough people would probably prevent us from having to Escalate to other remedies- like smoke checking Mofos.....
You're also supposed to not pre determine the outcome of cases either, that's a fundamental part of our Legal System.....How can you KNOW if you will violate your oath without hearing the facts of the case? (Or, at least the facts they allow you do know!).....You don't. The sumbitch may indeed NEED to go to jail.....or not....You don't KNOW until you the last piece of evidence is in, the last argument made.
So what?
Literally BFD.
If you need to think about it this way, do so--- We supposedly have a "social contract" with THE GOVERNMENT, right? That's the basis for our entire society. They are supposed to keep us safe, look out for our best interests, provide a reasonable means to arbitrate disputes etc....In exchange we agree to a few things- We will pay to fund such things, we will follow reasonable rules that bring about the agreed "goods" they are providing and we will give up some of our SOVEREIGN authority to Smoke Check people who are pissing us off by attempting to hurt us, steal from us...That was our right in a State of Nature.
Has Uncle Sugar lived up to "his oath", his "part of the contract"?
No? My Oath is binding when I give it to PEOPLE WHO RESPECT IT- who HONOR THEIR OATHS TO ME.
Then clearly, you are no longer bound by your agreements to honor his requests/demands. Contracts are like that- if one side breaches, the other side has remedies. USE YOUR REMEDIES. Nullification, if practiced often enough and righteously by enough people would probably prevent us from having to Escalate to other remedies- like smoke checking Mofos.....
You're also supposed to not pre determine the outcome of cases either, that's a fundamental part of our Legal System.....How can you KNOW if you will violate your oath without hearing the facts of the case? (Or, at least the facts they allow you do know!).....You don't. The sumbitch may indeed NEED to go to jail.....or not....You don't KNOW until you the last piece of evidence is in, the last argument made.
I speak only for self here. I take oaths very seriously since God almighty is the witness to it. It must be a valid oath and I must swear it with a clean conscience. It doesn't matter that Uncle Sugar has violated its oath. I'm held accountable for what I do not them.
I speak only for self here. I take oaths very seriously since God almighty is the witness to it. It must be a valid oath and I must swear it with a clean conscience. It doesn't matter that Uncle Sugar has violated its oath. I'm held accountable for what I do not them.
Communist Allynskiites appreciate that you follow your rules, they count on it to win.
I speak only for self here. I take oaths very seriously since God almighty is the witness to it. It must be a valid oath and I must swear it with a clean conscience. It doesn't matter that Uncle Sugar has violated its oath. I'm held accountable for what I do not them.
You don't have to swear. You can "affirm" if you so choose. Again, the devil's in the details! :)
Communist Allynskiites appreciate that you follow your rules, they count on it to win.
The commies may count on a lot bad principles to win, doesn't mean they will. I don't believe that the ends justifies the means is a Christian value. Just think if those foolish early Christians had just renounced the faith they could have saved their skins...what dummies. A man must lose his life to ultimately find his life.
The commies may count on a lot bad principles to win, doesn't mean they will. I don't believe that the ends justifies the means is a Christian value. Just think if those foolish early Christians had just renounced the faith they could have saved their skins...what dummies. A man must lose his life to ultimately find his life.
Heaven is either completely empty or full of forgiven sinners.
Evel Baldgui
10-08-20, 20:33
This "indictment" affirms what I told my children when they said "its not fair". My response to the little tykes was NOTHING IS FAIR, THERE IS NO JUSTICE, DEAL WITH IT
You don't have to swear. You can "affirm" if you so choose. Again, the devil's in the details! :)
I'm seeing your point about the details. The way in which they word it is sounding pretty critical. I'll study the difference between swear and affirm concerning oaths.
Heaven is either completely empty or full of forgiven sinners.
Oh I'm the sinner for sure, I just don't want to be the presumptuous and willful sinner that perjured himself.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.