A whole new story to the man who civilly disobeyed to protest a land auction

[woolfe9999]

I wouldn't say that. There is a case to be made that he shouldn't be prosecuted because 29 other auction winners never paid either. (The selective prosecution argument he wasn't allowed to present at trial.)

It might be a valid defense. I'm not familiar enough with the applicable laws. Bear in mind that it's only a crime to write a bad check if you know the check is bad when you write it. I'm guessing this law is similar. Maybe it's only a crime if you knew for a fact you couldn't pay when you bid.

- wolf

 

[lotus503]

There is no rule in this forum that I have to watch a biased video, from a biased site, posted by a biased OP to comment on a legal case I can reference easily from Google search. The guy is a convicted criminal that got off easy.
Wouldn't it be cool if we all could commit crimes and then have a staff of liberal assholes find a reason for us to justify the crime years after it occurred? Especially if it was the classic Bu...Bu....Bu....But BUSH excuse.

Its called perspective, I sometimes watch fox and pull up drudge to get perscpetive, doesnt mean I agree with how they portray their brand of propoganda, but when you limit where you get information your information is limited.

Some people are happy to languish in their bias I guess.

 

[LunarRay]

If you're saying that he had legitimate defenses under the law and was denied those defenses, then fair enough. I haven't reviewed the case or the applicable law closely enough to say whether I agree or disagree. I just wanted to be clear that you weren't arguing that he shouldn't be prosecuted just because he's a good guy.

We do have an adversarial system. The DoJ will seek to bar any defense that might produce a jury instruction that therefore must be addressed with evidence to the contrary by the DoJ.

There are quite a few affirmative defenses one can provide evidence for. And, as I see it, that do not seek to negate an element of the alleged crime, like 'Presumption of Innocence'... But, the devil Republicans made me do it is not one of those...

BUT anyhow, it is not the DoJ who'd rule on the admissibility of an affirmative defense... it is the unbiased, non adversarial Judge.

IF DoJ does not bring a case against a person when a reasonable prosecutor would then we have the Unbiased DoJ 'in house' Oversight folks and the Congressional Oversight committees who look into that. Or they may not depending on who their buddies might be or how corrupt they too may be.... ()

IF DoJ brings a case against a person because they violated a law and do so as punishment cuz, let's say, they are of another political party and choose not to bring cases against folks doing the same thing but belong to their political party one might argue the same thing.

Remembering a crime has been committed in both cases... is kind of important.

While I agree that our liberty is secured in part by virtue of our justice system I don't find an attack on our liberty occurs when our justice system enables the conviction of a truly innocent person. It is the best we have but it is dependent on at least one side playing fairly... the prosecution has that burden.

EDIT.... Somehow my last statement did not appear....

I don't think it is a defense to suggest because something is morally wrong that some tangential criminal act is ok... (sounds like a move toward jury nullification to me) Some think there exists a right to life so it should be ok to terminate abortion doctors.... That is an extreme but seems on point... like Broccoli.

 

[nonlnear]

I don't think it is a defense to suggest because something is morally wrong that some tangential criminal act is ok... (sounds like a move toward jury nullification to me)

Is that a bad thing?

 

[woolfe9999]

Is that a bad thing?

yes

 

[nonlnear]

yes

It is a bad thing when juries decide that the law's prescribed consequences are unjust?
Does the law (as capriciously enforced) carry some presumption of morality that I missed the memo on?

 

[woolfe9999]

It is a bad thing when juries decide that the law's prescribed consequences are unjust?
Does the law (as capriciously enforced) carry some presumption of morality that I missed the memo on?

No, the law carries a presumption that it's the law. If jury nullification is desirable in circumstances where YOU think the outcome is unjust, then where does that stop? What happens the next time when they nullify because they're a bunch of bigots and they think it's cool that the defendant killed a person of color? Oh that's right, they used to do that all the time...

 

[TerryMathews]

Yet many of you never complained when Bush did it, but now that Obama's president, well you know. :sneaky:

The difference is that Obama campaigned as being different "A Change You Can Believe In."

Reality is that his slogan should've been "This Machine Does Not Give Change."

 

[Moonbeam]

The difference is that Obama campaigned as being different "A Change You Can Believe In."

Reality is that his slogan should've been "This Machine Does Not Give Change."

This is absurd. Obama has already brought enormous change. The only questions are about quality and quantity.

 

[nonlnear]

No, the law carries a presumption that it's the law.

Yes, and the law enshrines the absolute freedom of a jury to deliver a not guilty verdict for any reason whatsoever - including jury nullification. One of the reasons double jeopardy is explicitly proscribed is to protect the right of juries to nullify the law.

If jury nullification is desirable in circumstances where YOU think the outcome is unjust, then where does that stop?

There is no such thing as a runaway jury. (Not talking about grand juries here.) A not guilty verdict is a decision not to act. Inaction ends at just that.

What happens the next time when they nullify because they're a bunch of bigots and they think it's cool that the defendant killed a person of color? Oh that's right, they used to do that all the time...

It didn't end because jury nullification became illegal, but because society actually changed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate of rampant nullification. I think that if there is a lot of nullification going on then that is indicative of serious structural issues with a society. That being the case, I think it is absolutely imperative that juries consider not only the law but what is truly just. When the law is unjust it must be disregarded. The claim that there is some kind of slippery slope inherent in that is patently false. A jury verdict does not create a legal precedent (in the sense that it informs future legal proceedings). No legal action is more perfectly limited in scope or impact.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, the law carries a presumption that it's the law. If jury nullification is desirable in circumstances where YOU think the outcome is unjust, then where does that stop? What happens the next time when they nullify because they're a bunch of bigots and they think it's cool that the defendant killed a person of color? Oh that's right, they used to do that all the time...

I don't know anything about this case or law in general. I always rely on feeling.

My question to you is how are you ever going to get justice from bigots? Bigots are going to abuse anything. If you try to stamp out bigots in the jury the bigot will be the judge, or the legislature making the law, or the cop who just shoots you in self defense. So what group of bigots do you fear, the bigots on the jury or bigots in charge of the law. I think its a matter, perhaps of bigotry. I kind of worry about when the government is corrupt so jury nullification is very important to me. If I were more worried about mad jury folk I would lean the other way more than I do.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think it is a defense to suggest because something is morally wrong that some tangential criminal act is ok... (sounds like a move toward jury nullification to me) Some think there exists a right to life so it should be ok to terminate abortion doctors.... That is an extreme but seems on point... like Broccoli.

But in your case here it seems to me that if something is morally wrong then some tangential act against that would not be criminal in the moral sense and should therefore not be illegal regardless of what the law is. For example, killing abortion doctors would be a moral choice some could make if abortion were actually murder of children just as you would probably shoot somebody trying to kill your child if you could. The problem is that from ancient times the fetus was never considered a person and making it a person for some theoretical reason today introduces introduces complexities and paradoxes into the law that make life impractical. You can't turn a woman into a slave or cause her to carry a rapist's child to term because you live in your imagination. The results for society are far worse than abortion is. The Jews figured this out thousands of years ago.

But what we have here under discussion is where the law giver and enforcer is itself corrupt. It is morally wrong for the Government to violate its own law and imperative that the citizens expose it by breaking law if required. The worst thing that can happen to a people if for their government to be above the laws they pretend to enforce on everybody else. Seems to me to be grounds for revolution.

The only way to judge who or what action is moral is to be moral yourself, I think.

And how do you know if you are moral?

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, and the law enshrines the absolute freedom of a jury to deliver a not guilty verdict for any reason whatsoever - including jury nullification. One of the reasons double jeopardy is explicitly proscribed is to protect the right of juries to nullify the law.

There is no such thing as a runaway jury. (Not talking about grand juries here.) A not guilty verdict is a decision not to act. Inaction ends at just that.

It didn't end because jury nullification became illegal, but because society actually changed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate of rampant nullification. I think that if there is a lot of nullification going on then that is indicative of serious structural issues with a society. That being the case, I think it is absolutely imperative that juries consider not only the law but what is truly just. When the law is unjust it must be disregarded. The claim that there is some kind of slippery slope inherent in that is patently false. A jury verdict does not create a legal precedent (in the sense that it informs future legal proceedings). No legal action is more perfectly limited in scope or impact.

It can create a slippery slope if it is publicized in high profile cases, and when it is advocated by people in the media or online. Jury nullification is a fact of the system. It doesn't need encouragement, and the act of encouragement invalidates the argument that there isn't a slippery slope. I'll just leave it at that.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't know anything about this case or law in general. I always rely on feeling.

My question to you is how are you ever going to get justice from bigots? Bigots are going to abuse anything. If you try to stamp out bigots in the jury the bigot will be the judge, or the legislature making the law, or the cop who just shoots you in self defense. So what group of bigots do you fear, the bigots on the jury or bigots in charge of the law. I think its a matter, perhaps of bigotry. I kind of worry about when the government is corrupt so jury nullification is very important to me. If I were more worried about mad jury folk I would lean the other way more than I do.

Bigotry is a problem whether it is with the cops, DA, judge or jury. However, of all of them, the jurors are more likely to be swayed by it because they aren't professionals and there are no consequences to discharging their responsibility in a blatantly biased way. Judges who, for example, consistently hand out harsher sentences to black people - their records can be examined and they can be sanctioned or thrown off the bench. That is a deterrent. There is no deterrent to jury nullification based on racial bias. The system isn't perfect in weeding out the bad apples, nor even close, but don't count on jurors to be the grown ups in the room because they are the ones least accountable for their actions.

 

[LunarRay]

Is that a bad thing?

Depends on which of us is in jeopardy.()

 

[LunarRay]

It is a bad thing when juries decide that the law's prescribed consequences are unjust?
Does the law (as capriciously enforced) carry some presumption of morality that I missed the memo on?

Are you suggesting that it is right for a jury to violate its sworn oath?

I believe the roll of the jury is to follow the order of the judge given in the instructions... IF determining the morality of a law is not among those instructions then it is not their job to determine those issues.

 

[LunarRay]

But in your case here it seems to me that if something is morally wrong then some tangential act against that would not be criminal in the moral sense and should therefore not be illegal regardless of what the law is. For example, killing abortion doctors would be a moral choice some could make if abortion were actually murder of children just as you would probably shoot somebody trying to kill your child if you could. The problem is that from ancient times the fetus was never considered a person and making it a person for some theoretical reason today introduces introduces complexities and paradoxes into the law that make life impractical. You can't turn a woman into a slave or cause her to carry a rapist's child to term because you live in your imagination. The results for society are far worse than abortion is. The Jews figured this out thousands of years ago.

But what we have here under discussion is where the law giver and enforcer is itself corrupt. It is morally wrong for the Government to violate its own law and imperative that the citizens expose it by breaking law if required. The worst thing that can happen to a people if for their government to be above the laws they pretend to enforce on everybody else. Seems to me to be grounds for revolution.

The only way to judge who or what action is moral is to be moral yourself, I think.

And how do you know if you are moral?

Last bit first... I know I'm moral because I know what is good and what is bad as defined by our grand majority and act accordingly . I'm not Amoral nor do I find that condition a justification to be immoral.

I will also prosecute your clown butt right along with anyone one else who'd violate a law and thereby live up to my oath of office... IF given the chance, that is.
:sneaky:


As I see it, the laws were created by our society and our society is moral or most are so then the laws are but even if they weren't I won't substitute my view on an issue for what is in law that I may not consider fully cognizant of the motivators in all cases.
We can change a law but we can't really change the process of justice and have a better system.

Generally speaking, one is never forced to commit a crime. However, one may produce the same result but have the affirmative defense of, in your case, clownism disorder which if the jury finds is fact allows them to acquit. Otherwise, to the pokey with you.

 

[nonlnear]

Are you suggesting that it is right for a jury to violate its sworn oath?

And the authority for said oath is?...

I believe the roll of the jury is to follow the order of the judge given in the instructions... IF determining the morality of a law is not among those instructions then it is not their job to determine those issues.

Judges lie to juries all the time. As much as many want to ignore it, judges are not truly impartial. They are agents of the state, and also carry with them the many implicit prejudices of the profession of law.

 

[soulcougher73]

I support DeChristopher's goals and I think his actions were admirable, but I still think if he broke the law he has to be punished. What do you think should happen here legally?

That is reasonable. But how come you dont mention anyone on the other side of the issue being punished for breaking laws?

 

[Craig234]

Did anyone watch the two clips?

They were about civil disobedience, partly, in a good discussion of the topic, if they contain the parts I expected they did.

I didn't see any comments that suggested what they discussed.

 

[cybrsage]

Are the "Koch Bros" the new DNC bogeyman?

 

[nonlnear]

Did anyone watch the two clips?

They were about civil disobedience, partly, in a good discussion of the topic, if they contain the parts I expected they did.

I didn't see any comments that suggested what they discussed.

I know we don't always agree on things, but I didn't think you had me on ignore.

On the contrary, in order to engender popular docility, doing the right thing is the only thing that must be punished.

... if people are allowed to stand up for justice with impunity when the governmnet breaks its own rules to enrich its cronies, then there is no room for mercy. You can't let that dam crack. This is why you will not see any DoiJ action in this case no matter who is President.

How is this not the issue being discussed? Just to make it clear for those posters who didn't gather it, that was speaking from the authoritarian perspective, not mine.

And yes, I watched them.

 

[monovillage]

And I even voluntarily withdrew from the thread after 3 posts so I wouldn't be a distraction and there was cool stuff being discussed.
The jerk wasn't even monitoring his own thread.

 

[nonlnear]

And I even voluntarily withdrew from the thread after 3 posts so I wouldn't be a distraction and there was cool stuff being discussed.
The jerk wasn't even monitoring his own thread.

I think it was polite of you to be so considerate, but I don't think that jury nullification is off topic here. It is one aspect of the fundamental issue, which is how people should act when the law is wrong. Jury nullification is one act of civil disobedience which is protected by absolute legal immunity. This is why it is so terrifying to authoritarians when people realize the true nature of their protected freedom as jurors, and why they work so hard to brainwash citizens into believing that it is somehow wrong to act in moral accordance with that unlimited freedom.

 

[cybrsage]

It is a bad thing when juries decide that the law's prescribed consequences are unjust?
Does the law (as capriciously enforced) carry some presumption of morality that I missed the memo on?

I wish more people knew about jury nullification. For example, a man was convicted in federal court for growing pot when it was legal to do so in his area by his state's laws. He violated federal law. His defense was that he thought it was legal to do because his state said it was legal to do.

The jury felt it was wrong to convict him, but did because he was guilty of violating the federal law. Had they known about jury nullification, they would never have convicted him.