|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Even the Wikipedia page for that guy is pretty good: Hahaha he couldn't make it halfway through the first sentence without dropping Sov City bullshit
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
cumshitter posted:The comments on that video are great. Ma, the founding fathers did it the hard way with fighting a war, writing a declaration and then arguing for years on a constitution to lay down the law of the land....all this time you just needed a post office..... gently caress sake, these people still make me want to have a shoot on sight order initiated. And have "joinder" stamped into the tip of every bullet quote:Some reports published after the 2011 Tucson shooting included references to purported similarities between the writing of convicted gunman Jared Lee Loughner and Miller's writing method.[36] Miller has stated that although he did not know Loughner, he agreed with Loughner's video postings on government mind control and grammar,[37] but was appalled by Loughner's actions.[3] Miller has stated that the idea that his work could have inspired the mass shooting was "ridiculous",[38] and "I expect he’s been on my website... He’s just repeating things I’ve had up on my site the past 11 years."[39] Uhm, buddy, you do know how inspiration works, right? SocketWrench has issued a correction as of 02:50 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Hahaha he couldn't make it halfway through the first sentence without dropping Sov City bullshit This makes me want to rework the lyrics of "Suffragette City" to "Sovereign City." But 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQiI5k8FS7A
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Even the Wikipedia page for that guy is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/:David-Wynn:_Miller also works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Highlights include accusing Loretta Lynch of killing 3 nurses , charging the DoJ 90 million dollars to remove a bullet and wanting to choose the forensic lab the bullet goes too. The $90 million is some kind of insurance policy for each person in the "chain of custody" of his embedded bullet. 90 for each person, deposited by the government in an account somewhere, and the government "loses" 90 per person whose liberty is "altered". who gets the 90 million? it is a mystery, ryan::c)//bundyyy does not specify. also the deposit must be kept for 10 years also he gets 6.3 mil as "compensation" for the procedure to remove it. his wife gets 1 mil for same, for "damage to her property". sorry bud but i think that ship sailed a while ago...
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:This makes me want to rework the lyrics of "Suffragette City" to "Sovereign City." But Hey g-man, oh leave me alone you know Hey g-man, oh LaVoy, get off the phone, Hey g-man, I gotta straighten my face This all-wheel-drive Ford just put my spine out of place Hey g-man, my homeschool's insane Hey g-man, my poo poo's been flowing up the drain Hey g-man, our demands start with blam-blam Standing up for FREEDOMS Oh don't levy me man, 'cause you can't afford to joinder I'm back in Sovereign City Oh don't lean on my tarp 'Cause you ain't no US soldier You know my Sovereign City Is Commitus Posse, positively blow you away.a
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
wham bam uncle sam!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Highlights include accusing Loretta Lynch of killing 3 nurses , charging the DoJ 90 million dollars to remove a bullet and wanting to choose the forensic lab the bullet goes too. Why exactly did Lynch want three random nurses dead, again?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
Michelle Fiore is almost as bad at reading a teleprompter as Trump. https://www.facebook.com/838269469635584/videos/907339456061918/  quote:I call the bullshit on the veterans not standing with you. Me and a few others were heading up there on the weekend before the camp got dispersed. We are here, but will only sacrifice our jobs and families support when we know there is a chance, not just a glimmer of hope...
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
We stood with you! Well, not with you with you. More...near you. I mean, we have jobs. And you didn't really have any chance. But we were totally, like, with you in spirit. Powder dry and all that. Now if you'll excuse us, we need to go keep that paycheck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Fiore was my dark horse candidate for Trump's VP slot. I still think it would've been a match made in heaven. I don't know much about jury nullification, but what little I do know leads me to believe that her going on about it with a bullhorn is going to get her beaten to death in an alley with gavels by a bunch of guys in robes and powdered wigs
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
The simple version is that a jury has an implicit right to find the defendant not guilty no matter how obviously guilty they are as a way to protest unjust laws.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
I though Jury Nullification was just one of those magic phrases to get you out of jury duty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Jury Nullification is when the American flag has a gold fringe and is therefore a naval court and a jury has no business court martialing you
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Jury Nullification is when the American flag has a gold fringe and is therefore a naval court and a jury has no business court martialing you So that means the judge can just elect to have them all shot for being traitors then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
What if I invoke my authority as a constitutional sheriff to declare that the Federal legal system is legal and has jurisdiction over all sovcits?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Have any of the Bundys tried to identify as a boat yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
EorayMel posted:Have any of the Bundys tried to identify as a boat yet? Squishface Bundy wanted to tie ropes out of his torn up bedsheets. He said it was because he was a rancher but I think that was a cover story. He wanted to practice his sailor knots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:The simple version is that a jury has an implicit right to find the defendant not guilty no matter how obviously guilty they are as a way to protest unjust laws. I don't have the time to do a full write-up, but it's an unavoidable bug in the jury system, not, by any means, a right of any sort. If laws are unjust, we have elections and legislatures and judges to address that. We don't want random groups of 12 people selectively ignore laws because the defendant is charismatic. The historic "use" of nullification was to let people from lynch mobs not get convicted of murder. Basically, Epic High Five posted:her going on about it with a bullhorn is going to get her beaten to death in an alley with gavels by a bunch of guys in robes and powdered wigs Intentionally mentioning, advocating, or referencing jury nullification during court proceedings, as a lawyer, can get you immediately disciplined, up to losing your license. The judge usually has to toss out the jury and get a new one, then start that stage of the case over again. Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 18:03 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:What if I invoke my authority as a constitutional sheriff to declare that the Federal legal system is legal and has jurisdiction over all sovcits? Then I as a constitutional double sheriff declare that the federal government is extra super double illegal no take backs. Nyah. My authority is everything proof because I said so. I've read the constitution more times than you and also eat one for breakfast every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Jury nullification's primary historical use, as has been pointed out, was in the Jim Crow south to allow white people to abuse and kill black people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Jury nullification's primary historical use, as has been pointed out, was in the Jim Crow south to allow white people to abuse and kill black people. It was also used to keep people from going to jail for the rest of their lives for helping black people escape slavery. Jury Nullification is actually cool and good and completely necessary to prevent actual tyranny and oppression
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Jury Nullification is actually cool and good and completely necessary to prevent actual tyranny and oppression [citation needed] 12 random people in a jury are not, nor were they ever, supposed to be able to nullify laws in particular cases. We have an actual system of government for that. It doesn't matter how much you like a particular outcome, there will be another that's atrocious. It doesn't matter how much you hate a particular law, there will be another (like, say, sexual assault, where jury nullification is also an issue) that probably ought to be applied independent of how symmetrical the defendant's face is. It's a procedural limitation of jury systems that in no way benefits society or the system of laws. There's a reason going for it in court gets you disbarred. Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 18:56 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:Why exactly did Lynch want three random nurses dead, again? Because they saw the X-ray of the bullet in Man:bundy, entity of flesh and knew it was one of Obama's white patriot seeking bullets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Jury Nullification is actually cool and good and completely necessary to prevent actual tyranny and oppression Only if you're an idiot. All trials involve questions of law and questions of fact. A question of law is something like "does unwelcome contact constitute a battery?" A question of fact is something like "did the defendant physically make unwelcome contact with the victim?" When there is no jury, the judge answers both questions. When there is a jury, they answers questions of fact while the judge answers questions of law. You don't need any sort of special training to answer a fact question. Jury nullification is premises on a third type of question, namely "should this specific person be found guilty?" That's a problem because we want justice to be both blind and consistent. Its a broad question and the answer could change based on an individual's thoughts on the defendant, the existence (rather than the application) of the law, dislike of law enforcement, etc. Those thoughts cannot be anticipated or quantified. If jury nullification is a thing, then the result is arbitrary to the person and provides no guidance to a person considering a similar offense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
PST posted:Michelle Fiore is almost as bad at reading a teleprompter as Trump. Seriously, how does this woman get elected? By this point, she really should be facing charges.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:Seriously, how does this woman get elected? By this point, she really should be facing charges. Same way Michelle Bachmann and every other nutcase gets elected: their districts are full of people just like them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
If a jury pool is asked "do you know of any reason we should dismiss you" or however they phrase it, are you supposed to say "well I've heard the definition of jury nullification and am aware that if I pretend to be dumb as poo poo you don't have mindreading technology to tell me that I'm only pretending to be dumb as poo poo and I can get away with it" I mean nullifying a marijuana possession charge could be the most morally justified thing to do but I'm not seeing how I get from here to there without perjuring myself eight times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Walk in with "Jury nullification for dummies" discreetly tucked under your arm. e: Couldn't help looking, there are actually books for this https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=jury+nullification&sprefix=jury+null%2Caps%2C141
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Gounads posted:Walk in with "Jury nullification for dummies" discreetly tucked under your arm. The nature of those books should tell you a bit about the validity of the "doctrine".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:If a jury pool is asked "do you know of any reason we should dismiss you" or however they phrase it, are you supposed to say "well I've heard the definition of jury nullification and am aware that if I pretend to be dumb as poo poo you don't have mindreading technology to tell me that I'm only pretending to be dumb as poo poo and I can get away with it" I could see myself doing this, my town also had a minor scandal when a juror refused to convict a 17 year old for like possession of a tiny amount of weed with a mandatory minimum of a year. Is it the same as an acquittal if one juror votes not guilty? Or does the state just retry the case with a new jury, so you're really just wasting the time & money of the E: Yes, they just retry with a new jury. red19fire has issued a correction as of 21:13 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I could see myself doing this, my town also had a minor scandal when a juror refused to convict a 17 year old for like possession of a tiny amount of weed with a mandatory minimum of a year. Is it the same as an acquittal if one juror votes not guilty? Or does the state just retry the case with a new jury, so you're really just wasting the time & money of the Hung jury, declare mistrial and do it all over again. Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Intentionally mentioning, advocating, or referencing jury nullification during court proceedings, as a lawyer, can get you immediately disciplined, up to losing your license. The judge usually has to toss out the jury and get a new one, then start that stage of the case over again. So if I'm ever on trial I can just keep saying "jury nullification" and the judge has to keep recycling the jury and restarting the trial every time I say it? I think we found some secret magic law spells that actually work
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:So if I'm ever on trial I can just keep saying "jury nullification" and the judge has to keep recycling the jury and restarting the trial every time I say it? They'd just remove you from the courtroom and not let you say anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:12 random people in a jury are not, nor were they ever, supposed to be able to nullify laws in particular cases. Actually, if this is a federal criminal case, wouldn't a grand jury be needed? With a normal jury, it's either 12 yays or nays out of twelve people to convict or acquit. It's either 100% or not at all. With a grand jury, only 12 people out of 16 to 23 jurors are needed for indictment, so there's a much higher probability of conviction than in a petit jury case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Indictment |= conviction. Indictment just means "yes a crime may have been committed and there should be a trial."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Wtf is |=
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Regular Nintendo posted:Wtf is |= Math code for 'does not equal'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
Regular Nintendo posted:Wtf is |= Like += with Boolean or instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:03
|
|
