I was on a (criminal) jury once. It was one of the most important things I’ve ever done. I will gladly answer jury summons for the rest of my life now. If your job doesn’t support you doing jury duty, I’m willing to bet they really don’t support you at all. They’re not going to give you time off to defend yourself if you’re ever wrongfully accused of a crime.
Same. Serving on a criminal jury was very rewarding and made me feel better about our justice system. I was very happy with how seriously everyone took the "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing.
I got to go to jury duty and it was kinda scary actually. the issue I saw is that not everyone gets paid by their job to go. there were maybe 4 entrepreneurs running their own business. they were losing money. what this meant is that the guy on trial was at the mercy of a group of people playing tug of war between a side that was extending the trial (because they were getting paid to not be at work) and a group of people trying to end the trial (because they were losing money by not being at work)
so after the trial when we were deliberating, it turned into days of one group saying "we think he's innocent, let's get this over with" then the other group would say, "I don't know, let's take a look at more evidence"...
"fine he's guilty, let's go home"
"well but now that I think about it, he couldn't have done it..."
it was a shit show. People cared more about their lost wages /paid time off to even consider that a man's freedom was at play.
Kinda sucks that they put it on employers to make you whole for jury duty tbh. If you run your own business and get called up you just get screwed. $15 a day I think it is. Like that just basically covers lunch near the courthouse.
If everyone got 3 paid days off to do jury duty per year no one would ever try to dodge it the way they do now. People would be pissed they got dismissed on day 1 and/or not called in if they’re on-call
Yeah as far as I know, your employer is required to release you from your work duties to attend jury duty, that’s really the only protection you get, and most don’t even really do that very well
They’re not going to give you time off to defend yourself if you’re ever wrongfully accused of a crime.
A lot of places are like this, even if they pay for jury duty. I used to work at a company that had a clause saying they'd automatically fire you if you were arrested. There was some guidance about how to contest that if you're found not guilty, but it wasn't guaranteed that they'd give the former employee their job back. Note that this was a place that paid for 20 days of paid jury duty a year.
In the article as soon as i read towed 1 block away to not block the exit of an apartment complex I have my answer of not guilty. less then 30 seconds.
If you disclose that you will not follow the law as written because you don’t agree with it, the judge will dismiss you. They ask before you are chosen. If you lie and say you will follow the law when you will not, then you have lied to the judge and have committed perjury. Perjury is a crime.
The judge doesn’t ask the questions. The attorneys ask the questions. The judge weighs in on questions when one of them objects to the other meddling with the procedure, because the judge judges the law, not the facts. So yes. You’re presuming a lot more than the details.
His job was to get out of his tow truck and try to intervene in the arrest ? And then his job was to tow an officers vehicle that had its lights on? And then his job was to record the officers chasing after him?
The facts of the case are plain as day. A dangerous precedent to blatantly ignore the law and vote not guilty because you don’t like a department of government.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
from the Sixth Amendment to the United States constitution.
In our system, a jury's not guilty verdict cannot be overturned. As a result this leaves a) they are guilty so voting guilty b) they are not guilty so voting not guilty or c, a secret third option: c) they are guilty but voting not guilty anyway.
This is available because a jury's verdict of not guilty cannot be overturned and is therefore a functional result of the system our founders selected.
It's use is quite historical: juries in the north used to return not guilty verdicts against people who helped slaves escape, against the Fugitive slave act. There are of course also terrible examples, but this isn't the first use in history and certainly won't be the last.
C is asked before trial begins and results in the judge dismissing you. Perjury is a crime.
It is alarming to note you believe obstructing an arrest, then taking your tow truck to steal an officers vehicle with sirens on, and finally recording the officers chasing after you should be legal. But hey he only stole the vehicle for a short duration LOL
It is alarming to note you believe obstructing an arrest, then taking your tow truck to steal an officers vehicle with sirens on, and finally recording the officers chasing after you should be legal. But hey he only stole the vehicle for a short duration LOL
first of all, strawman argument -- I never said that. I simply said jury nullification is an inherent part of our system.
C is asked before trial begins and results in the judge dismissing you. Perjury is a crime.
they ask you whether or not you believe you can impartially decide the law. It's possible that you believe you can, and then based on the facts that are shown during trial, you decide there's no way that someone should go to prison for said action. A statement you make does not obligate you to believe that for forever. Additionally, again, this is a design feature. There's a reason it's a jury of your peers. Even prior to the revolution, juries would refuse to convict colonists of law violations that were unpopular.
brother where the fuck did I say I believed that? you're continuing to bark up this tree because you can't touch the other point. I told you jury nullification is an inherent part of our system and that was it.
He was clearly guilty though in any objective lens. Disagreeing with the law is a different issue and is something they literally ask jurors before being placed.
What on earth are you talking about? We’re talking about the conclusion the jury has reached. Perjury would be saying you have no connection to the defendant when he’s actually an old classmate. Deciding a law is unjust is not perjury.
It is perjury to not tell the truth to the judge when asked if you’ll follow the law even if it goes against your beliefs (nullification). That was the point I was making.
You can be telling the truth when you speak to the judge and also realize it’s a bunch of bullshit when you’re in the jury room. Jury nullification isn’t a right, but you’re also not going to get arrested for it.
No, he obstructed an arrest and then when that didn’t work he used his tow truck to steal the dhs vehicles WITH SIRENS ON and recorded the officers chasing him down….
His job is to obstruct an arrest, and then run to his tow truck to tow an officers vehicle with its sirens on, and then record the officers chasing after him?
Because they overcharged. Yeah he did the thing but they were asking for insane penalties that the jury didn't go along with. That's the risk. They gambled big and lost.
Don't dodge jury duty!!
I was on a (criminal) jury once. It was one of the most important things I’ve ever done. I will gladly answer jury summons for the rest of my life now. If your job doesn’t support you doing jury duty, I’m willing to bet they really don’t support you at all. They’re not going to give you time off to defend yourself if you’re ever wrongfully accused of a crime.
100%!!
Same. Serving on a criminal jury was very rewarding and made me feel better about our justice system. I was very happy with how seriously everyone took the "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing.
I got to go to jury duty and it was kinda scary actually. the issue I saw is that not everyone gets paid by their job to go. there were maybe 4 entrepreneurs running their own business. they were losing money. what this meant is that the guy on trial was at the mercy of a group of people playing tug of war between a side that was extending the trial (because they were getting paid to not be at work) and a group of people trying to end the trial (because they were losing money by not being at work)
so after the trial when we were deliberating, it turned into days of one group saying "we think he's innocent, let's get this over with" then the other group would say, "I don't know, let's take a look at more evidence"...
"fine he's guilty, let's go home"
"well but now that I think about it, he couldn't have done it..."
it was a shit show. People cared more about their lost wages /paid time off to even consider that a man's freedom was at play.
This made me double check - IKEA pays up to 80 hours for jury duty 👍
Kinda sucks that they put it on employers to make you whole for jury duty tbh. If you run your own business and get called up you just get screwed. $15 a day I think it is. Like that just basically covers lunch near the courthouse.
Used to be $5/day, IIRC
Jeez you'd make more in jail huh
Cars used to cost $900.
It’s jury duty. Duty. I’m sorry but if you run a business you should make it a line item in your ledger to cover this.
"just make more money" lmao come on dude
I thought jobs legally had to pay for like up to 3 days of jury duty? No!?
If everyone got 3 paid days off to do jury duty per year no one would ever try to dodge it the way they do now. People would be pissed they got dismissed on day 1 and/or not called in if they’re on-call
Lol fair enough. Ive only been called once and couldn't go bc was at school out of state.
Yeah as far as I know, your employer is required to release you from your work duties to attend jury duty, that’s really the only protection you get, and most don’t even really do that very well
A lot of places are like this, even if they pay for jury duty. I used to work at a company that had a clause saying they'd automatically fire you if you were arrested. There was some guidance about how to contest that if you're found not guilty, but it wasn't guaranteed that they'd give the former employee their job back. Note that this was a place that paid for 20 days of paid jury duty a year.
4 day trial and 3 hours of jury deliberations.
In the article as soon as i read towed 1 block away to not block the exit of an apartment complex I have my answer of not guilty. less then 30 seconds.
Lol at this and the Mangione trial
He needs to sue ice.
💯
magas are so mad about this lol
“Where the fuck did I say that”. You basically just did. You won’t answer because it’s exactly what you believe
https://i.redd.it/fx6dkdwkbt8g1.gif
Facts don't care about your fascist feelings. 😘
If you disclose that you will not follow the law as written because you don’t agree with it, the judge will dismiss you. They ask before you are chosen. If you lie and say you will follow the law when you will not, then you have lied to the judge and have committed perjury. Perjury is a crime.
You’re presuming a whole lot for someone who wasn’t at the voir dire or in the jury room. That’s what the appellate court is for.
What did a presume ? That the judge asked the standard questions before trial ?
The judge doesn’t ask the questions. The attorneys ask the questions. The judge weighs in on questions when one of them objects to the other meddling with the procedure, because the judge judges the law, not the facts. So yes. You’re presuming a lot more than the details.
The judge absolutely asks questions during voir dire as do the attorneys.
Jury nullification is absolutely one of them.
Dude was doing his job which ICE human traffickers were triggered about. But bootlickers gonna bootlick.
His job was to get out of his tow truck and try to intervene in the arrest ? And then his job was to tow an officers vehicle that had its lights on? And then his job was to record the officers chasing after him?
Facts don't care about bootlicker feelings.
https://i.redd.it/i47swakqet8g1.gif
Jury nullification is not illegal.
(And not even saying that’s exactly what happened here because I, like you, was not in the jury room.)
How do you acquit when the case is as plain as day….
“The jury has unanimously voted not guilty”
There, gift-wrapped middle finger to be delivered directly to DHS.
The facts of the case are plain as day. A dangerous precedent to blatantly ignore the law and vote not guilty because you don’t like a department of government.
Make up your mind because you are holding two diametrically opposed views right now.
No I have one clear point.
jury nullification is an inherent part of our system. if you've got a problem with that, take it up with the founders
What founding writings can I read to refresh myself where they talk about this ??
Sure!
from the Sixth Amendment to the United States constitution.
In our system, a jury's not guilty verdict cannot be overturned. As a result this leaves a) they are guilty so voting guilty b) they are not guilty so voting not guilty or c, a secret third option: c) they are guilty but voting not guilty anyway.
This is available because a jury's verdict of not guilty cannot be overturned and is therefore a functional result of the system our founders selected.
It's use is quite historical: juries in the north used to return not guilty verdicts against people who helped slaves escape, against the Fugitive slave act. There are of course also terrible examples, but this isn't the first use in history and certainly won't be the last.
This person would have thrown the book at those helping slaves escape.
What do you want to say now, u/Engineer2727kk, just silence? Thought so!
C is asked before trial begins and results in the judge dismissing you. Perjury is a crime.
It is alarming to note you believe obstructing an arrest, then taking your tow truck to steal an officers vehicle with sirens on, and finally recording the officers chasing after you should be legal. But hey he only stole the vehicle for a short duration LOL
first of all, strawman argument -- I never said that. I simply said jury nullification is an inherent part of our system.
they ask you whether or not you believe you can impartially decide the law. It's possible that you believe you can, and then based on the facts that are shown during trial, you decide there's no way that someone should go to prison for said action. A statement you make does not obligate you to believe that for forever. Additionally, again, this is a design feature. There's a reason it's a jury of your peers. Even prior to the revolution, juries would refuse to convict colonists of law violations that were unpopular.
It’s not a straw man argument. Based on the facts of the case it is what you believe. Which is… disgusting.
brother where the fuck did I say I believed that? you're continuing to bark up this tree because you can't touch the other point. I told you jury nullification is an inherent part of our system and that was it.
Boy, are you stupid. 🤦🏽♂️
“I only stole your car and moved it a block over that doesn’t count”
Is this the first time this has ever happened?
"Not guilty." That's how.
He was clearly guilty though in any objective lens. Disagreeing with the law is a different issue and is something they literally ask jurors before being placed.
He must not have been clearly guilty since a jury found him not guilty.
Oj must not be guilty then ?
Not in the eyes of the criminal trial.
You’re saying towing a car a block away to allow residents to exit their property is worthy of a 10 year sentence?
Tow truck guy was just doing his job. As some people like to say.
Jury nullification
The judge asks about jury nullification before the jury is selected….
A judge can tell them they need to apply the law but there’s no way to enforce it.
Regardless, it is the answer to your question.
Yes there is. It’s literally a perjury charge if caught.
What on earth are you talking about? We’re talking about the conclusion the jury has reached. Perjury would be saying you have no connection to the defendant when he’s actually an old classmate. Deciding a law is unjust is not perjury.
It is perjury to not tell the truth to the judge when asked if you’ll follow the law even if it goes against your beliefs (nullification). That was the point I was making.
You can be telling the truth when you speak to the judge and also realize it’s a bunch of bullshit when you’re in the jury room. Jury nullification isn’t a right, but you’re also not going to get arrested for it.
Perjury is a crime.
It is not perjury
Bye
Because he is not guilty. Your goal is just to imprison innocent people. That is cruel and evil punishment that you want.
No, he obstructed an arrest and then when that didn’t work he used his tow truck to steal the dhs vehicles WITH SIRENS ON and recorded the officers chasing him down….
What is it called when you want to hurt innocent people? Sadism?
He was doing his job, but C+ bootlicking there.
His job is to obstruct an arrest, and then run to his tow truck to tow an officers vehicle with its sirens on, and then record the officers chasing after him?
Because they overcharged. Yeah he did the thing but they were asking for insane penalties that the jury didn't go along with. That's the risk. They gambled big and lost.
Overcharged ? There is no distinction between stealing a car for a mile or stealing a car for 10 miles. The judge decides the sentencing length.
Sure there is, the same way there's a distinction between manslaughter and murder
His charge was stealing government property. Are you suggesting they should’ve charged him with borrowing government property ?