U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2011, 07:11 PM
 
Location: East Chicago, IN
2,380 posts, read 2,320,819 times
Reputation: 1162

Advertisements

Honestly, who REALLY likes their in-laws?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2011, 07:12 PM
 
19,217 posts, read 11,333,883 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I think that jurors take an oath to go by the law and apply it to the case. Am I wrong?
Yeah, you're wrong!

"First U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, writing in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794, concluded: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy".

Read: http://nowscape.com/fija/_abhope.htm

revolution: nancy lord johnson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2011, 07:13 PM
 
19,217 posts, read 11,333,883 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by tb4000 View Post
Honestly, who REALLY likes their in-laws?
Or, their outlaws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2011, 07:43 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,929 posts, read 24,318,915 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I think the jurors are the only ones that hear all of the evidence, and none of us who are or aren't on it shouldn't make judgements on what they decide.

But if those jurors are like you and don't like to see marijuana not legal who is to say that they won't see the whole thing the way you say you would. You are right but if they are lib activists they may well rule outside what the law calls for, and that is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2011, 10:28 PM
 
19,217 posts, read 11,333,883 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
But if those jurors are like you and don't like to see marijuana not legal who is to say that they won't see the whole thing the way you say you would. You are right but if they are lib activists they may well rule outside what the law calls for, and that is wrong.
How do you think prohibition was repealed?

The stupid azzes couldn't get any convictions, so they had to re-amend the constitution.

It's called jury nullification of bad law.

Conservatives will obey ANY law, which is why I'm working desperately to find a cure for autism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2011, 03:51 AM
 
Location: Texas
19,048 posts, read 7,744,089 times
Reputation: 4181
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
How do you think prohibition was repealed?

The stupid azzes couldn't get any convictions, so they had to re-amend the constitution.

It's called jury nullification of bad law.

Conservatives will obey ANY law, which is why I'm working desperately to find a cure for autism.
btw - I know plenty of conservatives who are for medical marijuana as well as flat out legalizing it.

Jury Nullification In Action: Montana Jury Pool Refuses To Convict For Marijuana Possession

Jury Nullification In Action: Montana Jury Pool Refuses To Convict For Marijuana Possession
"In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul."

"It’s called jury nullification, the idea that jurors have the right to refuse to find a defendant guilty because they believe the underlying law is unjust, or because the conduct of law enforcement in the case was unjust in some manner even if the Court didn’t find that it violated the Defendant’s rights. Its been part of the American jury system from the beginning, and has often been a valuable tool in protecting people from overreaching by the state and law enforcement."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2011, 04:52 AM
 
Location: San Diego
2,311 posts, read 2,304,818 times
Reputation: 880
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
You have to understand that some people think they have a right to play the game according to how they feel and to hell with the law. From reading on this thread it seems to me that most of those who think that way are of the left leaning variety, too.
And who are you judge, jury and executioner?

Maybe you should pay for your (family member) to buy O'Reilly a falafel.

Get off the boob tube.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2011, 05:49 AM
 
5,697 posts, read 4,872,712 times
Reputation: 1934
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
A lot of fuss over a harmless weed....


this was my first drug, that led to many more and alcoholism
for folks to say there is no harm does not know all the facts
last year a woman who was high on pot and alcohol killed 5 kids while driving as well as herself, her husband tried to say she did not have a "problem"
good grief
so glad to be clean and sober today for 12 years~
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2011, 05:59 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
26,446 posts, read 16,727,009 times
Reputation: 6789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
If I was judged by what my inlaws were doing, I'd be a post off robbing, pill popping, ex con loving, living on welfare, not taking care of my kids low life.

Now, I don't think marijuana is a bad thing. If I were on the jury, I wouldn't convict them. But Chris Matthews is pretty far removed from responsibility for his inlaws.


Yeah, but if Levi Johnson got busted...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2011, 06:28 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,890 posts, read 18,602,501 times
Reputation: 8584
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
But if those jurors are like you and don't like to see marijuana not legal who is to say that they won't see the whole thing the way you say you would. You are right but if they are lib activists they may well rule outside what the law calls for, and that is wrong.
Did you see the previous poster who posted a supreme court decision saying that the jurors could rule on the law, as well as the action?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top