Assuming this is true, this guy's a hero
(media.scored.co)
Comments (36)
sorted by:
Everyone needs to know about jury nullification. If you think the punishment is unfair or have any other issues with convicting someone, you can vote not guilty.
The courts try and keep this knowledge from people. They give jury instructions that you must find someone guilty if they meet the elements of the crime and will prevent defendents from telling jurors about jury nullification. But you can vote your conscience without repercussion regardless of what the judge says.
https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/what-is-jury-nullification.html
Yep. And they will straight up disqualify you from the Jury pool if you know about Jury Nullification-- there is usually a question from the Prosecution/DA specifically designed to screen for jurors who know about it.
This case is one where the guy should have walked.
So wearing a tshirt with Ask Me About Jury Nullification is a great way to get relieved of jury duty?
LOL. I wonder if they would dismiss everyone. Dozens of potential jurors would see it during the administrative BS waiting to be seated for a trial.
This gets me wondering...is there anything they could do if you stood outside (probably a little bit away) a courthouse where jury selection occurs, with a sign saying something along the lines of "Look up jury nullification?"
There was a guy in NYC (Dr. Julian Heicklen) who did this every day for years. He passed away in March.
He was charged with jury tampering in 2010, but the case was thrown out in 2012: the judge said he was within his First Amendment rights as long as he didn’t “target individual jurors”.
Along those lines, some rich philanthropist should take out TV ads on send mass mailers to people explaining it. Hilarity ensues when the entire legal profession goes reee.
I wish I was rich enough to do that.
You could probably rent a billboard on a highway somewhere.
They could almost certainly use that as an excuse to get a new jury, get you on some obstruction charge, or dismiss any verdict they don't like.
The system is built upon the whims of those in charge, no amount of logic will catch them in a trap where they are forced to accept it.
It's more about sending a message, not influencing any specific verdict. At least that's the angle I was going for.
Are there any consequences for lying and saying you don't know about jury nullification?
You're technically under oath when you answer questions, so it'd be perjury.
If they find out. Unless you go blabbing to everyone there's really no way to know. They're not searching your house and internet history.
But the verdict might still stand regardless. They wouldn't overturn the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict even after one of the jurors admitted he was sexually assaulted as a kid and didn't disclose it and he believes that him speaking about it in deliberations helped sway other jurors to find her guilty.
Because it was "unintentional". Of course it was. https://www.foxnews.com/us/ghislaine-maxwell-denied-new-trial-after-juror-misled-court
Leftists have been using jury nullification to destroy our legal system for decades. That’s literally how OJ Simpson got off. The msm didn’t cover the verdict in those terms because widespread knowledge and practice of jury nullification represents nothing less than the total collapse of our nation.
But yeah, everyone should do it at this point.
kek 👌
But yeah I think the MSM is just stupid. Normally I don't ascribe to ignorance what can be completely explained by malice, but journalists are the least informed among "educated" people out there.
It's an old story for sure, I know I'd seen it a long time ago, but it's making the rounds again.
Whether or not this guy's story is true Gary Plauche did do this, live on television as the guy who raped his son was being taken into custody. And the judge handed down a punishment of 5 years' probation and 300 hours community service.
Local elections for sheriff and judge are very important: right needs to play to its strengths and make sure it's got good people in positions of individual authority with broad discretionary power.
I never get tired of watching Gary Plauche serve justice.
It's good stuff. Too bad this guy didn't have his judge presiding over the case.
Didn't Gary play poker with some of the cops? Or otherwise know them socially? When he fires the officers immediately recognize it's him.
If so yeah they were involved. If you're an honorable man how could you not be? Just have to pretend you weren't for the cameras so you keep your job and aren't crucified by less honorable people.
That first sentence is a mess, and hard to parse. I would have gone with something like "when my daughter was six she was molested by her best friend's father."
As to the case, whether you think his actions were right or wrong, surely "your six year old daughter was asking for it" has got to be considered some sort of "fighting words" or at least a reasonable trigger for intense anger. Whether or not the execution was right is another matter, but that must be some sort of extenuating circumstance. He should have been recording, if he wasn't. Evidence against the rapist, and a potential excuse for shooting the piece of shit.
It's always weird when you see these cases, and the guy goes away for such a long time. Vigilantism is a bit of an issue, but the dude probably isn't a threat to society, since he already killed the scum who hurt his child. Meanwhile, they're letting out gangbangers the next day, and people with massive violent rap sheets are back on the street and killing people. It's a sick joke.
To any decent human being, yes. There is no moral negligence in failing to be prepared for such an extreme act of provocation that preparation is impossible.
Yes, but we're talking about lawyers and judges, not decent human beings.
They could easily argue that going there armed and opening with pulling the gun on the guy makes you the aggressor and the initial provocation. Which, they really aren't wrong about, even if morally its exactly what you should do.
True, but still, you'd think that would at least somewhat mitigate things. Yeah, pulling a gun is bad, but telling him his daughter wanted it is completely unrelated to the gun, and other cases have been tossed out when it was deemed an emotional response was understandable. Maybe charge him with intimidation and brandishing, but not murder, or something.
Heck, if people can get away with murdering people because they claimed they said "nigger," I think "I didn't rape your six year old, she was into it" is certainly a reasonable excuse to, well, you know, the thing.
It would be a better story if he got away with it. The biggest mistake people make is thinking the law exists to protect them.
No one looks hard for missing scumbags. No reason to go to jail for doing what the law should have done. If you actually do take revenge publicly with witnesses they basically have no choice but to put you in jail. But some dbag vanishes and no one immediately admits to it? Cops call it a suicide and go back to the donut shop.
CSI is the biggest fucking joke. No one is spending millions of dollars to hire supermodel agents to find murderers. Reality is The Wire--dimwitted lazy assholes who don't give a shit. Don't give them a reason to find the bodies and they won't.
read more here: https://nitter.net/found36/status/1532711273116450817
Certainly looks like it. An older style though.
Don't know. Tried doing a bit of research but the results that showed up don't link directly to the post.
his wife should setup a gofundme
Absolute King