As per .world worldnews mod, no discussing naughty stuff like jury nullification.
While this post is blowing up, here’s the book referenced by the shooter:
Delay Deny Defend - Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It
By request: Full, uncensored video of the shooting. (Fucking obviously NSFW)
Source? Cause this is some wild shit.
Cornell Law School says they’re wrong.
Basic logic as well. The idea that a judge will “deal with you accordingly” for having an opinion is the wild part.
Wild shit eh? What do you think JN means to a judge? It means the potential jurist is defying court direction and doing so out loud in front of everyone. It is by definition contempt. You do not get to say “I will flout your instructions and ignore the law and everyone of my peers next to me should do the same” and expect an ‘okay then, have a nice day’.
To vote your conscience as an actual juror, and convince others to go along with you during deliberations is absolutely legal. Telling the law to fuck off in official sounding language prior to being an actual juror is not, and that is essentially what the statement “I support JN” is doing.
This whole idea that there’s this 1 easy trick to getting out of jury duty is a myth born from a gross misinterpretation of what actually happens vs what it sounds like should happen. Will you get out of jury duty eventually? Probably. Will it be as easy as whipping out your “I know JN exists” membership card? No way.
Please, while we’re talking ‘wild shit’. Explain what you think will happen when you say “I support JN so can I please be excused?” and the judge spins, glares at you, and turns 3 shades of red. Before you answer that, this is a judge’s response to a nurse simply saying she would be biased due to her experiences related to the case in question. She actually had direct, relevant reasons to say she would be likely to nullify in one direction or the other and wasn’t simply saying “muh, JN, seeya”.
Oh found your case: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nv-supreme-court/2018306.html
You might want to check it out, but here is a fun snippet:
"OPINION
During voir dire in this criminal case, the trial judge threw a book against the wall, cursed, and berated, yelled at, and threatened a prospective juror for expressing her belief that she could not be impartial. We conclude that such behavior and statements constitute judicial misconduct and may have discouraged other prospective jurors from answering candidly about their own biases. Because we cannot be convinced that an impartial jury was selected under these circumstances where the judge did nothing to alleviate the intimidating atmosphere that he created, we reverse and remand for a new trial."
and clearly that was what was going through that nurses mind while it happened.
You know what the woman was thinking? Odd ability.
Oh no comment on how the judge was found in the wrong?
You know this is the case you showed an entertainment video on as an example, right?
You think she was in realtime relieved that the appeals court would rule against the judge ages after the fact? No wonder you people think getting out of JD is so easy. You have no clue what it is really like in a courtroom.
The point was to give an example of what to expect while trying the “I get outta JD because of JN” bullshit, but I guess that went over your head. Not surprised at this point.
Yes results that disprove your point are clearly irrelevant.
Didn’t disprove squat. But that’s already been said. Bye. I look forward to hearing about your valiant attempts to get out of JD with your absolutely amazing wits and memory. Good luck.
Not in the USA, and hello.
You do know there is a whole thing about a US citizen having a right to tell the law to fuck off right?
Also where did you get the “so can I please be excused” part from? No one was talking nullification in this case in order to dodge jury duty, but that they don’t think the assassin should be punished.
That’s what this thread is about genius
Its about jury nullification with one comment on how you will get kicked off a jury for mentioning it. But sure, it would take a genius to see the nuance of that in a post about the popular murder of a health insurance CEO.