Too many of the potential jurors said that even if the defendant, Elisa Meadows, was guilty, they were unwilling to issue the $500 fine a city attorney was seeking, said Ren Rideauxx, Meadows' attorney.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 211 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So much time, effort, and resources wasted towards trying to fine someone $500 for doing something humane. Our "leaders" are out of touch with reality. Can we fine them for wasting our tax dollars on shit that doesn't matter?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 196 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Stop telling them this in advance! They can't get at your work material or deliberations. Just give them a general affirmative and go on to nullify that shit.

    Also, at the point you can't seat a jury because they're telling you they won't convict there has to be some kind of slaughter rule. To stop wasting the court's time if nothing else. Because at some point you're just letting the prosecutor choose a verdict, not a jury.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago

    Don't lie under oath, but you also don't have to scream from the hilltops that the whole damn system is out of order and ensure that someone who is heavily invested in punishing the people for feeding the homeless gets your spot in the jury instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 176 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    What the fuck did I just read?

    Humans arrested and charged for feeding hungry and needy humans

    That's a level of Freedom ©®™ I just cannot comprehend

    That's fucking evil

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 137 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    So the DA is just allowed to say, "I don't like any of my choices in this jury pool" and that's just okay?? That doesn't sound like a fair trial at all. It's like grabbing the stack of lottery tickets from behind the counter and starting to scratch them off. When somebody comes to make you stop you just say, "it's all good. I'm just trying to find one I like before I decide to play the lottery today."

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 2 years ago*

    The process of jury selection is complex. It good that it’s this way, however it can be abused if the system itself (meant to keep it working properly) breaks down. One of the most important elements in that is that the officers of the court (both lawyers and the judge) are operating honestly and in good faith.

    So, you see the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    To over-simplify, as I understand things...

    There's a variety of reasons a juror can be rejected, with one of them being "the juror is not willing to follow the law, as written". This seems to be what's happening here, the law says that if a person does X, the penalty is fine Y, and these jurors are saying "I would not issue fine Y even if you prove they did X."

    To an extent, this is the system working they way it's supposed to, one of the checks on unreasonable laws is being unable to find people willing to enforce them in good conscience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 114 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Jury Nullification! Tell a friend, tell an enemy, tell everyone. Take back our country.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Yeah but pipe down about it during jury selection, they screen for us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    Weird how it works. The one time I got jury duty I was ready to nullify and got given a case where the accused was accused of a raping a 11 year old.

    Hmm I don't think I am going to nullify that particular law. Sounds like a good one to keep on the books.

    They rejected me anyhow, guess the defense didn't want a parent of young daughters on the jury for some strange reason

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah but here's the thing, if they can prove you knowingly steered the jury towards nullification post selection they'll prosecute you for perjury because the screening questions basically total up to "Would you nullify a guilty verdict? Yes or No?", so doing it on purpose and being too obvious about it can get you put in front of your own jury.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 78 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    Too many jurors… don’t know about jury nullification.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Jurors are expressly prevented from being educated on the third option to avoid its use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Only after they’re empaneled. There’s nothing preventing the education of jurors on the subject beforehand

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    You're not wrong, but when you get selected for jury duty the selecting lawyer will make inquiries about your knowledge on the subject and disqualify you if you admit knowing about it.

    If you bring it up to the jury, that can also have you disqualified as well as anyone else the lawyers think were influenced by the discussion.

    The third option is supposed to 'naturally' occurr, as in the jury agrees that the law was broken but the situation is so 'outside the scope of the law' that the law can no longer be applied. (IIRC the judge can overrule the jury in this case, but it can be a pain)

    Essentially it's up to the judge to determine whether the jury's conclusion is within the realm of the 'third option'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 66 points 2 years ago (33 children)

    Everyone should know about Jury Nullification.

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • load more comments (33 replies)
    [–] 60 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    They wouldn't have to feed the homeless if the city did a better job at helping them.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 49 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Put me on the jury. If the city can make a convincing case that permits are needed to ensure safe food handling practices are being followed, and that permits are granted freely when reasonable requirements are met, they'll get their fine (they won't).

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    So what happens if they just can't find anyone willing to say the fine is okay?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They'll just postpone it indefinitely and keep trying to find a jury pool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...

    I'm probably not quoting (with emphasis added) any sort of amendment to a document that forms the supreme law of the land though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 42 points 2 years ago

    When people want to know what anarchism is, it’s this organization. In many places where it operates it isn’t legal, but what good is the law when it stands between people and freely feeding their community.

    And if you don’t have a local chapter and want to you can just start your own. There’s like four rules and you don’t need to get approval, from anyone. It’s completely decentralized. Hell you can operate one across the street from another.

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago

    Humanity prevails

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    LOL the city leaders are so desperate to act out their cruelty and cannot understand that the citizenry is capable of human empathy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    Where are the benevolent philanthropists to show us the light with their "elite" luminary brains?

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago

    See, this is the shit American and Canadian cities waste time and resources on instead of actually helping people in need.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›