this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
752 points (98.8% liked)

News

23261 readers
3494 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] paridoxical 211 points 9 months 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?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

with "leaders", the best course of action usually involves guilliotines.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty 196 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 9 months ago

Exactly. Well put

[–] A_Random_Idiot 21 points 9 months 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.

[–] Mr_Blott 176 points 9 months 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

[–] Kbobabob 46 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Welcome to America!

Home of the fuck you i got mine

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] stoly 17 points 9 months ago (10 children)

Believe it or not, it used to be illegal in most places to be in public if you were maimed or deformed. We're talking veterans will be arrested for walking down the street. The reason? Good christian folk suffer when they see it, it has to be kept out of sight.

This is the 20th century version of that.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 137 points 9 months 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."

[–] [email protected] 70 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 9 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

Although that process can also be heavily abused, such as when all white juries would routinely find white defendants not guilty when they very obviously lynched black people.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately this is a very cut and dry indication of intention of jury nullification, and that is a reason to dismiss a potential juror. They shouldn't have said anything and then nullified once they actually got on the jury.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies 114 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] anarchy79 67 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] afraid_of_zombies 38 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 78 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (9 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 64 points 9 months ago (7 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 47 points 9 months ago (14 children)

In this case, it is because jury nullification was originally used by racists to give white murderers a pass for killing black people.

Yes, jury nullification can have positive uses, but also terrible ones.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months 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'.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yeah. That’s why people, who could be jurors, should be generally educated on the subject.

I was trying to be subtle.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 66 points 9 months ago (33 children)

Everyone should know about Jury Nullification.

load more comments (33 replies)
[–] [email protected] 60 points 9 months ago (10 children)

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

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Garbanzo 49 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago

Ok, you're on.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] betterdeadthanreddit 26 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is Texas we're talking about, when has something as pesky as the US Consitution gotten in their way of doing whatever the fuck they want?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] captainlezbian 42 points 9 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 9 months ago

Humanity prevails

[–] stoly 34 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)
load more comments
view more: next ›