Yeah seriously if you ever can be on a jury it's basically your civic duty (just realized civic is a palindrome holy fuck) to lie your ass off, play the straight-faced centrist-minded lib-pilled American and get on that jury. Now obviously if the person is a fucking murderer, rapist, etc. and there's convincing evidence then, you know. But if it's something like theft by a non-white collar person or feeding the fucking homeless or punching a cop during an unjustified arrest. Just sit there, nod, and vote not guilty for however long it takes to break the other poor bastards or get a mistrial. Just never ever utter the words jury nullification or express that you are non guilty because the law and punishments are unjust. Just say anything else. "Not enough evidence for me. Sorry." Only takes one person per twelve on the jury for the criminal trial to get gummed up.
I wonder what a centrist type would even say to get favorable status from prosecution and defense in this case. It feels almost too binary between "liquify the homeless" and "we should give them homes and fix the broader societal issues that cause homelessness." I guess a centrist would be like "I just don't want to see it myself" so ok with people feeding them and also ok with cops sweeping tents and forcefully removing the people to jail or just somewhere else. I guess the stance of "I don't like that homelessness exists, and I understand why people feel sympathy and want to help, but laws exist for a reason and should be enforced." That feels pretty much perfectly lib-coded enough. They love acknowledging horrific things and then immediately shoving the shield of "but the law" in front of any moral action they might otherwise do.
The first rule of jury nullification is you don't talk about jury nullification
The second rule of jury nullification is... you don't fucking talk about it
I got to do this once. I look like the type a prosecutor would probably want on a jury and I wasn't individually asked any questions before being chosen. The case was a non-violent drug offense and it was a wild experience for reasons I won't get into. Once we got in the jury room it pretty much went like:
"Not guilty."
"Why not guilty? It's a pretty clear cut case."
"I don't believe the cops."
"Why don't you believe the cops?"
"I didn't find their testimony credible. It didn't convince me beyond a reasonable doubt."
"What about the body cam footage? Do you believe that?"
"I didn't find it convincing."
"The whole thing is on camera, do you think they faked it all?"
"I suppose that's a possibility. I just haven't seen enough evidence to convict."
"What more evidence could you need?"
"More than this. I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt."
And around and around we went like that. I was the lone holdout. I have to say, the other jurors were pretty cool about it. Eventually we had to tell the judge we couldn't reach a verdict on any of the charges and it was declared a mistrial. Totally worth it.
If people weren't so bloodthirsty generally and so ignorant of... everything in the US justice system, I suspect we'd see a ton of mistrials and non guilty decisions. People are cucks to power and that's especially bad when you have overzealous police and prosecutors and legislators all working hand in hand to pass and enforce the absolute most draconian laws possible.
When it comes down to it though, exempting rape, murder, and other personalized violence like that, I think most people fundamentally have the ability to know, despite their inclinations due to the constant propaganda from media and society broadly, that some guy who stole a few thousand dollars worth of shit to sell for drugs doesn't deserve to be in prison. The shitty thing is our system doesn't allow for an "actual help" option between essentially pardoning people and letting them go (which I would argue is also "not good" in an example like I gave) and throwing them in prison for years which is a guarantee that when/if they do get out they'll be going right back in... but given the choice between throwing some guy's life away, a guy that a defense attorney would explain has already been fucked over thoroughly in life, and giving in to a lone dissenting "not guilty" voter... most people are just gonna go "ok, fine, whatever."
It's really sad that proponents of the system push everything to these extremes. You can't even suggest an alternative world either or everyone loses their mind. Like I'd say there should be absolutely zero punishment for someone being arrested straight up punching the cop in the face. I think people who take super reactionary "no, the cops should kill that guy!" stance to that situation are 1) usually racist as fuck, let's just be real and 2) have never been arrested themselves and lack the imagination to even think about how they might naturally react to a guy or two grabbing their wrist, pressing a painful pressure point and twisting their whole arm back into a painful position. People getting charges for running from cops, spitting on them, punching, whatever has always struck me as something that if I were ever a judge I'd tell the prosecutor straight up I will never be allowing a case for that shit. So I'd probably be assassinated by the cop union week one.
I’ve gotten a jury summons twice (I got the second pretty soon after the first 5 year exemption expired) and both times I was just told not to come and given an exemption. I hadn’t done anything at that point, hadn’t submitted anything, hadn’t answered any questions, etc. I just checked the website like the summons told me to and it told me not to go.
I must be one of very few people who were disappointed to not get jury duty.
My assumption is that they summon more people than they need and just drop the extras.
I doubt I would have been picked for the jury anyway. I already knew to act like the lowest common denominator neutral unbiased law respecting lib, but being autistic I’m guessing my act wouldn’t have worked anyway. Or even if it did, my social anxiety would still be obvious and I’m guessing they wouldn’t like that vibe.
I'm in my mid-30, been a registered voter for going on 20 years (oh god), and never once received a jury summons.
I know people who get one like every year and when I tell them my situation they're always like "what???"
I really would love to be on one at least once. That seems like one of the most powerful positions an average citizen can ever hold. You are fully sanctioned by the court and society to say "nah, fuck that cop, he's lying. Non guilty for the defendant!" And actually stop bad stuff. (Not to get too libbed up here, but it is kinda cool)
Yeah seriously if you ever can be on a jury it's basically your civic duty (just realized civic is a palindrome holy fuck) to lie your ass off, play the straight-faced centrist-minded lib-pilled American and get on that jury. Now obviously if the person is a fucking murderer, rapist, etc. and there's convincing evidence then, you know. But if it's something like theft by a non-white collar person or feeding the fucking homeless or punching a cop during an unjustified arrest. Just sit there, nod, and vote not guilty for however long it takes to break the other poor bastards or get a mistrial. Just never ever utter the words jury nullification or express that you are non guilty because the law and punishments are unjust. Just say anything else. "Not enough evidence for me. Sorry." Only takes one person per twelve on the jury for the criminal trial to get gummed up.
I wonder what a centrist type would even say to get favorable status from prosecution and defense in this case. It feels almost too binary between "liquify the homeless" and "we should give them homes and fix the broader societal issues that cause homelessness." I guess a centrist would be like "I just don't want to see it myself" so ok with people feeding them and also ok with cops sweeping tents and forcefully removing the people to jail or just somewhere else. I guess the stance of "I don't like that homelessness exists, and I understand why people feel sympathy and want to help, but laws exist for a reason and should be enforced." That feels pretty much perfectly lib-coded enough. They love acknowledging horrific things and then immediately shoving the shield of "but the law" in front of any moral action they might otherwise do.
The first rule of jury nullification is you don't talk about jury nullification
The second rule of jury nullification is... you don't fucking talk about it
I got to do this once. I look like the type a prosecutor would probably want on a jury and I wasn't individually asked any questions before being chosen. The case was a non-violent drug offense and it was a wild experience for reasons I won't get into. Once we got in the jury room it pretty much went like:
"Not guilty."
"Why not guilty? It's a pretty clear cut case."
"I don't believe the cops."
"Why don't you believe the cops?"
"I didn't find their testimony credible. It didn't convince me beyond a reasonable doubt."
"What about the body cam footage? Do you believe that?"
"I didn't find it convincing."
"The whole thing is on camera, do you think they faked it all?"
"I suppose that's a possibility. I just haven't seen enough evidence to convict."
"What more evidence could you need?"
"More than this. I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt."
And around and around we went like that. I was the lone holdout. I have to say, the other jurors were pretty cool about it. Eventually we had to tell the judge we couldn't reach a verdict on any of the charges and it was declared a mistrial. Totally worth it.
o7
If people weren't so bloodthirsty generally and so ignorant of... everything in the US justice system, I suspect we'd see a ton of mistrials and non guilty decisions. People are cucks to power and that's especially bad when you have overzealous police and prosecutors and legislators all working hand in hand to pass and enforce the absolute most draconian laws possible.
When it comes down to it though, exempting rape, murder, and other personalized violence like that, I think most people fundamentally have the ability to know, despite their inclinations due to the constant propaganda from media and society broadly, that some guy who stole a few thousand dollars worth of shit to sell for drugs doesn't deserve to be in prison. The shitty thing is our system doesn't allow for an "actual help" option between essentially pardoning people and letting them go (which I would argue is also "not good" in an example like I gave) and throwing them in prison for years which is a guarantee that when/if they do get out they'll be going right back in... but given the choice between throwing some guy's life away, a guy that a defense attorney would explain has already been fucked over thoroughly in life, and giving in to a lone dissenting "not guilty" voter... most people are just gonna go "ok, fine, whatever."
It's really sad that proponents of the system push everything to these extremes. You can't even suggest an alternative world either or everyone loses their mind. Like I'd say there should be absolutely zero punishment for someone being arrested straight up punching the cop in the face. I think people who take super reactionary "no, the cops should kill that guy!" stance to that situation are 1) usually racist as fuck, let's just be real and 2) have never been arrested themselves and lack the imagination to even think about how they might naturally react to a guy or two grabbing their wrist, pressing a painful pressure point and twisting their whole arm back into a painful position. People getting charges for running from cops, spitting on them, punching, whatever has always struck me as something that if I were ever a judge I'd tell the prosecutor straight up I will never be allowing a case for that shit. So I'd probably be assassinated by the cop union week one.
So fucking based. I hope to do the same thing some day, but I've never been called up for it.
I’ve gotten a jury summons twice (I got the second pretty soon after the first 5 year exemption expired) and both times I was just told not to come and given an exemption. I hadn’t done anything at that point, hadn’t submitted anything, hadn’t answered any questions, etc. I just checked the website like the summons told me to and it told me not to go.
I must be one of very few people who were disappointed to not get jury duty.
My assumption is that they summon more people than they need and just drop the extras.
I doubt I would have been picked for the jury anyway. I already knew to act like the lowest common denominator neutral unbiased law respecting lib, but being autistic I’m guessing my act wouldn’t have worked anyway. Or even if it did, my social anxiety would still be obvious and I’m guessing they wouldn’t like that vibe.
I'm in my mid-30, been a registered voter for going on 20 years (oh god), and never once received a jury summons.
I know people who get one like every year and when I tell them my situation they're always like "what???"
I really would love to be on one at least once. That seems like one of the most powerful positions an average citizen can ever hold. You are fully sanctioned by the court and society to say "nah, fuck that cop, he's lying. Non guilty for the defendant!" And actually stop bad stuff. (Not to get too libbed up here, but it is kinda cool)
I just got a summons for the first time not too long ago, but they dismissed me by text message the night before I was set to go.
Yeah they send out a ton of summons and most of them don't even get questioned, let alone selected