Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Has anyone here sat on on a jury before?
Comments
-
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots. -
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?YellowSnow said:
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Where did I say jury nullification should done “in general”?
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist. -
I'd like hondo to be a slave. And if he ran away I'd turn him in.MikeDamone said:
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?YellowSnow said:
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the salves was a pure political play. -
He pissed all over the Constitution after traitorous scum committed treason. When the war was won, he freed the slaves via the Constitutional process.MikeDamone said:
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?YellowSnow said:
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the salves was a pure political play.
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
I voted for marijuana to be legal, because there’s not a compelling reason for the state butt into people’s private lives and ban it. -
So you’d vote on a jury to put someone in a cage for marijuana possession if that where the law?YellowSnow said:
He pissed all over the Constitution after traitorous scum committed treason. When the war was won, he freed the slaves via the Constitutional process.MikeDamone said:
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?YellowSnow said:
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the salves was a pure political play.
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
I voted for marijuana to be legal, because there’s not a compelling reason for the state butt into people’s private lives and ban it.
Also. Glad you admitted Lincoln pissed all over the constitution. -
I laffedPitchfork51 said:
I'd like hondo to be a slave. And if he ran away I'd turn him in. -
Damon thinks an impotent state is the key to our liberty. It's standard libertarian gobbledygook.MikeDamone said:
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!YellowSnow said:
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist. -
HH thinks throwing people in cages for victimless crimes gives him a big dick. Typical statist control freakHHusky said:
Damon thinks an impotent state is the key to our liberty. It's standard libertarian gobbledygook.MikeDamone said:
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!YellowSnow said:
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist. -
Gee I wonder why.Sledog said:
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.YellowSnow said:I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
-
You really needed a nap didn't ya. You gave @allpurpleallgold a run for bleeding gash of the day with this thread.MikeDamone said:
HH thinks throwing people in cages for victimless crimes gives him a big dick. Typical statist control freakHHusky said:
Damon thinks an impotent state is the key to our liberty. It's standard libertarian gobbledygook.MikeDamone said:
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!YellowSnow said:
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
