Jury would not convict white militiamen who aimed guns at federal law enforcement officers


Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/08/23/just-the-good-ole-boys.html


Man-o-man, being a white male is certainly a privilege.


Jury nullification cuts both ways :neutral_face:


I would not be surprised at all if pointing a gun at someone becomes recognized as 1st Amendment-protected free expression in my lifetime. Seems to be the road we are headed down.


“So you pointed your rifle at the protester?”

“I was expressing my 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech, via my Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.”

“And then you shot him in the head?”

“Yeah, well, I was making a point, wasn’t I.”


This is the way it usually cuts. Historically, US jury nullification was mostly about refusing to convict lynch gangs.


Although, in fairness, I feel obliged to add: it also protected a few escaped slaves.


And yet the pro-marijuana types with whom I raise this counterargument insist it doesn’t, because … reasons, I guess?


Jury nullification is like anything else, if you do it for a good-enough reason it’s good, if you do it for a bad reason, it’s bad. Cutting people up is bad, yet we seem to like surgeons. I don’t see the point in having a stance on jury nullification as a concept. When people used it to protect lynch gangs it was evil, when people used it to protect escaped slaves it was good.

Hopefully the justice system works well enough that jury nullification continues to affect a tiny fragment of cases. If that isn’t the case I’d take a rash of nullification as be a symptom of a far bigger problem.


Relax, guys. It’s not like they were threatening a statue.


The problem with jury nullification is that it always follows local community prejudices.


Yeah, exactly. If nullification happens we need to look at what is going wrong to make it happen. I don’t think people do it unless they feel there’s a serious injustice.

Not that we even know that this is a case of nullification. Like lies, it’s not nullification if you believe it (even if, by all accounts, you have all the information you need to know you are wrong).


It had much to do with ending prohibition as well.


pro-marijuana types

a.k.a. 29 US states


Who are Vanilla ISIS’ peers?


Local community prejudices are norms which define society in that locality. Society is protected by laws, which are defined for that purpose by the citizens of that society. Thus your statement will invariably be true to one degree or another.

Of course local prejudices, norms, society and laws may be completely fucked in the head, but that’s a different problem.


The second amendment is the first amendment for people who don’t talk so good.


Three words: They are white.


I’m not disagreeing on the significant merits of legalizing marijuana. I’m addressing jury nullification, pre-legalization.


Nothing ever changes if nothing ever changes.