My friend Jerry Nullification was saying the same thing.
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
1335 points (99.1% liked)
Political Memes
5618 readers
1975 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The 6th Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a trial by a jury of their peers.
The flip side of that amendment is that the 6th Amendment creates an individual duty to decide the innocence or guilt of an individual. The juror's power to render such a decision, and the jury's power to return a verdict are constitutionally-derived powers.
Where there is a conflict between a constitutional power and a legislated law, the constitution always supersedes. The juror is constitutionally obligated to apply their own sense of rationality in determining whether to convict or acquit. Where strictly applying legislated law would be unjust and/or absurd, the jurors are the only people with a direct, constitutional power to prevent that injustice.
Jurors are often asked "Do you have any belief that might prevent you from making a decision solely on the basis of the law?". The constitution is law. A belief based on the constitution is a belief based on the law.
Just to piggyback off of this: trial-by-jury in the US is nearly nonexistent now. Less than 10% of arrests lead to a jury trial. Most go to a plea bargain.
The state no longer has to convince 12 of your peers that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They just need to convince you that you'll suffer more if you maintain innocence than if you accept guilt.
In this particular case, i’d take my chances with the jury. Especially since the feds asking for the death penalty is huge overreach and New York isn’t a state known for lots of jurors in favor of the death penalty. It’s actually banned for state crimes.
EDIT: also, if he is somehow convicted of the worst crimes, his ability to appeal on the basis of cruel and unusual charging is very good. The terrorism charge alone is a massive overreach that I can’t think of ever being used when a civilian kills another civilian. And new york has fairly liberal judges. A plea deal is a huge mistake in this case. Unless the deal is a year in prison and 6 months probation. Which it won’t be. It’ll be we’ll drop the death penality charge and instead you get life.
I'm replying to every other comment it seems but I'm serious about this topic and I have personal experiences on both sides of the law. I've been summoned for jury duty twice, pled guilty or no contest to four crimes. I've also given victim testimony in court.
One time I barely got out of jury duty, good for me because my workplace would have been run by idiots if I were gone and great for my bosses because the place would have been run by idiots if I were gone.
The other time is the reason I responded. I sat in a room full of regular ass white people and one loudmouth that couldn't shut the fuck up. We sat in that room and listened to the idiot say untrue shit about many things. I really only remember him claiming "I don't give a damn" in Gone With the Wind was the first time anyone said a no no word on camera. What a jackass.
So after sitting there, backs to the door, the pigs and lawyer pig come in. They say we got him, we just brought him by and had him look in the window and said these are the people who are going to convict you if you don't take the deal.
Fucking disgusting.
the fcc has derived powers
the faa has derived powers
the sec has derived powers
What constitutionally derived powers do those executive agencies have in a judicial action?
Oh you want to move the goals posts from "derived powers" to "judicial action" ?
neat trick.
The injustice I described was the conviction of the accused. None of the agencies described have any constitutional powers relevant to such an injustice. There was no "moving of the goal posts": The agencies described are not relevant to the original scope.
You could make a good argument that the presiding judge and appellate courts also have some constitutional powers, however, the "separation of powers" drastically limits their ability to review legislated law. They can overturn legislated law on the basis of constitutionality, but they do not have the constitutional power to overturn a legislated law merely on the basis of irrationality or absurdity, as that is a legislative function and not a judicial one.
The juror is not restricted in this manner. The juror is free to determine that the legislators did not consider the specific circumstances of the accused when they prohibited the act for which the accused is charged. The juror is free to overrule the legislature on a case-by-case basis.
Best explanation of the power behind it I've ever seen. We need to add it to the poster I'm thinking of. Do you know anyone or an org in Manhattan we could get to post papers supporting Luigi for in self defense or in defense of others? I'd like to do a QR code to a site explaining jury nullification, why you can't talk about it, and now that it's your constitutional right and you can do it without lying to a judge.
and how that it's your constitutional right
Just one clarification: It is a "power" and not a "right". Jury service is a duty; an obligation to the accused that cannot be met by the government.
Change your name legally to that and you'll never be on a jury.
:sus:
Luigi's mission, if he really was the shooter, was accomplished...
The quiet part was said aloud.
Yeah I know the so called justice system threw innocent until proven guity out of the window a while ago, but the rest of us shouldn't.
Zimmerman and Rittenhouse were found innocent because they killed both a black guy and white people protesting for the rights of black people.
That's all you need to know really. Edited for clarity: Since reading comprehension seems to be a lost art. Zimmernman killed a black guy, Rittenhouse killed whites protesting for black rights
I am not saying Rittenhouse killed anyone who was black.
Tell me again: What black guy did Rittenhouse kill?
I know about Joseph Rosenbaum, a white guy who attacked him and grabbed his gun when Rittenhouse didn't run away fast enough. That attack was on camera.
I know about Anthony Huber, a white guy who was killed with a single shot to the chest while trying to hit him in the head with the trucks of a skateboard. That attack was also on camera.
I know about Gaige Grosskreutz, a white guy who tried to shoot at Rittenhouse, then feigned surrender, then suddenly pointed his gun again and tried to kill him, before being struck in the arm by rifle fire. That attack was also on camera.
And I know about the unidentified black man who tried to stomp on Rittenhouse's head while he was on the ground, who Rittenhouse fired on once, but missed, and did not fire again as the man decided to flee rather than continue the attack.
But I don't seem to recall the name of the black man that you're referring to: The black man that Rittenhouse supposedly killed. I know he was the third dead guy on the night that Rittenhouse killed two people, but I can't seem to recall his name.
I never said Rittenhouse killed a black guy, re-read what I said.
I said Zimmerman killed a black guy and that Rittenhouse killed white people protesting on behalf of black people.
So not to be the wet blanket but I'm pretty sure they didn't have a terrorism law in SC at the time. The Feds charged him with the more appropriate hate crimes.
Important little detail there, yeah
terrorism vs resistance fighter.
HTS are terrorist, hamas are terrorists, everyone's a terrorist if you're on the losing side. Then when you win everyone suddenly needs to make a swift but uncomfortable change, like with HTS, to acknowledge you, without saying anything like ' maybe we were wrong all along?'. No no, of course we were right, just the situation changed. right...
Remains to be seen what HTS and FSA will do. Gotta be better than Assad but if the headscarf decrees come the women need to be ready to run.
Also Turkey is using the chaos in Syria to attack the Kurdish led, multi-ethnic, gender equal, nonreligious, democratic mutualist territory established in North and Northeast Syria around Rojava. The Turkish government considers Kurds and allies to be terrorists because they want to live on and administer the land they've lived on for thousands of years.
These people running this revolutionary group are so chill they use Arabic for everything despite speaking Kurdish natively. Just to show that everyone is welcome, and more people around there speak Arabic.
Side note: USA supported the Kurds when they kicked the shit out of ISIS/ISIL and al Qaeda. They were even doing close air support for them with A-10s as the Assad dictatorship was falling. Now that Assad is gone the US support vanished.
Parts of the rebel groups that now control Damascus are former ISIS and al Qaeda fighters.
Remember the promises of the Taliban when they retook Afghanistan. The promises were broken and things are at least as bad if not worse than before. These guys who fucked Assad up with brilliant timing could pull something similar.
That's the thing everyone says the class war is coming but it's been going on for years maybe decades and we the lower class just don't know or acknowledge it.
A lot of us know it, it's just that our compatriots are apathetic, ill-informed, misinformed, or outright cheerleaders for their enemies. Then someone like this does something and unites most of the working class.
But the distractions keep coming. Culture war. Race. Punisher stickers. Immigrants replacing whites. The War on fucking Christmas. Don't Tread on Me until you're done Treading on my neighbor who is below me in the psychopathic internalized hierarchy.
The so-called richest man on earth trying to direct the US Congress on which bill to pass...publicly!
Get fucking armed up before January 20.
allegedly
It's not like Roof got off scot-free. He is awaiting the death penalty and was sentenced to 9 life sentences on top of that.
Sure, but call it what it is. Don't save "terrorist" for people who target the owner class instead of people who want to start race wars with their multiple murders.
I think this Luigi dude shouldn't have been charged with terrorism under New York law, but I can also recognize that Dylann Roof also shouldn't have been charged with terrorism under New York law for killing people in South Carolina.
Roof was literally sentenced to the death penalty for federal hate crime killings, so I'm not sure there was more the prosecutors should have done. And I'm categorically against the death penalty, even for people like Roof, but this is a terrible example of a double standard.
I was trying to find this example earlier today and couldn't. I know there definitely has to be some kind of hate crime or mass murder by a white person that wasn't called terrorism, but Luigi though...
Google Heather Heyer.
He was charged with terrorism to get a 1st degree murder charge in New York state. Otherwise, they couldn't charge that. Cute post, but it's not what happened.
A charge of murder in the first degree is rare in New York because it requires special elements related to the crime to be charged.
Under state law, murder in the first degree only applies to a narrow list of aggravating circumstances, including when the victim is a judge, a police officer or a first responder, or when the killing involves a murder-for-hire or an intent to commit terrorism.
So yeah, they're risking a bit hitting him with that, and yeah, they're going out on a limb because of who the victim was.
I don't understand how this is the gotcha you think it is. Like, honestly, this sounds like an argument in favor of the guy you're talking to.
So umm, yeah....
Dylann Roof didn't need terrorism for his charges to stick, he was charged with 33 federal counts and 9 state counts of murder in South Carolina, then given the death sentence.
If Dylann killed people in New York it would be different charges because it is a different court with different laws.
Comparing the two really isn't doing Luigi any favors, btw.
I don’t think that they’re trying to make a “gotcha” here. That’s literally the facts of what happened. And, just as they stated, they’re going out on a limb and it could backfire.
Cute post, but it's not what happened.
Nothing they said refuted anything or disproved anything about the original post.
... so you're saying it is what happened?