Jury Pool In Montana Stages "Mutiny"

[mrjarrell]

LOL. Here's a prime example of what should be happening all across this country. The people called for jury duty refused to let the prosecution and judge stack the deck against the defendant. They just came right out and said they'd never vote to convict the defendant for the small amount of pot he had in his possession. Kudos to these upstanding Montanans! Now if more jurors would apply the same logic across the board on numerous "crimes". Let's put some balance back in the system.

via Facebook

Jury Pool In Marijuana Case Stages Mutiny; Won't Convict

 

[machete]

LOL. Here's a prime example of what should be happening all across this country. The people called for jury duty refused to let the prosecution and judge stack the deck against the defendant. They just came right out and said they'd never vote to convict the defendant for the small amount of pot he had in his possession. Kudos to these upstanding Montanans! Now if more jurors would apply the same logic across the board on numerous "crimes". Let's put some balance back in the system.

via Facebook

Jury Pool In Marijuana Case Stages Mutiny; Won't Convict

thats great news... whats sad is how many lawyers here never got real legal training and think the judge,,,not the jury,,,is in charge of what the law really is...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ‘mutiny’

Here's the full article. The "gentleman" who had the pot was dealing, had 8 felony convictions, and was out on bail for a theft charge when arrested on the drug charges.

What law will we decide shouldn't be enforced next? Child Pornography? Incest? The way to change the law is not to turn to lawlessness. Your joy comes at the expense of the law. Anarchy wins, and the rule of law loses.

Why not post the article with the truth in it rather than one that abbreviates a lot of relevent information? Kind of a warped sense of heros.

 

[jbombelli]

Good. THIS makes me happy. At least for the citizens of Missoula.


I like how some people view this as "anarchy", when it's the real reason we're guaranteed a jury of our peers. Some people will blindly follow the law, or blindly enforce the law, no matter how egregious, without any thought of their own. Those are the people who would march us into the ovens if the law required it, or walk into the ovens on their own two feet. And sadly, this nation is brimming over with them.

 

[rjstew317]

Good. THIS makes me happy. At least for the citizens of Missoula.


I like how some people view this as "anarchy", when it's the real reason we're guaranteed a jury of our peers. Some people will blindly follow the law, or blindly enforce the law, no matter how egregious, without any thought of their own. Those are the people who would march us into the ovens if the law required it, or walk into the ovens on their own two feet. And sadly, this nation is brimming over with them.

i fail to see how trying to prosecute a thieving drug dealer is the same as the Nazi persecution and genocide of millions of Jews. but if you want to continue to ignore the facts to make your point, go right ahead.

 

[jbombelli]

i fail to see how trying to prosecute a thieving drug dealer is the same as the Nazi persecution and genocide of millions of Jews. but if you want to continue to ignore the facts to make your point, go right ahead.

That's because you're not actually looking for the POINT I was making. The POINT IS THIS: Those people who would blindly enforce all laws will blindly enforce all laws, regardless of how bad they are. Right up to and including marching people into ovens at gunpoint if that was what the law required. Those who would blindly obey all laws, will blindly obey all laws, regardless of how bad they are, and would walk right into the ovens, if that's what the law required. It's more of a condemnation of those types of people than it is a direct comparison between prosecuting someone for weed and the Holocaust.

Critical thinking. Practice it.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Good. THIS makes me happy. At least for the citizens of Missoula.


I like how some people view this as "anarchy", when it's the real reason we're guaranteed a jury of our peers. Some people will blindly follow the law, or blindly enforce the law, no matter how egregious, without any thought of their own. Those are the people who would march us into the ovens if the law required it, or walk into the ovens on their own two feet. And sadly, this nation is brimming over with them.

You are absolutely entitled to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. The people are also entitled to a fair trial.

When prospective jurors proffer they will not uphold the law, whatever the law is and whatever the reason, not based upon evidence presented but on personal bias, this nation has devolved into lawlessness. As a matter of principle this is unacceptable to me.

It would be less offensive had the jury been seated, heard the case, and found him not guilty based upon evidence. As it is there was a population that effectively said we don't respect the rule of law. If this isn't anarchy I don't know what is?

 

[rjstew317]

That's because you're not actually looking for the POINT I was making. The POINT IS THIS: Those people who would blindly enforce all laws will blindly enforce all laws, regardless of how bad they are. Right up to and including marching people into ovens at gunpoint if that was what the law required. Those who would blindly obey all laws, will blindly obey all laws, regardless of how bad they are, and would walk right into the ovens, if that's what the law required. It's more of a condemnation of those types of people than it is a direct comparison between prosecuting someone for weed and the Holocaust.

Critical thinking. Practice it.

i have yet to meet anyone who is willing to blindly enforce all laws. just because you don't agree with a particular law, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be enforced. and I'm not saying that I think weed should be illegal(i've always thought it was a dumb law). i think it is you who should practice critical thinking sir, instead of always taking the mind set of "all laws are bad", because history proves that all societies require some boundaries.

 

[jbombelli]

You are absolutely entitled to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. The people are also entitled to a fair trial.

When prospective jurors proffer they will not uphold the law, whatever the law is and whatever the reason, not based upon evidence presented but on personal bias, this nation has devolved into lawlessness. As a matter of principle this is unacceptable to me.

It would be less offensive had the jury been seated, heard the case, and found him not guilty based upon evidence. As it is there was a population that effectively said we don't respect the rule of law. If this isn't anarchy I don't know what is?

The jury ARE the people. When the PEOPLE will not uphold a law, they speak to the validity and reasonableness of that law, do they not? The entire jury pool refused to convict for violation of that law. Not just one person. ALL OF THEM. That speaks volumes. Whether you and others want to HEAR what they're saying is another matter.

THIS IS THE REASON WE ARE ENTITLED TO A JURY OF OUR PEERS. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it is so.

 

[jbombelli]

i have yet to meet anyone who is willing to blindly enforce all laws. just because you don't agree with a particular law, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be enforced. and I'm not saying that I think weed should be illegal(i've always thought it was a dumb law). i think it is you who should practice critical thinking sir, instead of always taking the mind set of "all laws are bad", because history proves that all societies require some boundaries.

Yeah, because disagreeing with the law on weed is the same as advocating for the repeal of all laws and desiring pure anarchy.

Please point to me anywhere I have ever said all laws are bad. Please show me where I actually advocate for the repeal of all laws and pure anarchy.

And apparently it's not JUST ME. It's the entire jury pool in that case. You know, the people of that county. NOT JUST ONE GUY. AN ENTIRE JURY POOL.

 

[John Galt]

"As it is there was a population that effectively said we don't respect the rule of law. If this isn't anarchy I don't know what is?"SemperFiUSMC

Funny (not really) how this sentence can be applied to those in Washington, and they are our elected leaders! Immigration not being enforced, auto companies being taken over by the government while ignoring centuries of contract law, the Fed printing money/monetizing debt, TBTF banks siphoning trillions in taxpayer dollars while paying out billions in "bonuses", the total raping of property rights, etc. We are a nation founded on the Rule of Law and when those that are elected to enforce the law ignore it, the breakdown spreads.

 

[rambone]

What law will we decide shouldn't be enforced next? Child Pornography? Incest? The way to change the law is not to turn to lawlessness. Your joy comes at the expense of the law. Anarchy wins, and the rule of law loses.

Captain Strawman strikes again. Every time Liberty is discussed you cry about Anarchy. You insist on making the false argument that "possessing illegal plants" is the same as molesting children.

To paraphrase somebody you might know, This is how the constitution works. I didn't write it. If you don't like it then don't be whine about it online. Go petition your congressman to do away with the 6th Amendment. As it stands, a jury can act as a final firewall against injustice. They are making a statement about their community standards.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The jury ARE the people. When the PEOPLE will not uphold a law, they speak to the validity and reasonableness of that law, do they not? The entire jury pool refused to convict for violation of that law. Not just one person. ALL OF THEM. That speaks volumes. Whether you and others want to HEAR what they're saying is another matter.

THIS IS THE REASON WE ARE ENTITLED TO A JURY OF OUR PEERS. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it is so.

Not even close. A jury is NOT the people. Juries are to be impartial trier of fact. The jury is to set aside all bias and render a decision based upon fact and law. Facts as presented in evidence. Law as presented by the judge.

It would be one thing to say after listening to the evidence that there was insufficient evidence to find guilt. It's another to say I don't care what the evidence is. The first is the jury doing its job. The second is an abbrigation of the responsibility.

The point raised in the full posting of the article, which omitted some pretty important information about the case, was that this guy was dealing drugs, not just consuming. You may or may not find distinction. You may or may not like the law. But when we as members of a jury premeditatedly decide on extrajudicial remedies we have devolved to lawlessness. I don't see how you can see it any other way.

The people were entitled to have the case heard. Prospective jurors failed to execute their constitutional responsibilities.

BTW it wasn't all jurors. It was just enough that a jury couldn't be seated from the pool.

"As it is there was a population that effectively said we don't respect the rule of law. If this isn't anarchy I don't know what is?"SemperFiUSMC

Funny (not really) how this sentence can be applied to those in Washington, and they are our elected leaders! Immigration not being enforced, auto companies being taken over by the government while ignoring centuries of contract law, the Fed printing money/monetizing debt, TBTF banks siphoning trillions in taxpayer dollars while paying out billions in "bonuses", the total raping of property rights, etc. We are a nation founded on the Rule of Law and when those that are elected to enforce the law ignore it, the breakdown spreads.

No disagreement at all from me. I think there are too many laws and too many that aren't followed, or enforced. I'm all for getting rid of laws that society no longer wants or needs, and enforcing those that are left.

 

[machete]

You are absolutely entitled to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. The people are also entitled to a fair trial.

When prospective jurors proffer they will not uphold the law, whatever the law is and whatever the reason, not based upon evidence presented but on personal bias, this nation has devolved into lawlessness. As a matter of principle this is unacceptable to me.

It would be less offensive had the jury been seated, heard the case, and found him not guilty based upon evidence. As it is there was a population that effectively said we don't respect the rule of law. If this isn't anarchy I don't know what is?

yeah,,,you keep missing it...

the jury is the law,,,not some statute... until you learn what the law really is,,,youll always hate anglo jurisprudence,,,

jury dont mean a box with 12 people,,,jury means a body that rules on facts and law... just like arms dont mean muskets,,,arms means all our guns...

but,,,for people like you who want lots of government and not so much freedom,,,a totalitarian takeover of America,,,the first thing you need to do is attack the sixth amendment,,,and strip us of our right to trial by jury,,,

the progun libs and the antigun libs are after the same things,,,TOTAL CONTROL AND NO FREEDOM!!!! they just have different ways to go about it,,,and different parts of the BILL OR RIGHTS they need to erase,,,to get there...

 

[jbombelli]

If members of a jury are not permitted to bring in their own biases, and they're always to be impartial, why do we even have a jury of our peers in the first place? OUR PEERS are NEVER impartial. NEVER.

The reason we're entitled to a jury of our peers, is so that in the event a person is arrested and tried for something we think he was right to do, or at least should not be punished for, we can acquit. I don't think we were ever meant to be completely impartial and without bias as jurors.

 

[machete]

Captain Strawman strikes again. Every time Liberty is discussed you cry about Anarchy.

figure it out!!!! he dont like LIBERTY!!!!

hes from the IMPRISON AMERICA FIRST crowd...

You insist on making the false argument that "possessing illegal plants" is the same as molesting children.

hes really saying---cops get to push us all around,,,for anything,,,any time the want,,,and theres nothing or no place the government dont have power over...

thats his political leanings

what i REALLY want to know is if he was this way before he went in the military,,,or did the military turn him into this,,,AND is the military making more people like him???

it dont take much to figure that BIG GOVERNMENT wants to make more people lifetime fans of BIG GOVERNMENT!!!

 

[machete]

The jury is to set aside all bias and render a decision based upon..........Law as presented by the judge.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

If members of a jury are not permitted to bring in their own biases, and they're always to be impartial, why do we even have a jury of our peers in the first place? OUR PEERS are NEVER impartial. NEVER.

The reason we're entitled to a jury of our peers, is so that in the event a person is arrested and tried for something we think he was right to do, or at least should not be punished for, we can acquit.

Peers doesn't mean people like us that think like us. It means a jury selected from a cross section of society. Normal people not from the justice system.

Montana's Constitution simply states a right to a trial by jury. The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. (em added)

In federal cases, and through incorporation there is a constitutional requirement to be impartial, not to be a "peer", whatever that means.

Are we to ignore the requirements of the Constitution because we don't like the law, a law whose authority eminates from that same Constitution?

 

[machete]

Are we to ignore the requirements of the Constitution because we don't like the law, a law whose authority eminates from that same Constitution?

where in the CONSTITUTION is any government given the power to make drugs illegal???????????????

 

[machete]

Semper,,,you need some remedial reading,,,

this will teach you what law school didnt want you to know...

http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf

it will also teach you that juries striking down bad laws is the essence of PATRIOTISM!!!!!