Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>
> >> >> All use of force against another person is generally prohibited.
But
> >the
> >> >> justification statute says the use of force - any reasonably
necessary
> >use
> >> >> of force, to oversimplify, is permissible in self-defense.  I really
> >can't
> >> >> make it any clearer.  Are you arguing just to see your words in
print?
> >> >
> >> >Yep, and please note that such an exclusion is SPECIFALLY STATED TO
> >EXIST.
> >>
> >> Exactly.  It is specifically stated that any reasonably necessary use
of
> >> force in defense of a risk of loss of life is permissible.  The method
> >> used to inflict such force in self-defense is IRRELEVANT.
> >
> >Certainly. However this is hardly a cart blanch means to violate the law
in
> >any means.
>
> You CAN violate the law BY ANY MEANS *if* that means is REASONABLY
> NECESSARY to protect yourself or another from an UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK OF
> HARM.  See, Scout, it is carte blanche, as long as it satisfies the
> definition of the justification statute.

Cool, so if I feel it's necessary to burn down an occupied apartment
building to distract a murderer so that I can protect myself or another,
then it's perfectly justified by the law.

Hmmm.... Kill 100's to save myself.

Again I doubt that any jury in the land would accept this as a defense.


> >
> >Further as the law states in this case this exemption ONLY applies to
being
> >prosecuted for assult. Doesn't mention anything at all about other
offenses.
> >
> >Such as say illegally carrying a concealed weapon.
> >Perhaps illegally owning said weapon
> >Maybe even having said weapon be stolen property.
>
>
> Correct, none of these are protected by the jsutification statuetes I have
> cited to you.

Niether is discharging a firearm within the city limits, but you assert they
apply to that crime.....

After all, if it was protected, those justification statutes would SAY SO.
They don't. Just as they don't say anything about these offenses. Seems like
you can't do anything you want in self defense.

>  Like the Bernie Goetz case.  HE was convicted of possessing
> a concealed weapon, but not for using it.  I can provide a citation to the
> decision for you, sinceit directly addresses your scenario.

Oh, so what you're telling me is that the law CAN prohibit certain means of
self defense by making it illegal. That is the effective result of what you
just told me.

Can't possess a concealed firearm, is a prohibition against using a
concealed carry firearm in self defense. Why because even though you used it
in self defense you still violated the law.......just as would discharging a
firearm within the city limits. Seems like your assertion that the law
allows you to do anything in self defense isn't justified since you are now
pointing out that you can act in self defense and STILL be in violation of
the law.


> >Are you telling me that because the weapon was used in self defense these
> >other violations do not apply because he is allowed to break the law in
any
> >means he likes as long as it is a matter of self defense?
>
> Firing the gun is the act of self defense.  Possessing the gun is not.
> Concealing the gun is not.  Owning the gun is not.  All of these may be
> illegal.  But the act of USING the gun in self defense MAY be justified.

And maybe not. That is what you are attempting to say.

> >I don't think so.
>
> That's your misunderstanding, not a problem with the law.

Except that you haven't shown my in the law where there is a problem with my
misunderstanding. You simply assert there are things in the law which aren't
there that apply......sometimes, but not others. Seems like it's a matter of
opinion, not law.


> >> >So where exactly is the exclusion for the offense I reference?
> >> >
> >> >Not there? Then it doesn't exist.....does it?
> >>
> >> Yes, it does.  If the law says "reasonably necessary" but does not say
> >> that firing a gun is specifically reasonable or unreasonable in a given
> >> situation, then it is for a judge or jury to decide.  Get it?
> >
> >Translation: Jury nullification.
>
> Scout, how is it jury nullification if the law specifically says it?  An
> acquittal on the grounds of sel-f-defense is a jury that FOLLOWED the law!

Except that you haven't cited that the law specifically says any such thing.
Self defense is not automatically a protection against legal violation. You
have admitted to that above. Yet, you then turn around and try to tell me
that despite such a protection in the law, the person who broke the law
shouldn't be found guilty of that violation. The law says one thing, you
assert it shouldn't apply. Sounds like nullification to me.


> >Got it. The law says that firing a gun within the city limits is
> >unreasonable....the judge or jury should nullify the law and allow the
> >person to walk despite his clear violation of law.
>
> All correct except your use of "nullify."  If you substitute "acquit" for
> "nullify the law" you have perfectly described the effect of a
> justification statute.

Ah, so as long as they feel the legal violation is "justified" the jury can
nullify...excuse me...acquit the defendant no matter what the law says, or
how clearly are the facts that he violated that law.

Ok, got it.

I'll just call it "jury acquital" from now on, since it is the result, not
what you chose to call it that really matters.


> >> >Interesting how you try to assert because a specific exemption exists
in
> >one
> >> >case...then naturally it exists for all cases, even those without such
an
> >> >exemption.
> >>
> >> I didn't say it existed in "one case."  I specifically said it existed
for
> >> any means that were reasonably necessary, since the justification laws
> >> don't legalize any particular methods of self-defense.
> >
> >True, but the law DOES make certain actions illegal, and the law doesn't
> >state any exclusions for self defense.
>
> You're talking in circles.  Why have a self-defens estatute if it doesn't
> allow anything to be done in self-defense?

Because some things are still illegal?????

>It says anythign reasonably
> necessary can be done.

Yep, and the assumption is that anything which is illegal is necessarily
consider UNREASONABLE.

Does a exemption to this offense exist for self defense? Nope, then it would
seem the law could find such an action unreasonable.

or are you telling me the jury should decide what is reasonable for
themselves rather than accepting what the law says is reasonable or not?

>  It's up to a jury to decide if whatever act was
> taken (i.e. firing a gun) was reasonably necessary for that specific
> situation.

Exactly.....even if the law says such an act is illegal, and hence legally
unreasonable. Jury nul...I mean acquital.


> >Well, it's clear that what you are calling the law is really just a
matter
> >of an established practice of jury nullification. Because as you admit
the
> >law does NOT find firing a firearm within the city limits to be a
reasonable
> >practice at ANY time, as there are no exclusions within the statute for
self
> >defense.
>
> There is no reason whatsoever the exception allowing the firing of a gun
> needs to be in the statute prohibiting the firgin of a gun.  Because there
> is a jsutification statute, such an exception would be redundant.

Except that your justification statute does not apply to actions which are
deemed unreasonable, and those actions which are made illegal (except where
specifically allowed for in special cases) would seem to be act which are
legally deemed to be unreasonable.