Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

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:
>>
>> >>
>> >> The Model Penal Code (MPC) says the force used in self-defense must be
>a
>> >> lesser harm than that which you're facing.  So burning down an empty
>> >> building to save your life is justified; killing multiple people inside
>a
>> >> building to save your single life is not.
>> >>
>> >> Even the NY and VA statutes I cited say you can do whatever is
>"reasonably
>> >> necessary" - you ne3ed to convince a jury that whatever step you took
>was
>> >> reasonably necessary, and not excessive or unreasonable.
>> >
>> >In short,. I have to convince the jury to null....I mean acquit me no
>matter
>> >what the law says.
>>
>> Well, the defendant doesn't HAVE to convince the jury of anything.  But
>> your statement summarizes what the defendant tries to do.  Obviously.
>
>Well given the issue we are discussing, a clear violation of the law, then
>he certainly needs to convince the jury that there is a good and valid
>reason for acquittal beyond that section of statutory law.....oh, but we
>can't have that....that would be NULLIFICATION. 

No, moron, it wouldn't be nullification.  It would be self-defense.  Which
is PART of the law.

It would be nullification if there was no self-defense statute.  Get it yet?