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:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.

Evasion, evasion.

Sorry, but as I continue to point out and which you have already admitted.
Self Defense does NOT authorize, permit or allow total, utter, and complete
violation of every aspect of the legal code. There ARE limits. Some things
remain crimes even in the cases of self defense. As I've told you before,
and as you have presented certain otherwise offenses are exempted by
SPECIFIC language in the statutory law in cases of self defense. However,
there is NO language for the offense I am directing your attention to, so it
is NOT PART OF THE FUCKING LAW!

Quit trying to tell me that language which is NOT in the law is in there.

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

Wrong, since as I continue to point out to you there is NO LANGUAGE IN THE
SELF-DEFENSE STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS SUCH A VIOLATION OF OTHER PARTS OF THE
LAW.

If you were being charged with Assault, Assault and Battery, Assault with a
Deadly Weapon, or any of the other offenses which are SPECIFICALLY excluded
from being a crime in the case of justified self defense you would have a
point because it is in the law. Discharge of a firearm within the city
limits? IT'S NOT IN THERE.

If it were, I'm sure you would have found it by now, but no such language
exists.