Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>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.

Yes, but only the "things" that self defense doesn't apply to.

>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.

So me one self-defense law that lists what crimes it applies to and which
ones it doesn't.  I've cited FOUR statutes to you and none contain such an
enumeration.

>However,
>there is NO language for the offense I am directing your attention to, so it
>is NOT PART OF THE FUCKING LAW!

Huh?

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

Self-defense statutes don't contain ANY lists of statutes which
self-defense can be used as a defense to.  Self-defense statutes don't
apply to other statutes, they apply to CONDUCT.  Once you understand this,
you'll be halfway home.

>> 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 self-defense doesn't allow violation of other laws, why have a
self-defense statute?  If the person violated another law, by your
reasoning, self-defense statutes won't help him.  And if the person didn't
violate a law, he wouldn't face any charges.  So the ONLY purpose of
self-defense at all, and the ONLY fact pattern under which it has ANY use,
would be someone who violated the law, but was doing so in self-defense. 
Please think about this - it's the basic premise for the entire system of
affirmative defenses.

>
>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.

Please tell me what justification statute specifically mentions "assault"
"assault and battery" or "assault with a deadly weapon."


>Discharge of a firearm within the city
>limits? IT'S NOT IN THERE.

Neither are any of the other laws you said above.

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