quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
Doesn't the presiding judge have the authority to override the jury? I seem to recall that in the past.

Most states give judges the power to overrule a jury verdict if the jury finds the defendant guilty. Judge can say, sorry jury, you are wrong, I am actually finding him not guilty.

It does not work the other way around. If a jury finds you not guilty the judge cannot overturn that verdict. The prosecutor also has no power to appeal a not guilty verdict by a jury.

That is why "jury nullification" is such a powerful tool.

Wow, I was led here by Beancookers signature line. I m almost disappointed that I didn’t see this thread while it was unraveling.

Just wow....

^^^^^
It was quite a show! "lol"...

Godd, he's gay and broke. Oh, and a jackass!

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
Doesn't the presiding judge have the authority to override the jury? I seem to recall that in the past.

Most states give judges the power to overrule a jury verdict if the jury finds the defendant guilty. Judge can say, sorry jury, you are wrong, I am actually finding him not guilty.

It does not work the other way around. If a jury finds you not guilty the judge cannot overturn that verdict. The prosecutor also has no power to appeal a not guilty verdict by a jury.

That is why "jury nullification" is such a powerful tool.

I learned something new today, thanks to you.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by darthfuster:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dewhorse:
Agreed...just trying to understand why he was acquitted, was there a valid legal reason or was it due to the location of the trial and the bias of the court.

There are a couple of quotes that give a hint of what went on.

“Judge Denise Casper told jurors the central question before them was whether Ziobrowski intended to communicate a “true threat” or at least knew that it could be interpreted by others that way.”

“had argued that his client’s comments were constitutionally protected political speech that have been “blown out of proportion” by prosecutors.
“This is a guy who tweets about all kinds of things and says outrageous things,” he said.”

Add in the photo of Brandon Ziobrowski from page one and you get a near stereotypical situation where nobody is going to take him seriously. I’ve no doubt Ziobrowski played around with his dress and behavior, seeking attention.

This thread gives me >>>>>Kegger<<<<< vibes. Truly a traditional Sunday afternoon thread.

This is a well-mannered, fair minded forum. If you get called out, as I occasionally have, explain yourself and take your lumps, then move on. No need to flame out. Para is even handed if you act like an adult.

As to the OP, trials determine guilt, not innocence. In this case the trial acquitted him, but it doesn’t mean the defendant isn’t guilty. The prosecution failed to prove guilt, which certainly seems to be the case of prosecutorial incompetence/court bias more so than defendant innocence.

In a more general sense, it saddens me that this guy makes a direct offer for murde-for-hire, and it doesn’t generate a conviction, but making a generic video as in the case of the Benghazi scapegoats gets you run through the legal grinder for political purposes. It seems the blindfold is off of lady justice.

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:
Folks may not like what he said, but he had the Right to say it.

Seems legit to me.

I don’t like folks trying to take my 2A Rights away.

WTF ????????????
Your cut says it all, I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by mrmn50:

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:
Folks may not like what he said, but he had the Right to say it.

Seems legit to me.

I don’t like folks trying to take my 2A Rights away.

WTF ????????????
Your cut says it all, I guess.

Yeah buddy you tell him!! Or......read the thread next time. Now wash up, you have dead horse blood all over you.

He is scum, you cannot put a bounty on a Federal Agent. But he does have great calves... Im guessing it must be from being on his toes so frequently.

And THAT'S why we can't have nice things....

Fascinating thread, I'm surprised it wasn't locked. Were the mental midgets finally banned?

It hurts to much to read this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Marlin Fan:
Fascinating thread, I'm surprised it wasn't locked. Were the mental midgets finally banned?

It hurts to much to read this thread.

One guy was, one pulled the pin and hasn’t been back it appears. Good riddance to bad rubbish in either case.

Yup. Longbow_06 got ejected, and FenderBender hasn't reappeared, and pulled all his profile information.

Fairly epic flameout.

Neither one of them struck me as particularly nuts until this thread, but December has a weird effect on some people.

Interestingly I watched a media report wherein the commentator mentioned the FBI had infiltrated a militia group, gained status and confidence over several months and recorded conversations. When one of the leaders made threatening comments about politicians, he was arrested, tried, convicted and is serving prison time right now. Seems like a double or at least arbitrary standard to me and if free speech were the issue, militia dude would have been acquitted.

Well...at least this thread gave me something to do while taking a dump.

Plenty of roughage.

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
< snip >
Yelling "Fire" in a movie theater isn't protected free speech....
< snip >

I love seeing this statement because it is so flat out wrong it beggars disbelief.

Yelling "FIRE!" in a theater that isn't on fire simply to cause panic isn't first amendment protected speech; however, yelling "FIRE!" in a theater that is on fire so that those present can attempt to save themselves is protected speech. It is all about context.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Seems like a double or at least arbitrary standard to me and if free speech were the issue, militia dude would have been acquitted.

Some animals are more equal than others.

Let's go back to the rule as quoted by Kevbo:

quote:

According to Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), speech constituting an incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected by the First Amendment.

“Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Just thinking out of the box a bit, but it's more than possible that a citizen militia leader who's talking about offing politicians with his homies, in a group that's been around enough, and generated enough noise to be infiltrated by the FBI might just be considered a slightly more credible threat than a dumpster perching twink venting on Twitter.

Both parts of the test must be met; (1) advocacy to provoke or incite imminent lawless action; (2) advocacy is likely to incite or produce such action.

I think there's a pretty clear distinction between an ill advised statement on Twitter to your 400 followers, and a statement to an organized militia by one of its leaders.

Juries are actually pretty good at this stuff, and there are appellate courts to fix problems when juries screw up, or judges give bad instructions. This is a pretty fraught area, and as much as it would be rewarding to see the little twink fry for his foolishness, the context in these cases counts, as does the demonstrated or inferred intent of the speaker.

There is no doubt that we have a multi-tiered justice system in this country, and that it's a problem to be addressed by the legislature, courts, citizens and civil society. I don't, however, see these cases as being significant evidence of that problem.