596
Suspect in UnitedHealthcare CEO shooting taken into custody after being recognized at McDonald’s
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
596 points (98.1% liked)
News
36043 readers
2838 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Careful, .world admins don't like people mentioning jury nullification
Technically, it is not legal. However, there’s no way to either prove it, nor is there any recourse against it.
Please point me to the statute or code which states a juror is legally obliged to render an accurate and truthful verdict, and explain how you would enforce such a thing.
I guess you’ve never done jury duty, but when I have, they make you swear an oath more or less to that effect. I’m pretty sure it can be prosecuted, but if you want to the specific laws, you’re welcome to find that for yourself.
If you have also done jury duty, you will recall that the duration of the deliberation is done in a sealed room with no officials present.
You can absolutely conspire to nullify in complete discretion because your conversations legally cannot leave the room until the case has shut.
I hung and nullified a jury myself. It was very uncomfortable. At two points I requested the judge to come in and explain to the rest of the jurors I didn’t owe them any explanation for my not guilty verdict. It took the trial out an additional two days and everyone was pissed at me but I was not going to sit in my privilege and give a guy a felony conviction after months of obvious police harassment.
As a guy who was fucked by the long dick of the law, I appreciate you
Can you go into more detail on the procedure side of things? So everyone says if the suspect is guilty or not, and if there’s no consensus the jury is hung? How does that lead to nullification?
In my case I made it apparent I wasn’t going to change my position. They spent two days re-debating everything going around the room and whenever they got to me I said I have nothing to add. They would initiate a vote and I would vote not guilty. It went on and on. Sometimes the debates would last for hours, sometimes as quick as thirty minutes. At first it was general thorough discussion and acting flabbergasted that I held the position I held. The next morning they started acting hostile so I asked for the judge to come in and explain to the jury members if I owed them any explanation for my position. Things settled down a little bit but started getting hostile again until we were released for the day fairly late. On the third day (second full day of deliberation) it was very tense. After lunch I asked for the judge to come back in (I was starting to feel a bit unsafe with how hostile some of the jury was getting) and explain again whether I owed them an explanation for my position which he confirmed I did not. Once the judge finished stating that I do not owe anyone an explanation I said something to the effect of “thank you, I have started to feel unsafe for having a different interpretation of events”. I can only assume, since I couldn’t have a conversation with any of the other jurors by this point, but I believe me stating to the judge that I was starting to feel unsafe along with my refusal to waver or engage in any debate beyond “I have nothing to add” and stating I found him not guilty made them realize I was willing to carry deliberation for as many days/weeks required and the judge was having us come in at 9 and releasing us at 7. Everyone in the room signed not guilty around 6-6:30 in the evening that third day of deliberation which was a Friday night. They probably also didn’t want to continue into the next week. I’m not sure though, one of the court security police officers said he would hang out with me so I hung out in front of the courtroom for an hour before going to my car and going home and he said he would watch my path and exit. Some of the jurors were frustrated and pleading. A couple tough guys started teaming up and implying I wasn’t going to get out safely for screwing with their lives in increasingly less subtle undertones. It was very stressful but I just kept reminding myself that nothing that I was going to be dealing with would be anywhere nearly as bad as a BS felony conviction. I hated it, it became a real mob mentality in the jury room fast and got progressively worse.
Wow. Wow. Thank you for not giving in. I’d never imagine.
Thank you, it ended up a lot worse than I expected and the pressure was tough to deal with when trapped in that room. I’m glad I held my ground but it isn’t as easy as it sounds when you’re isolated and everyone is against you.
Maybe this doesn’t count as nullifying since the other eleven jurors relented?
That’s what nullifying is. Otherwise the jury is just hung, which can lead to a mistrial / retrial.
Thank you for clarifying, after I wrote it out I was worried I might have mischaracterized myself.
It is actually legal. It's built directly from the laws and kind of a necessary component if you want jury trials to actually work and not just be a kangaroo court. People just don't like it.
Technically we have jury exactly for that reason.
Otherwise we only would need a judge.
The whole idea behind jury is meant to prevent judge from convicting someone if peers don't believe the crime should be punished.
Here is an example of that from wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Talaat_Pasha . Jury nullification (1921, Germany).
The hivemind didn't like that but it's true, in most states just uttering the words anywhere near the courthouse can cause mistrials and a misdemeanor charge.
They revised mod policy to only hand out bans/deletions if jury nullification was referenced as a cause to vilence, not a reaction o past events. I'm paraphrasing, of course.
Yeah, basically
"Go do [Violence] and we'll do jury nullification afterwards" is bad, bur
"[Violence happened], but it was justified in the eyes of the majority of people so jury Nullification should happen"
Is OK
We should all completely cease talking about it. It, of course being jury nullification.
Why? Seems like something people should know about.
I think that message was a sort of sarcastic way of getting around a "dont talk about jury nullification" rule, in that saying "we cant talk about x", while making it very clear what x is, prompts people unfamiliar with x to go look it up
Ding ding ding. Ding, of course being jury nullification
I'm warning you. If you say jury nullification once more...
Ding (jury nullification)
Because the refusal to convict someone based on laws and circumstances you feel are unjust is wrong and goes against everything the ruling class have fought for.
But if also a cornerstone. (For better and worse--it got and still gets used to excuse people who commit hate crimes, for example.)
Good time to switch away from .world
The policy was cleared up, basically EU/Dutch/Finnish law doesn't like Jury Nullification in regards to future crimes/calls to violence. But in regards to crimes already committed it's fine. And being as that's where .world is hosted, that's the law they go by.
I don’t care, already left
Bunch of bootlickers
.world admins are weird
Time for some #Anarchism at lemmy.dbzer0.com
Switched to dbzer0 straight after seeing a mod try and justify the censorship of this topic by saying something along the lines of "only God can judge."
Now I get to enjoy aaaall the content world has defederated from.
To clarify, the admins have updated their views in reaction to this week and user feedback:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
They specifically said it's okay in reference to crimes already committed.
What is the reasoning? Is there any?