Actually it doesn't work this way. At least it doesn't in civil court. So what Da Da is saying isn't possible. Juries are triers of fact only...not triers of law. They don't ask you to convict or not. They ask you to answer yes or no to a series of questions regarding the facts. Based on your findings, you have a conviction or you don't have one. But you don't make that decision as a juror...you just state which facts you agree with. They don't let you choose to apply the law or not. That's the judge's job.
let me break this down from the other thread if you let him go, you're a real american who thinks like our founding fathers, if you convict, you're a criminal loving liberal edit: this is sarcasm
Haha no you're right, that's the way it works in there. Maybe deep down I don't want to convict an old man, but damn what a fool
so why not make burglary a capital offence then? why don't we allow for police officers to gun someone down when they break into a home?
so why not make burglary a capitol offence then? why don't we allow for police officers to gun someone down when they break into a home?
I don't think I am clear on this. If the judge has stated what the law is and the facts of the case support that law but I don't agree with that law is it right for me cast my vote on the basis of my feeligns about the law?
It is their job to risk their life, not mine. My responsibility is to stop them by any means necessary. Bang.
Again, I don't try criminal cases. But in civil cases the lawyers prepare a charge to the jury. It's a set of questions like: Did Defendant and Plaintiff enter into a contract? Did Defendant pay in accordance with the contract? How much should Plaintiff be paid to compensate him for Defendant's failure to pay, if anything? They're a set of yes/no questions. They're not asking you "is he liable or not??" They use the answers to your questions to determine how the facts fit the law.
But you have a responsibility to be responsible for your life. I mean what if you are killed in trying to stop the crime. What if you are mistaken and you kill the wrong person? What if the law doesn't support your action? You are not merely a tool of karma.
MM; I know you're explaining it the best you can but I still am not clear on this. Perhaps this is why I never went into law.
what if you miss and kill a child that sitting is across the street? what if your wrong and your neighbor's cousin was visiting? what if that cousin knew there was a key under the back mat and he goes into your neighbor's back yard?
Like I said you better be right. Are cops held responsible for those who get injured in car chases? Nope, it is the one who breaks the law that is. Yall need to learn to quit shifting the blame.
In 2005 there were a little over 16,000 deaths caused by DWI . I think it should be open season on drunk drivers. I'm sure you agree with me. Bang.
Actually yes. Police can be held liable if they injure someone in a car chase, whether it is the suspect or bystanders. That is why many police forces have changed their hot pursuit policies to severely limit car chases.
I spent this past summer interning in the DA's office and the criminal courts do it the opposite of the civil side. The judge hands the jury the jury charge which contains the law. No questions about the elements. At the end of the jury charge, There are two options for the foreman to sign: "We the jury find the defendant not guilty of ______" or "We the jury find the defendant guilty of _____" There are no reasons required or elemental questions that must be signed. It is entirely possible for a jury to believe that the act violated the law and yet still vote not guilty. It happened multiple times in my short time there this summer.
