Quanell X humiliated, marginalized by large crowd in Pasadena

I'm not sure if you're joking but Jury Nullification isn't a right. It's a power that is sometimes executed, for sure. However, you show me the law that explicitly states that jury nullification is a right.

EDIT: In my opinion, as triers of FACT, juries should not have anything to do with the law. To let 12 laypeople forge policy for an entire jurisdiction is ludicrous. Triers of FACT should not have any ability to judge anything about the LAW. It's as simple as that.

 

The bottom line is this Joe Horn was wrong!!! Instead of him grabbing a gun, he should of grabbed a video camera, took a picture with his cell phone, or took a mental picture of the two men and told the police. Instead he grabbed a gun and killed to people for "taking stuff" that wasn't even his.

May GOD judge Joe Horn.

 

Now this is a post filled with logic and just plain old common sense. COMMON SENSE!!!!

 

I fail to see the distinction between saying JN isn't a right and stating that it is a power that juries have that they can exercise at will.

And I understand your position with regards to JN, that you don't think it should be an option. I disagree, but I understand. But since that power exists I don't think you can say any jury who uses that power is overstepping their bounds as you did earlier.

 

Just because they run away doesn't mean they wont come back. It means you let them get away to terrorize another day, which they most certainly will until they are stopped.

Sean Taylors house was already burglarized before the intruders killed him the second time. It likely could have been the same people. Too bad Mr. Horn wasn't his neighbor then.

Be free, invaders! Run like the wind!!!

 

I'm not for Quanell X ( I actually hate the guy because hes a Big A%@ racist himself) But what if the people robbing his neighbor house was teenage white or black girls? Then what? Would you guys want Joe Horn not prosecuted?

 

nonsense

 

They ARE overstepping their bounds. The only reason jury nullification isn't illegal is because it's impossible to prove. It's a power that IS exercised but it's not a legitimate exercise of a juror's authority. I didn't say it's a power that juries HAVE. I said it's a power that they EXERCISE. There's no right to jury nullification and, therefore, it's not a power of the jury.

There is a huge difference between saying something is a right and saying something happens. Just because some jurors believe that their personal beliefs are more important than the laws created by the elected representatives doesn't make it a right.

They are triers of FACTS. That is their job. If they do anything else, they are overstepping their authority as jurors, plain and simple. It'd be the same as if the judge had told jurors they had to believe certain witnesses. That's overstepping the authority of the judge because determining credibility is an issue for the trier of fact. The trier of fact has no say in anything regarding the law.

 

Max....your first point would change my outlook somewhat. I didn't really take the time to read the whole story thoroughly or to visit the link. So we can just blame my ignorance there.

On your second point, I realize they are radically different. I actually did not mean to make it look as though I was comparing the incidents. I was merely attempting to cite a seemingly well known incidence of the "Bystander Effect."

I would never advocate someone shooting another in the back. Horrible. Really, my main point was that more often you hear about the case of people doing nothing, rather than assisting. In this case, sounds like he may have gone a bit "Wyatt Earp" on the offenders.

Again....just rambling.....

 

You make a fool and a hypocrite of yourself.

 

You are making the assumption that they are the same that burglarized the house another time. Your assumption with zero proof warrants taking their life in your opion. You must have a very high opinion of yourself to judge others in such a way and deem them worthy of having their life taken.

 

rapists are worse than unarmed home burglars
pedophiles are worse than unarmed home burglars
corporate thieves (eg. Enron execs) are worse than unarmed home burglars
drunk driver are worse than unarmed home burglars
armed shoot now ask later vigilantes are worse than unarmed home burglars

 

This is one of the most idiotic posts I've ever read on Clutchfans. You are a bloodthirsty vampire. Why don't you just run for the Legislature and propose make everything a capital crime? I know some right-wing lunatics but they look like liberals compared to you.

 

the only person in this scenario that we know is capable and willing to kill is Mr. Horn.

He's the only person who has proven beyond a doubt that he is willing to premeditate and then carry through on taking another human's life.

 

For fairness sakes, one was carrying a crowbar. I don't know if he intended to use it as a weapon or just a tool for breaking in, but he certainly could have been considered a serious threat to anyone in the house that he broke into.

 

first thing I think of when I hear crowbar is prying tool and NOT deadly weapon

is there any proof that when the guys were shot they were attacking him with the crowbar?

 

Not even close, bud. Well I might give you the first two but it's almost a tie. Drunk drivers make a bad decision. Vigilantes are at least trying. Home invaders are slime and are like the first two other intruders/violators on your list. People protecting their neighborhoods from them are heroes, however.

 

The first thing I think of when I hear knife is turkey dinner and NOT cut throat.

 

so you would rather be raped, molested, hit by a drunk driver, and your 401k savings cleaned by corporate execs than have your home burglarized while you're on vacation?

 

A crowbar is considered a deadly weapon.