has been empowered by this submission made in January of 2015 by George Donnelly and published by Cop Block contributor Toni Bones. George shares a plethora of knowledge and valuable resources regarding jury nullification, what it is and why it is so very important.

The right to a trial by jury, the last nonviolent bulwark against government tyranny, is guaranteed by the 6th amendment to the US constitution and was first grudgingly conceded to, at great cost, in the English Magna Carta of 1215.

Jurors have the inherent right and unquestionable power to judge not just the facts of a case but also the law the defendant is accused of violating. Jurors may vote to acquit a defendant if they consider that law to be unjust, or for any reason at all.

Jury nullification played an important role in the founding principles of the United States, most notably involving William Penn in 1670 and John Peter Zenger in 1735. Jury nullification also figured prominently in resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act in the 1850’s and alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s. Jury nullification is an indisputable fact of American jurisprudence that is regularly, if quietly, practiced today.

But most jurors never knew this, or have forgotten. Judges and prosecutors fly into fits of rage when people mention jury nullification because it threatens their arbitrary power. They prohibit mentions of this right within courtrooms and are known to harass jury rights activists in order to suppress the knowledge.

6 Reasons to become a Jury Rights Expert

Here are 6 reasons why Cop Block activists need to become jury rights experts:

  1. Self-Defense. Cop blocking is dangerous. Cops can harass, arrest and/or frame you, if need be, in order to stop your recording and exposing of their abuses. You need to prepare your local community to acquit you if you are framed and/or tried on trumped up or victimless charges.
  2. Increased Effectiveness. Jurors are legally more powerful than cops, in the final analysis. One dissenting juror in many criminal trial situations can cause a mistrial. It requires unanimity to acquit. A series of jury nullification actions, whether mistrials or acquittals, can effectively end the prosecution of certain kinds of crimes in the given jurisdiction. Jury rights activism doesn’t require that you get through to hardened cops, elusive reporters or the voters. Only one “not guilty” vote is enough to hang a jury and stop an otherwise certain conviction.
  3. Know the Truth. Cop Blockers are well-informed about police abuse, but do you know that the continued massive caging of people for victimless crimes, such as drug offenses, depends on jurors being blindly obedient to the judge? Did you know that judges and prosecutors hide the fact of jury nullification from jurors? Did you know that just one informed juror can stop someone from being wrongly convicted and caged, their life ruined? Did you know that a pattern of jury nullification actions can lead to the de facto nullification of unjust laws? If only jurors knew of their power, they could change everything. Everything rests on the jurors.
  4. Grow the Movement. It’s only after many people have had an unpleasant encounter with the police, courts and prisons that they clue in to the massive scam that’s being perpetrated against them. Jury rights activism holds the promise of freeing those unjustly accused or accused of victimless crimes. With eyes now more open, some of these people will join the movement for greater police accountability. Our movement can grow.
  5. Backup for Recording. What if cops frame you for something as revenge for your cop blocking activities? What if they destroy evidence, as they are wont to do? What if cops line up to testify against you, spewing lies to the judge and jury? Jurors may want to acquit you anyway but if they don’t know about jury nullification then they can’t. Jury rights activism is like a backup for your video recording.
  6. Judges and Prosecutors don’t Like it. Judges and prosecutors absolutely loathe jury nullification. They fight tooth and nail to get nullifiers off of juries and to ban any mention of this historical power from reaching jurors’ ears. They have been known to harass, frame and cage jury rights activists to keep this information from reaching their jury pool. Jury rights activism makes judges and prosecutors grumpy – really grumpy. It probably gives them heartburn, too. Isn’t that reason enough?

Recording cops and keeping tabs on police abuse is heroic yet unsung work but if you want to really set people free from the police-prison assembly line system, then you also need to know your jury rights and to educate others about them, as well.

Jury Rights Campaign for NYC Right Now

Fellow activist Jim Babb and myself are doing that again this month, this time in New York City. Our campaign to end victimless crimes prosecutions in NYC in 2015 launched a week ago.

We’ve already raised more than $4,000 to fund six big, impactful phone kiosk ads for jury nullification in Lower Manhattan. We’ve surrounded the Daniel Patrick Moynihan courthouse at 500 Pearl St with these ads. This is the same place where legendary activist Julian Heicklen was abused and framed for his jury rights activism. This is also the courthouse where Ross Ulbricht, the accused operator of the first Silk Road website, will be tried starting next week.


We’re fighting hard now to multiply the impact of every donation through follow-on media attention and by securing further funding to keep the ads up another month at a discounted rate.

For more information, see the full press release:

Or the announcement of the ads going up on December 29, 2014:

Or our Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign, which will run a little longer and where you can get a great perk :

What You Can do Right Now

Take the Jury Rights 101 course, learn about our campaign, ask your favorite blogger, podcaster or YouTuber to cover the project, or make a donation, either via our Indiegogo or directly via bitcoin (1GtuV3W9daNdcpJ9pdHofoGTAp3HBj7A8c). This is your campaign, too!


No permission is needed to share this post, or any content housed at
Ideas have consequences – the more
good ideas are shared the better we all are.
Help fuel our efforts – donate
Bitcoin: 1D6hdGKcFfzciJaMSLU6X1Tq69fcCsEh65


  1. Interesting…..
    So, if say, a grand jury or just a “jurist” thought that say something a police officer did that was rough or aggressive to a thug….and voted to not indicte or to acquit….you should be good with at right? That dovetails nicely into this idea. So you should back it wholeheartedly right?

    1. Toni Bones, poster child – names her kid after weed.

      Again, it only goes back to the decision, if the jury/grand jury decides the why they want, then they are lauded, if not, they are vilified.

      1. CS:
        It’s funny that there are lots of new
        comments on other threads but the
        CBers have avoided this one. They
        must be aware of the two-faced stance
        that they are required to take on this
        And stayed away.

        1. It couldn’t possibly be that this article has only been up since late last night. Right?

          1. It’s now the 8th and it’s at a hundred and one. Trust me, he’ll never own up to his hubris but he will change the subject.

          2. Ray:
            See… 3 goofs missed the entire point.
            Some of this same folks were commenting over and over on various other threads AFTER this thread went up.
            And there were any comments here.

            Yes I dug at you tools a bit. And wow what a reaction of overflowing stupidity it resulted in:
            -The young Goerge D. got it handed to him badly because he clealry didn’t know anymore about this topic than a flyer someone haded him somewhere.
            – corkie (which I think is the frauds new moniker) trotted out line after line of wrongful info…..because for him….it’s all just about dope love.
            – dafus duck showed up with his tales of being an 80 year cop hater site troll who grew up in a town j. The 1940s that still managed to have an Mary of police officer that is four times what any modern PD has
            – Then there was you who came in late with the same lame rubber stamp arguments the GD had.

            So…..did I troll you guys a little, get you cranked up some knowing that the arguments for this concept would be at best very weak? Oh yeah. And it worked

          3. It is really good that you didn’t pursue a career in either Pharma, where you could test theories and do irreparable harm to whole populations, or in psychology, where you could do irreparable harm to individuals. Shame is you picked another career where you are likely still harming individuals…

            WTF did any of that have to do with me other than your weak tie in by “Then there was you who came in late with the same lame rubber stamp arguments the GD had”.

            Focus man, focus, you can do it. I know you’ve diluted your self to be part of a group, but the rest of us aren’t responsible for what others say or do. We aren’t diluted to be part of a group. Just like you aren’t responsible for what other cops do, unless of course you do it too.

            Edit: And, God yes, that was a long ad hominem. You stop first, because you used it first. I have a long memory for some things.

          4. Ray:
            Which part didn’t you get?
            The you showed up late
            The your rubber stamp part?

            Both are accurate.

          5. What you don’t get is that this is the comment section on a blog. I can arrive anytime and comment on your comment by your comment. I did read your comment, and it gave me no reason to read the others. Your paraphrasing was all I needed.

            I do understand that you confuse what I do with the practices of your profession for your profession. It’s what you know. I’m not sure that I’ve used “rubber stamp” to be counted on one hand. Nor that I’ve ever “rubber stamped” anything even once. I like to nit-pick because I too often deal with nits.

          6. Just another drive-by comment. Filling in the gaps.

            “See… 3 goofs missed the entire point.
            Some of this same folks were commenting over and over on various other threads AFTER this thread went up.
            And there were any comments here.” What you fail to understand is the silliness of your argument. You argued that comments elsewhere after this was posted meant CBer’s avoided this post. The silliness is in “avoided”, the running empty on the back haul of your ego.

        2. Or…. It’s being taken as an informative piece and being left at that….. lol….. you are fucking warped, man.

      2. Awww, how cute. Common Sense is smitten with this little vixen. I saw her FB page. You think she’s cute, don’t you? I don’t think she’ll like a cop whore like you, though. Sorry, CS. Maybe the next one.

        1. Awww sad face, and I was really hoping to tend to her three offspring and help her heal from tragic upbringing. I wonder how much she gets in welfare.

          Tragically our paths will never cross. She’s a poster child for delusional thinking, low grade mental illness, blame-shifting, dysfunctional relationships, low self esteem, and recreational drug usage.

          She will make an excellent clerk at the local gas station. Then again, if she picks a catchy stage name like “Vixen” I’d probably throw some dollar bills at her if she shakes it well, you know, puts some heart into it. She can’t just flail about wrapping her self around that brass pole.

          1. “She’s a poster child for delusional thinking, low grade mental illness,
            blame-shifting, dysfunctional relationships, low self esteem, and
            recreational drug usage.”

            Sounds just like you. You two would be perfect for each other.

          2. *yawn*…….epic reply.

          3. I know. masturbating makes you sleepy. Go take your nap.

          4. *sigh* …you need a better writing staff. If you going to try, atleast make the effort.

          5. CS, you were enthralling. It’s not often that I have had the pleasure of reading a hard-hitting parody of those that use ad hominem to disprove the message by ignoring it and dirtying the messenger.

            Moreover, you parodied the other side that calls two-face on others while they themselves whine and wail over grand juries or juries that don’t go their way. Like in Texas, where a grand jury failed to indict a cop-killer (I mean that hyphen denotatively not connotatively), or just when grand juries fail to indict or juries fail to convict. Notice I used “fail” to continue the parody.

            Bravo, sir, bravo, near Swiftian. I await your next triumph of parody. Can you give a hint of the next of human foibles you’ll parody?

    2. Jury nullification is a power that should be exercised with caution by jurors. This does not refer to judges.

      No one I am aware of advocates for blindly voting not guilty across the board 100% of the time, for everything from parking tickets to ax murders.

      This is about knowing your rights as a juror so you can exericse your conscience, no matter who the defendant is or what costume he or she wears.

      I urge you to become more informed about jury nullification because you haven’t quite grasped the idea yet and may be unaware of the long history and legal precedents behind it.

      1. George:
        No guy. I get it.
        Mine was a very serious question
        though. If a juror see it differently
        than you…that their idea of right and
        wrong are different than yours….and
        they then vote to acquit an officer or
        not to indict an officer…..does that not
        fit this idea?
        It’s exactly what is being discussed here.
        if you think an officer overstepped their
        authority and violated someones rights…
        but a different juror thinks it’s ok because
        they are tired of the criminal thugs getting.
        away with everything all the time and are
        glad that a cop snatched them….is that not
        exactly what is being talked about here?

        1. It’s not an idea to fit, it’s simply an inherent power of the jury.

          What I think you don’t understand is that no one advocates blanket jury nullification. If someone committed a real crime, perhaps then to nullify the law against that real crime by voting not guilty may be a miscarriage of justice. It all depends on the circumstances.

          Cops already get off all the time, for even serious crimes. They don’t require anyone to be informed of their rights in order for them to game the system. They are part and parcel of that system.

          I think your question is best answered through independent study on your part. Good luck with it.

          1. George:
            Well….Id say you are wrong. This article and others like it here are generally am about dope love. People who talk about this idea generally follow up with”victimless crimes”…..which has been shown time after time to not be victimless. In other words…..they want juries to “nulify” the law so that they can smoke dope. It would be so much more genuine if they would just say that.

            But my
            Question is still real and valid. Some want the law nullified so they can smoke pot. Some think that some jackass protester acting like an ass who gets a fat lip while being arrested is a good thing.
            There’s not a difference other than what you want as the end that you like.

            The “Free State” movement is a good example. All of the dope lovers move into New Hampshire to take it over….and can’t get anything accomplished at all.
            Work to change the law. Don’t advocate that it’s ok to break the law if you don’t agree with it.

          2. Until you explain why a given argument is wrong, you add nothing to the conversation but hot, smelly air.

            Jury nullification is how we send the signal to legislators that the unjust laws must be changed. That is how it worked with the Fugitive Slave Act in the 1850’s and Alchohol Prohibition in the 1920’s.

            It’s not ok to break the law if you disagree with it. It is an absolute moral requirement that you break unjust laws. If we are all good little slaves, as you suggest, then we would simply get more unjust laws which would ruin more lives, including our own and those of our children.

            We are duty- and honor-bound to disobey and resist unjust laws by any means necessary at all times. Your hemming, hawing and hot air changes none of that, so get used to it.

            If you don’t like it, I suggest you take it to the legislature and have a law passed.

          3. George:
            What “unjust laws” are you taling about?
            And what classifies something as “unjust”?
            Who gets to make the call that a law is “unjust”?

            Remember…..the Constutution created GOVERNMENT. They set out the ways the government works and the powers granted to the government. And some of those powers are to write laws/statutes/ordinances about various things. Those constituons also spell out the ways that the people can change their governments.

            But explain the “unjust” parts.

          4. > Who gets to make the call that a law is “unjust”?

            Each individual who chooses to exercise his or her conscience. I’ll let you work out the rest with your own research.

            The constitution limits government, not the people. Best to be clear on that.

          5. George:
            I think you are caught on your own merry-go-round and can’t get off.

            So now…we’re back to its each individual to decide what is an unjust law. A comment ago it wasn’t ok to break law just because you disagree with it…and that it was a REQUIREMENT to break unjust laws. But now the only arbitor of if it is unjust….and is required to be broken….in each individual person.

            That’s called double speak son. It comes from a two faced stance because you just want what you want and damn everyone else.

          6. “” I think you are caught on your own merry-go-round and can’t get off. “” – Actually, that’s exactly what he said the first time and every time. It’s also the same thing the literature states. There is no merry-go-round.

            Yes, if individual jurors want to vote not-guilty for a cop, then that is their right. But it’s clear that the literature is attempting to focus on victimless crime. If a cop beats someone, then there most certainly is a victim even if the beating was legal.

          7. cork:
            Ah. “Victimless crimes”. Such as ?

            (this is where the dope love talk starts…)

          8. You know what, stupid ass? I’ve never used a drug other than alcohol in my life. Ever. And I think drug laws are one of the most harmful things our society faces. Prohibition does nothing but enrich criminals. Nothing. Telling dopers not to use dope is like telling the tide not to come in. Pass whatever laws you want, doesn’t matter. But hey, let’s keep those cartels in business, right?

          9. realdumb:
            Well then jump on a jury and nulify away.
            But the numbers are dramatically stacked against you.
            I walked in on a conversation yesterday with several of our detectives. They were talking about a rash of B&Es recently and the drug connection. Legalizing drug doesnt stop that in anyway.
            It’s either try to be “proactive” and arrest people for their drug crimes and keep them from victimizing more people OR be “reactive” and try to find them after they have victimized more people.
            Now….as I’ve said before….it’s not everyone. But the way overwhlong majority of people involved in regular drug use slip into other crimes.

            But hey… nulify away. Maybe you can get on a jury in Port City.

          10. corkster:
            You there? What kind of “victimless” crimes?

          11. “Jury nullification is how we send the signal to legislators that the unjust laws must be changed.” Because you can’t simply contact legislators directly?

            Seriously, this is a common problem with the thinking of this sort of activism. It’s indirectly addressing a perceived problem or a perception of an unjust law. Take for example the common thread of thought right here on this site wherein there are consistent claims of most people being supportive of the ideas espoused here. Were this as true as is believed here, changing the law would be a simple matter. That jury nullification is the manner which you believe is the way to get unjust laws changed or to send signals to legislators, demonstrates that you know, deep down, your position on just how “unjust” a given law is puts it in a decided minority of opinion.

          12. Corporate interests have captured the legislatures, including the corporate interests of the police, prisons, judges and prosecutors. It’s about money. They want more of it and they’ll do anything to get it.

            Juries are a cornerstone of the American republic. We’re playing fair. We’re not buying senators or bribing judges. We don’t hold office or exercise special rights like cops. We’re doing it right. We’re doing it fairly and ethically within the bounds of the constitutional system.

            And you can’t change our minds about it. So get used to it.

          13. Yep, the traditional cop out of the modern activist. It’s all corporate interests. If corporate interests had the grip that you claim, then what signal are you ever sending through jury nullification, since it isn’t coming from a corporate interest and isn’t accompanied with the money that is the only means of moving a legislator.

          14. Sikko:
            He is really struggling now. Throwing up as much dust as possible.
            He really got stuck going in a circle about the who gets to decided what just or unjust. Now it’s bdobery and coruption everywhere.

            I think he’s a college kid that believes what he’s been told without any real world experienced at all

          15. He certainly has that college/liberal instant gratification desire coupled with the buzzword usage and excuse making

          16. It’s not a cop out. It costs hundreds of thousands to run for office and the Republicrat duopoly has a stranglehold on who gets to run, who gets on the ballot, who gets matching funding (political welfare), who gets into the debates, etc.

            Initiatives are more promising but they are also very expensive and time-consuming to run.

            Jury nullification is cheap and does not involve any kind of unethical activity, totally the opposite.

            Your question makes no sense. Maybe you can rephrase it.

          17. George:
            The “laws that effect you the most everyday are passed at the local,level. City codes and ordinances. Running for city/ town council isn’t that expensive. Nor is that expensive to run for a county spot.
            Next work come the effects of state laws and statutes. Again…not horribly expensive to run for….especially if you have so many lie mind liberty lovers in the area.

            Now running for office at a Federal level can be costly. But those laws effect almost nothing that you do. You’ve likely never met or will never meet anyone charged with a Federal crime other than maybe a drug charge.

            So….XXXXXX. Try again.
            And guy…slow down and form a complete thought. You have gotten you ass kicked really badly on this as you don’t really grasp the entirty of what you are talking about.

          18. Why should I have to even go that far? I have a busy life. I don’t want to be a politician. Very few people do.

            Jury nullification is like the free trial version of democracy/republicanism. It only requires a few days or weeks of work and precious little if any investment of your own money. You might even get paid to do it, tho it’s not enough.

            So get used to it. There’s going to be an explosion of jury nullification in the next few years and you’re laughable trolling won’t stop it.

            Seriously, I’ve gone up against US Marshals, cops and TSA agents. Your need to up your game.

          19. George:
            “I have a busy life”
            Doing what? Smokin pot in your moms basement?

            Dude….when I first read and replied to you…..I thought you would be a smart guy to have a discussion with. Wow…what a disappointment. Your ideas are so incompletely formed….so lacking….so devoid of even a basic understanding.
            What a disappointment.

          20. What’s your name and badge number, officer?

            Your tactics to provoke a reaction are textbook cop.

          21. GD:
            Wow. That is a razor sharp wit you have there guy. And I makes me think my assessment is spot on.
            I think you read about this somewhere (maybe like here on CB) and you tbink the idea is just really super cool.
            The proof that assessment is am the research yourself when asked a simple question about and how you just fold and colaspe like a house of cards when any other idea is put forward.

            Way down near the bottom you comment something about getting used to it….that this idea is so ehiw rampant. I tell you clearly that it isn’t rampant….but that it doesn’t matter. I will still go out everyday and do my job. A jury nullifying a case and turning some criminal loose to
            Victimize themselves is their decision to live with.

            But if you are gonna preach this mess….you really need to learn more about it than whatever pamphlet your were handed. You clearly don’t understand the totality of the topic and idea

          22. Officer has a responsibility to identify himself when requested. Or do you not take the law and your public responsibilities seriously?

          23. GD:
            Wow. That’s weak.
            Ok…..since YOU brought it up….YOU find me a law or statute in any state that say that an officer, while of duty and not engaging in any form of law
            Enforcement activity has to identify himself.

            Don’t get mad if I dod t wait.

          24. GD:
            No. I’m off duty on my couch. And you’ve never seen me take a law enforcement action. I haven’t presented myself as an officer. I haven’t stop anyone. I haven’t appeared to you in al law enforcement capacity in anyway.

            I take it by your comment that you can’t produce that non-existent stature then?

            So now…you have exposed yourself as not only a chump without any substantive knowledge about this topic…..but also as a foolish pawn who believes everything he sees on TV.

            You sir….exposed as a chump.

          25. You’re a cop who has all the time in the world to sit around and troll police accountability activists. ‘Nuff said.

          26. GD:
            Maybe. But at least I understand what I’m discussing. Youre clueless.

          27. Because you’ve failed the bacon turing test, kommissar.

          28. And what exactly does “gone up against” mean? You boxed them? What is a game of “horse” or stickball?

          29. “It’s not a cop out. It costs hundreds of thousands to run for office and the Republicrat duopoly has a stranglehold on who gets to run, ”

            You obviously aren’t paying Mich attention to who’s being elected lately. Not to mention that this only speaks to the federal level, but not the state and local levels. In my region alone, we’ve put several people onto the ballot through the write in process. The last 5 election cycles for federal and state elections in the districts that I have lived in have had no less than 3 choices, and this is not an anomaly to my region.

            “Initiatives are more promising but they are also very expensive and time-consuming to run.”

            And….? If your cause is so righteous and the preference of the majority, this wouldn’t matter, funding would be easy to obtain. The time that using the initiative mechanism would take is far less in achieving the desired goal than any efforts to reach the same ends through jury nullification.

            If my question makes no sense it’s because of the mental dissonance is your arguments. You claim, “Jury nullification is how we send the signal to legislators that the unjust laws must be changed.” But those same legislators, according to you have been “captured” by “corporate interests.” If “Corporate interests have captured the legislatures” as you claim, why would you think they’d receive any message from jury nullification efforts. Jury nullification doesn’t give them money, and jury nullification isn’t a corporate interest, so it’s a meaningless way to send a message to anyone who is supposedly “captured by corporate interests.”

          30. It’s not cheap to run at the state and local level, either. And you have to bow and pay fealty to the Republicrats if you want to have any chance at winning.

            Also, ballot access in many states is the same for federal or for state, or they’re tightly-related. Either you get on the ballot for all or you get on for none, either by design or by practical outcome.

            Write-in candidates? Get serious now. Of course it’s dead easy to write someone in but that doesn’t get anyone elected to much other than dogcatcher.

            Also, more and more laws are becoming federally-usurped, ie the feds give money to the states and localities and demand that they enact and enforce the laws the feds want. The nation has been becoming increasingly federalized for some time.

            I don’t know what fairy tale land you live in. The cause of ending slavery was righteous but there had to be a civil war and still it wasn’t enough.

            The cause of ending alcohol prohibition was righteous but that took a long time to get off the books.

            Jury nullification sends the signal. Whether they act on it or not is their decision.

            But in the meantime, jury nullification is an exercise of a critical aspect of our republic that can make things right right now, without having to write candidates in and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars or collect 50,000 signatures.

            You can control the legislatures but we can punk you from the jury box all day long. Get used to it and get ready for more of it.

          31. I see a lot of excuses, and nothing more. It’s all about protecting your buddies from being held accountable for their actions I got that. Yes, ending slavery was righteous, and it took time and money and a war to end it, but those only came about because it WAS righteous AND because people put their money, time and bodies on the line for the cause. The same with alcohol prohibition.

            You are showing nothing more than a petulant sense of entitlement to having things your way. You decry some laws as “unjust” but they can’t be that “unjust” if the cause of erasing them isn’t worth your time or money.

          32. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Why aren’t the feds enforcing that federal law in Colorado or Oregon? If the feds are all so powerful?

            And just remember, when that cop is charged with manslaughter or drunk driving, and the jury nulls the decision, you’ll support that as well correct?

            Maybe that’s why the jury gave the Texas cop 6 months instead of 18 years for the rape case. Seems the jury imposes the sentence and they didn’t like some of the testimony. You support that decision also correct? After all, it was from the jury box, not the bench.

          33. You should read my comments above and study jury nullification independently because you really haven’t understood it. It’s not about blanket voting of not guilty.

          34. I highly doubt I will. Maybe.

            Either way, its still an acquittal.

            The officer was drunk, on duty, and the community decides that since no one was hurt, only embarrassed, they null it. The officer returns to work after a good nap and some hydration.

            How about nullification in civil rights cases where the defendants are white, with white juries. You too would accept that?

          35. OK, so you don’t know what you’re talking about, aren’t familiar with the conversation you’ve jumped into and stubbornly refuse to inform yourself.

            Why would I take you or your questions seriously? Why should I take my time to educate you when you refuse to do it yourself?

          36. Why? Because I’m correct. You support nullification, only when it goes you way.

            A central theme here is “no victim, no crime” – thus the example of an hammered drunk officer, arrested on duty, but since his prior service record is exemplary, tearful testimony would gain him a pass. You would support that wouldn’t you? After all, there is “no victim.”

            Nullification is simply “the law says you did it, but we disagree with the law” and thus an acquittal. If those support it for the nonviolent drug offenses, then you have to support it all the way, or don’t you?

          37. Its like the addict blaming the dealer rather than themselves.

          38. No. He is the master of this topic and he ruled this idea.

            Don’t beleive me?
            Just ask him.

          39. “Take for example the common thread of thought right here on this site wherein there are consistent claims of most people being supportive of the ideas espoused here.” LOLOLOLOL. This is what you get when an ignorant douche likes to sling five dollar words around to show how smart he is. Fucking fail, douchey.

          40. Your argument if I am interpreting correctly implies an unspoken presumption that democratic processes are somehow indicative of majority opinion?

    3. So, if say, a grand jury or just a “jurist” thought that something was wrong, and decided to do something about it….you should be good with that, right? Oh, sorry. Forgot who I was talking to. Mr. Brown Shirt. (A.K.A. goose stepping Colonel Clink) who thinks whatever “The Man” says is God’s law and whoever doesn’t agree should burn for eternity.

      No, jackass. We should not just “be good with that” especially when the “evidence” they are given is released to the public and Ray Charles can plainly see the police officer used excessive force…or just plain murdered someone. Again you missed the whole point. It’s about a person’s rights as a juror.

      And nice use of the word “thug” to sway opinion. Replace that word with, say….”your Grandmother” and see how much weight it carries. An American citizen is an American citizen whether it’s an old white lady or a young Black man. We ALL have the same rights. The problem is that some of us have those rights trampled daily. Can you guess which ones? I’ll give you a hint…I’ve never seen your grandmother beaten and hospitalized or shot dead for reaching for her crochet needles.

      1. pick:
        Wow. You schmucks are really obsessed with Nazis.

        So….you don’t think that guilty people get found “not guilty” in court everyday? Is that jurors rights so important when they release the thug that broke kntonyour moms house and raped, robbed and killed her? Happens all the time.

        What “Ray Charles” incident are you referring to?
        -Kelly Thomas? Warch the video carefully and LISTEN to the audio. Then throw in the ER doctor and the Coroners testimony….and there really wasn’t anyway else for the jury to rule.
        -Michael Brwon? All of the physical evidence showed that Wilsom acted correctly.
        -Eric Garner? Watch the video and listen. He’s clearly not being choked. The officets never “pile on”. The “chokehold” is nothing other than a phrase that wS used by the media that didn’t happen to any extent.

        So which case are you taling about?
        Any of those?

        May the kids in Phio with the toy guns? Nope…can’t be those. Again….video shows they did it right.

        Maybe the case out of SC where the officer shot the guy at the gas station when he reached in the car to get his wallet. Nope….can’t be that one….he got charged because he did it wrong.

        So….what “Ray Charles” case are you blathering about ?

        1. There you go with the “thug” routine again. That’s a sign of a weak mind. But I digress.

          What about the homeless guy beaten to death? Or the guy camping in the wrong spot? Or the guy at Walmart? Or the kid in Cleveland? It goes on and on and on.

          Do you know what youtube is? I don’t have all day to show you how wrong you are. And again, you’ll have to sort through all the BS stories, but that doesn’t detract from all the real ones.

          Stop acting like Nazis and we won’t seem so obsessed with calling you Nazis. Or is the system perfect? Is that what you are saying? If so, you’ve never been on the other side of it. Ignorance.

          1. picks:
            Talk about a weak mind…you are the poster child.

            -Homeless guy beaten to death.
            No idea what you are talking about.
            -Guy camping in the wrong spot.
            No idea what you are talking about.
            -Guy at Walmart.
            Do you mean the one with the very real looking rifle that pointed at the police when told to drop it? That guy at Walmart? The officers and the jury got that one right.
            -Kid on Cleveland. You mean thre one seen on tape terrorizing the park with what appears to be a very real gun. That same kid who decided to pull it out when the police pulled up? That kid?
            The officer clearly made te right choice on that bit of bad parenting.

            Still on Nazis. Do you even no what the Nazis were or what they did?
            Clearly you don’t because you keep comparing small town police forces to them.
            Idiocy. Pure idiocy.

          2. “No idea what you are talking about.”
            I didn’t think you would.
            Whatever helps you sleep at night, t.

          3. picks:
            You mention some random comment about some indescribed event and I’m supposed to be able to read you mind to know what you are thinking?
            Give some detail.
            I did.

            And way to stay on point. Not.

            The point would be….of the jury or even a juror….agreed with the action the police took…according to this concept….they are able to vote in favor of the police and you should embrace that decision.
            Some juror may think that SCOTUS got it wrong in Tenn vs Garner and they may think that burglars should be shot in the back by the police or the homeowner. According to this principle….that’s acceptable thinking.
            Just pointing out how badly
            Two faced CBers are. And you jumped right up showing yours

          4. Ever heard of a search engine?
            I must have hit a nerve.
            Whatever helps you sleep at night, t.

          5. picks:
            So….you can’t narrow it done any?

            And I see you still aren’t on topic.

            Care to discuss further the idea that a juror can “nulify” if they think an officer acted right because the are tired of thugs getting away with it and they think daid thug had it coming?

            And yes…..we all notice that you danced awY from that idea.

          6. “” a juror can “nulify” if they think an officer acted right because the are tired of thugs getting away with it and they think daid thug had it coming? “”- Yes, good luck with that activism, t.

          7. cork:
            According to you goofs….it’s already happening. Cops not even being indicted because…where you think it’s weong….the jurors see it as right.
            Try again.

          8. Ya, I think you are right that it is a form of nullification if it happens. If it is happening then it kind of contradicts your proclamation of “correctness” using jury verdicts to support your assertions. x is true because jury said so type proclamations which I see you make repeatedly. Really a jury verdict in itself proves very little if anything at all. Partly because like you allude to anyone could nullify anything for any reason. Beyond that, the jury selection process itself tends to create a biased jury pool and the bias of jurors is built into the system.

          9. You should join the circus or give lessons you could become absolutely rich through showing people how to talk through their asses. You can do a whole paragraph in one fart. I just wonder if your good enough sing through that ass.

        2. Eric Garner was most likely suffering from copd and sleep apnea which if any would cause him problems. Even if he were cut off by 50% orb 35% of his oxygen supply he would not have been able to recirculate enough oxygen through his body to recoup, So while he was saying he can’t breath he was telling the truth and should have been freed to breath immediately. He may have been able to inhale and exhale but not enough to accommodate his need When a person is sent to the gas chamber and the gas is released the person can breath in and out but suffocates because the cyanide bonds with the oxygen and can not be absorbed by the body inhaling or not they suffocate. A less but similar problem with Eric Garner, deprivation of oxygen caused by the officer using the choke hold. Kelly Thomas was different, he was beaten to death by those cops, Anyone one with any sense at all knows he was murdered and I mean brutaly murdered’

          1. steve:
            Wow. That’s a lot of typing to get it so wrong
            Did you even watch the video?
            The “chokehold” was released in right at 2 seconds. All of the “I can’t breath” while he wS on the ground had nothing to do with how he got on the ground. Watch the video. The initial officer releases him nearly immediately once he is on the ground. You can see an officer move in to handcuff him while another holds his head down….right cheek against the pavement. There’s. I “choking” him. There’s no “dog pile”
            So while your assessment of his health problems are quite likely spot on…it’s not the police causing him to “I can’t breathe”. Nothing that they did it we’re doing caused that.
            Heck…if you’ll notice….they summoned medical attention for him.
            The stress and anxiety of the situation and arrest may very well have strained his poor health….but that’s far different then sYibg the police killed him by using a chokehold….because that didn’t happen.

            See….that’s what is so scary about you guys. You wabt is to have body cameras….but even when there is clearly video….you still bitch.

          2. Vsry well stated for being wrong.

          3. Wow. Great retort.

      2. Godwin Award candidate.

        1. I really do t think they have any idea about history. The Nazi thing always a clue.

    4. I get where you are coming from, t, but the fact of the matter is that everyone, from thug murderers and child molesters to the street vendor peddling his goods without a license, have rights. And when a law enforcer breaks the law, it should be handled the same as if you or I were to do it.

      Does a thuggish, drug dealer who sells deadly toxins to kids deserve to get roughed up a bit? Sure. But not by me, and certainly not by the police. Jury nullification is meant to protect not only morally innocent people, but the rights of even the most evil of criminals.

      1. Burn:
        Dude it’s just the hypocracy of it all. The idea of “I want you to follow the law….but I do t want to held accountable to it myself” that is just rampant with CBer types.

        But people are more and more terrified in the streets. Scared for their kids. You’ve got violent drug dealers and users that will do anything to get their drugs. And then you’ve got mislead fools who think they are part of the solution walking around everywhere with ARs slung on their chests…scaring the crap out of people.

        As for cops breaking the law. This site is proof that they are held accountable. But that’s not enough…CBers demand perfection. They can’t see that when Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown….he was clearly protecting his own life. They ignore the truth that the evidence showed. Forget testimony….look at the physical evidence. Brain was inside Wilsons car when the first shot happened. Browns DNA was found inside the car and on the gun. His blood from the first shot that hit him….was inside the truck. It’s evidence. There’s no opinions….it’s fact. But still….there are those that don’t like it.

        Look at the video of the 12 year old with the toy gun in Cleveland. It’s clear as a bell on video that the officer did the right thing…..and there are those that can’t accept it.

        The standard of perfection isn’t possible. We are just people. Dads and moms, sons and daughters doing a job. But outside the limited activist Commuity….people look Tony’s to get it right all the time. And in the overwhelming amount of the time….we do.
        We just had a drive by shooting where the suspect has an extensive and violent criminal record. It’s not the police that put him back on the street where he has now killed someone.

        1. This site is proof they are held accountable? I hope you are kidding with that statement. This site, if anything, shows how maybe 1% of them are being held accountable for their actions and usually only when they are filmed. I don’t count a paid vacation as accountability though I would sure like the same benefit at my job if I made a mistake that killed someone.

          1. YeahWrong:
            Are you new here?
            The “paid vacation” has been debunked many many times and shown for the nonsensical thinking that it is.
            But even more importantly…..what is it that you don’t think officers are being held accountable for? Heck….Darren Wilson basically lost his job….for doing it correctly. Where is the “justice” in that?

          2. You claiming that something is debunked, and it actually being debunked are light-years apart, homer.

          3. The article before this one proves he’s full of shit.

        2. You no longer have any credibility at all, douche. Your bullshit on that whole port police thing has proven to everybody who went back and read the posts that your a lying puke.

    5. Great try, but we have no indication that happened with the grand jury on Williams. We do have that moron (because he doesn’t side with you this time) Scalia’s assessment: It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation
      [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses,
      but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the
      prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see
      also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th
      ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in
      England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been
      thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence
      presented.” So it may be about how the prosectutor led the grand jury to fail to indict that ham sandwich.

      If you were thinking about Garner, well, man, Conservatives, conservatives, and Liberals, liberals, were appalled by that grand jury’s decision. Know anything about Staten Island?

      1. Splitting the comment to avoid Read More.

        Putting all that aside, jury nullification was a way American colonials dealt with Crown courts. It has also been what juries have done after these United States were constituted. It’s been used badly to maintain a racist social system, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been used rightly elsewhere. Read about, I believe it was Montana but may have been Wyoming, where they couldn’t even form a jury to try a drug “crime”. Jury nullification before forming a jury. Yes, a jury should be able to make a judgment on the law itself. Just because it’s a law doesn’t mean it’s right, nor does it mean it’s for the good or the common good.

        Ever see “12 Angry Men”? Henry Fonda lost his shirt on that movie, and now it’s a classic. Take the lead character’s arguments about reasonable doubt and turn it to be about a law. The dialog would have the same flow and the same import.

        Don’t go knee-jerk. (i)

        1. Ray:
          Before a forget this…
          See if you can find an old video called “in the jury room”. It’s from the 80’s sometime. To my knowledge….it’s the only time jury deliberations have ever been recorded.
          Unlike the fictional account you learned from (there’s some of the TV/movie learning seeping through) thus was a real case

          If memory serves….it was a bout a convicted felon who bought and was caught with a gun….because….as was his story….he saw an ad k. The back of a magazine about being a “P.i.” and part of doing that was you needed a gat.
          It was a shocking look at reality in that some of the jurors felt bad for him (he was a really
          Low IQ guy….a CBer before CB:)
          and they FELT that he didn’t know any better. There was at least 1 guy who openly said he would vote all g with everyone else just to be done. And I think there was 1 guy….a fireman that stick to his guns about A CONVICTED felon who had done prison time KNEW that he couldn’t buy and carry a concealed pistol.

          I can tell that I’m getting old though because, while I can reember lots of it crystal clearly….I don’t remember how it ended.

          It was though a great look at REAL people and how they act and think. It shows them as humans.

          I don’t think you know that. You think its a movie.

      2. Ray:
        Wow. You came in late. And didn’t really add anything even after the wait

        About Williams. I don’t know what case you are talking about.
        Now I’ve been TO a lot of grand juries in my employment. Never on one or the target of one. And while I will agree that a “suspect” testifying to one is unusual….it’s not unheard of.
        But to what I guess is your point….
        Juries….as is the entire Judical system…is supposed to find facts. The prosecutor is to present facts. The defense can question Thise facts and then present facts to counter the allegations. Juries sit and decide if there is enough facts present to get to a finding that the accused commited whatever crime….beyond a reasonable doubt
        It’s ALL about fact finding.

        Now….it has of course been polluted beyond belief. Defense attornies….that are sworn under oath to seek the truth….do whatever they can to include lie at a near constant to win. Unfortunately….the Bar of other attornies like to make money as well…so on it goes.

        In the incident of Darren Wilson….I think the prosecutor did the absolutely right thing. Keeping
        the totality of the situation in mind (not Just the shooting incident….but all of it…..the riots, the destruction of property, the assaults….all of it) the prosecutor KNEW before the presentation to the grand jury that te key witness….Browns little buddy…that not only had the story/lie that he told everyone that caused the problems had changed…but these the physical evidence showed that is was a lie.

        Keeping that in mind…..does he not have a responsiblity to present all of the evidence to the grand jury? It’s not about “winning” or
        Getting the indictment….it’s about finding the facts to find the truth.


        1. Ray: (continued)
          Think back to Kelly Thomas. That case was far murkier than Micheal Browns. And look at the end result and that juries decision.
          When a prosecutor knows that there is t enough to get to BRD…should he pursue that case anyway?

          Where I work and live…..EVERY officer involved shooting is sent to the grand jury. It’s the DAs way of washing his hands of it. And grand juries don’t have the restraints that a normal jury does. They can ask gyrations themselves and there no cross examination of witnesses….they get to say whatever they’d like.
          That’s why it’s usually such a rubber stamp on indictments

          I think it was Charoltte NC where a white officer shot the screening black man at 2 in the morning after he was beating someone’s door in. The states AG stepped in after the first grand jury failed to indict and convened a special grand jury just to get an indictment. That case hasn’t moved on yet but after hearing just the “incriminating” parts….the first jury couldn’t even get to PC let alone BRD.


          1. Ray: (continued)
            As for this topic.
            It’s like I asked young Goerge. If you want 12 people finding “Justice” instead of fact and truth….be very careful. The police are WAY more popular than you like we are.
            Joe American hates people’s je Thise that go “cop blocking” and protesting. They hated OWS.

            If you just want juries finding justice and deciding what laws are “just”… may be like CS pointed out young George above….that’s all good if it goes your way….but if you run up on those the agree drugs are dangerous and the pinks that deal them need their asses kicked….and they side with the police who hit you…..because they think that’s justoce….don’t bitch.

            And that was the bigger point of it. George thinks this is a neato idea because it keep him out of trouble for his drug use. But there is the flip side of that.
            Just think it the whole way through.

          2. I’m not George.

            BRD isn’t “fact and truth” it’s only beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not “fact and truth” or anyone convicted of a crime would never be found innocent later as some have. Think what each means.

            I want the police to be popular for the right reasons, not by a mind-numb standard of “they (all) keep us safe” or any other idolization. The idolization excuses bad behavior, bad practices, and bad policies, but does give your profession what it seems to want. No criticism.

            You did make an argument against ad populum, surprising given you use it to justify your arguments elsewhere, but I do understand it only had to do with what you think I want and how popular opinion would thwart that.

            As for jury nullification, I think that was what you were alluding to even though it has nothing to so with grand juries, it has it warts. It served the Jim Crow south well to maintain it’s injustice against Americans of color.

            Your last three paragraphs had nothing to think through. You confused so many things in those few words.

          3. Grand Juries do not get to BRD, God help us if they do. The grand juries we are talking about are only about PC to indict to send to trial. They do not determine guilt or innocence. It’s “does the government have a case or is this BS” not guilt or innocence by BRD.

            That the first grand jury did not get to PC to indict for trial should be the end of it unless something could be seen to be wrong with how the first prosecutor handled it. That’s why we have levels in government.

            Grand juries should not have the restraints we see at trial (I’m not sure the restraints applied at trial should be there either) because their purpose isn’t to find whether or not the accused is guilty but whether or not the government has a case to accuse. It’s a different standard, a different purpose, and I wish fewer ham sandwiches went to trial.

            “They can ask gyrations themselves and there no cross examination of witnesses….they get to say whatever they’d like. That’s why it’s usually such a rubber stamp on indictments.” After you figure out what this means, rewrite it so the rest of us can. Gyrations?

        2. Grand juries are there to determine whether or not there is probable cause to continue to trial. Prosecutors are not defense attorneys presenting exculpatory evidence to argue for the defendant. There’s a reason that the prosecutor’s conduct, including presenting an exculpatory witness he knew was lying, is being examined.

          You’re essentially arguing that the prosecutor functions as both prosecutor and defense attorney to a Grand Jury. They don’t.

          And here you go off the rails to the Rule of Man: “not Just the shooting incident….but all of it…..the riots, the destruction of property, the assaults….all of it.” Nothing after the shooting has anything to do with the shooting as to whether or not the shooting was justified or a crime. You aren’t arguing that because Brown’s friend was a “liar”, therefore it was good to use another liar for Wilson?

          Be careful with that “totality”, or you’re going to end up arguing that the children need to be punished for what their fathers did. Not that those like you haven’t.

          1. Ray:
            I “arguing” no such thing.

            DAs are elected (assf. DAs are hired) to prosecute people who are accused of crimes. They….very much unlike you…understand that there is a burden of evidence that they have to meet to get a conviction.
            In specific case of Mike Brown…..the DA allowed lots of liars to testify tonthat grand jury. Chief among them was Browns walking buddy….who’s story changed dramatically behind closed doors…..but was still shown to be lying as NONE of the evidence supports what he says happened. Should he not have been allowed to testify them?

            Keep in mind….grand juries are body that is to look at everything….just to see if there is even PC to prosecute someone.

            In most cases…..they are but a rubber stamp. But most cases don’t have outrageous claims and lies about what happened. Most cases don’t have riots and violence and looting and arson associated with them.

            In keeping in mind the totality of what happened (remember the riots started before the grand jury heard the first word from anyone) the DA absolutely needed to keep it all in mind.

            And what about all of that pesky physical evidence? You know….the evidence of Wilson being assaulted. Of the DNA inside the truck and on Wildon and the gun. The never shot in the back. The no hands up.
            Should that evidence not be shown?

            But that’s the importance of the “totality”. The DA has the absolute duty to pursue truth. As does that defense attorney.

            But….specifically about the known liar witness (other than Browns walking partner).
            She had already been on the news and quoted as a witness. If the DA doesn’t let her testimony come in….what don’t pundit then? Dontoubaccuse him of hiding it? Same goes for trial
            Court. The jury gets to make their own calls on what to beleive and what not to beleive.

          2. Yes, County Attorneys are elected. We had one named Andrew Thomas and he was disbarred. You idealize prosecutors as if they aren’t people. As if they aren’t the matrix of all that people are.

            You ignored the Scalia quote. If you want a prosecutor to act as both an advocate for the government and for the accused before a Grand Jury, so be it. But please apply it to every case; if you are involved in a Grand Jury, even as a bystander, and see that the prosecutor isn’t acting as an advocate for the accused but only for the government, speak out. Stand by your argument that I assume comes from your principles.

            “But that’s the importance of the “totality”. The DA has the absolute duty to pursue truth. As does that defense attorney.” In a Grand Jury, the prosecutor presents the Government’s case of probable cause, that is not the absolute truth. If that case were the absolute truth, the absolute truth being the final truth, there would be no reason for a trial.

    6. Just a drive-by correction. In American English, a “jurist” is a judge or a lawyer. A juror is someone else.

      Personally, I’m good in one sense with whatever a grand jury, a jury, or a jurist decides. Simi Valley, O.J., whatever, it’s what was decided. After that, I can criticize till the cops come home. I do reserve the right to further comment years later when it’s found that exculpatory evidence was hidden, or where a government employee was allowed to testify and portrayed as a disciple anointed by Christ. Milke comes to mind.

      I like that portrayal of police officer to thug, it so sets the argument. But what if the “thug” wasn’t a thug but just a guy trying to go home to dinner and the cop was a thug? No cops are thugs?

  2. Interesting. Copblockers want to control juries but they never seem to serve on them. This whole this comes up because it is usually copblockers who are convicted of their crimes and instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they continue to point the finger at everyone else.

    1. People concerned about police abuse and lack of accountability serve on juries all the time. That’s why people sometimes inexplicably get off. Get used to more of it.

      1. George:
        Do you not see tousled waffling and playing both sides here?
        IF some of the members of the grand jury that heard about the Eric Garner case….and they are tired of criminals not paying their share and burdening them with hirer costs….and while they may not be happy that he died but can understand that the police were just arresting him….and they voted that the police didn’t do anything wrong….it’s the exact same thing you are talking about.

      2. No, people who are part of society and reinvest within their towns and cities are on juries. Most of these articles are about whining activists who lost their court trial and then scream for jury nullification. It didn’t help James Cleveland, Graham Colson, or Ademo Miller.

  3. How much tax money goes to “t” in his failed attempts to put lipsticks on pigs?

    1. Tell me….how does “losing the name” keep the police away from you?

      Seriously… are peddling that crap… does not having a name keep the police from arresting you?

  4. How about don’t comit a crime to begin with?

    1. The crime is to make so many things illegal that people are being caged for simply exercising their liberty to do as they please without hurting anyone else.

      1. George Donnelly, uh how did your parents know you were gay at birth.

        1. Did your parents realize that combining their chromosomes would result in a child with negative IQ? Of course, I don’t imagine that they’re brain surgeons, so maybe not.

          1. His mom & dad are brother and sister. Do the math.

          2. And yours are father and goat.

          3. Thats impossible… I’m not a muzzie.

          4. You sound like one

          5. Hahaha.. Thought I was dealing w an idiot. Now, I KNOW that I am. Sound like a muzzie? haha Run along, Dr. Smegma-Breath. All your Obama nut-hugging is catching up w you.

    2. Self-righteously & hypocritically cop nut-hug much?

  5. Wow this site is Hot ! except why are there so many trolls here , oh it’s ok because it is a hot site hey ? and some people just like things how they are with the lying Jews running the world , Sadly for them it’s down hill from here while ever we have great sites like this happening ,we have a chance that the Whole total system will be exposed sooner rather than later ,and all those Parasite Police will finally be Put in Jail where they belong .
    Let’s face it 95% of Police are ” Cowards “and cant look after themselves except when they are in a group which makes them ” No Better ” than the Criminals they chase , and too ” Cowardly ” to investigate when they know something is not right !
    With Child Rape increasing ,murder of innocent people increasing Drug dealing , and extortion increasing ,and Brutality increasing , all by Police ,what a disgrace this is , wake up you Gutless Cowards Do your Job and leave innocent Persons Alone Get it ? Pig !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *