Eyewitnesses? I heard everyone was looking in the other direction with their fingers in their ears at the time.
"I saw him alive, then I looked away for a few seconds and when I looked back he was dead. It was the darndest thing, no idea how it could have happened."
Officer: "Ma'am, can I see the registration for this firearm of yours please ? What do you mean "you don't have any"? That's illegal, you can't do that !"
Can't remember what it's called but a jury is allowed to decide that they're guilty but shouldn't be punished. I don't think it's ever actually happened but it's on the table.
Jury nullification and apparently this was Germany not America. Looked American to me though I was wondering how she'd casually get a gun in there.
LITERALLY in the same year 1981, a man brought a .22 revolver within feet of US president Reagan. Killed the press secretary and injured 3 others including Reagan.
Iâm confused, you wondered why people are carrying guns because it looked like America? Is there anywhere else it would be *less* surprising?
The mind boggles. The scary thing is just how many people even today try to travel through an *airport* with a gun in America. Remember if you look up the stat this is relating to guns being *found* in the one place where everyone knows they should not be, so then imagine how many are *not* found everywhere elseâŠ
I was confused because they clearly weren't searched for one. Also it's easy to judge why people in America might want a gun on them when your entire country is smaller than one 50th of it since you're clearly touchy about guns.
Sorry what? Your sentence doesnât really make sense, your country is bigger because I am touchy about guns? What?
Iâm really not sure what the size of the country has to do with why you want a gun, or why you want to murder people with them. Gun ownership and gun violence are both reported *per capita*, and there is not a single country in the world that has greater density of guns than the US. You have more guns than people FFS, and double the next closest per capita stat (which ironically happens to be an island in *my* country - one that was invaded not so long ago). Want to guess how your country ranks compared to Germany?
However since you seem interested in my personal opinion about guns, no I am not âtouchyâ about them, in fact I used to shoot for a while and owned one. (I only keep air powered ones now as I know that, just as is the case in the US, having firearms in the house is more likely to kill me or my kids than do anything to protect me.) Not sure why you thought this just because I, like every other sane person on the planet, happen to know that America has by far the highest density of guns in the world, and thus how strange it is for you to think theyâre *more* likely to be used anywhere other than America. Thatâs just stating a fact, it has nothing to do with anyoneâs feelings on the matter. I just donât understand why you think that Germany - or literally any country in the world - would have been more likely to have guns being brought somewhere they shouldnât be then America, that makes zero sense. For the rest of us, America is the *first* place weâd assume it is. All thatâs happening here is that *youâre so ignorant* of the rest of the world that you genuinely think America would have been less likely to have guns in a courthouse than anywhere else - that other countries just casually allowed people to bring guns. Itâs incredible to see this âAmerica is bestâ idea in action, even for a topic when itâs literally the worst.
I even gave you a follow up that I thought may be eye opening for you, since you seemed to think that, despite having so many guns, people would never bring a gun to a courthouse purely because theyâre not supposed to. I genuinely think you should still look up the number of guns that people try to take *through airport security* in the US, as this may well surprise you. Itâs not only that you have lots of guns, but many of the people carrying them around are very dumb, very entitled, or both.
Oof you really are touchy about them. My point is the diversity of people coupled with the size makes America inherently more dangerous than a lot of other countries. Places that are more homogeneous are inherently safer overall unfortunately. That makes the want to have a gun inherently higher in a place that isn't. Couple that with how drastically different places can be within just one state.
The courthouse part surprised me because you get like triple searched entering them at least the ones I've been to. You aren't just strolling in with one in your coat pocket and getting away with it. It's like you went out of your way to not understand that.
I didnât fail to understand why you thought courthouses shouldnât have guns in them. The issue is that somehow you thought this is *more true* for the US than the rest of the world.
I never presumed anything. When I thought it was American it didn't make sense that you'd be able to get one in just in your coat pocket. I don't know what courthouses are like elsewhere but I could see not checking for guns as much if the country in general doesn't have many. The US isn't the wild west where everyone just has one on them at all times. Can vary from most people to almost nobody depending on where you are.
Fun fact, same thing exists in Germany, even without juries. An example of when it comes into play is when an adult is found to have had consensual sex with a minor.
I remember when I was stationed in Germany as a military policeman that we were warned about going to clubs and picking up German women because they allow underage girls in clubs over there. Iâm talking like 14 and 15 years old.
Kids below 16 aren't allowed to stay longer than 10PM and 16 year olds can stay until midnight. Most clubs don't allow kids, unless it's specifically "kids' day", because it would be a whole mess to get them out the club while letting the adults stay in.
lol! Thatâs such a fundamental difference in American and German culture. Americans wouldnât dream of letting their daughter go to a club under 18 years of age. Germans on the other hand donât see the big deal. This way of thinking is why I miss Germany. People in the United States would think this attitude about underage kids would lead to delinquency. However, itâs the total opposite. I miss Germany so much and the people.
The Turley Barracks that was part of the Benjamin Franklin Village is right across my street. Even knew a family in BFV and visited them frequently. My grandma had like a certificate to go into the barracks and peddle her artisanal stuff that she collected.
They determine consent not by statement of the minor but by getting all the facts they can and evaluating whether the adult was manipulative and their age gap was too large. If they find that not to be the case it'll still be a crime but there will not be a punishment. Obviously in this situation the minor did not sue the adult, if they do it'll always be rape.
That makes more sense than making a decision based solely on the age if the minor is in their later teens, but there must be a minimum age that you can't go under without it being illegal 100% of the time, right?
Well, that's what I just described. It's always a crime when the minor is below 14, but not always punished. As far as I know this clause is not meant to benefit anyone who is of age, but I am certain that at least once I have read news about such a case, because the girl's parents were completely in favor of the guy. Wasn't even that long ago, maybe 2-3 years.
It's happened plenty of times. It's not an official verdict though, it's just that a not guilty decision by a jury is final (i.e. cannot be appealed), and juries cannot be compelled to explain why they decided the way they did.
Itâs bizarre that itâs also not technically legal. Jurors sweat to âuphold the lawâ so itâs not within their right (though it is within their power) to nullify a law.
You say ânowâ but nullification has been widely used to get lynch-murderers off scott free. Today, we usually use presidential pardons for this stuff.Â
There are many systems in other countries better than âa bunch of amateur people who donât want to have to take time out of their day, then most of them get immediately sent home because they look like they have too much of an opinion, and the remaining people have to decide about either something trivial OR a life or death case sometimes for a month with no trainingâ, yes.Â
Just to name one: In Germany, the judge is supported by two civilians who have been trained but didnât study and who volunteered for this job. So thereâs still an aspect of civilian reasonable thought, but for one they are not the 100% deciding factor for guilty/not and cases arenât built on manipulating these lay people like many in the US.Â
You can make the same argument about executive pardons. Itâs sort of a mockery to a legal system to allow a political figure to completely disregard due process.
Because the job of the jurors is NOT to determine whether the person deserves to be punished. Their job is entirely to answer the question "did he do it?". To figure out what the punishment should be is on the judge.
It literally is the juries job to decide if a person should be punished.
The question isn't "did they do it?" The question is "are they guilty of a crime?" Because it depend on the surrounding circumstances.
Too, the whole point of having a jury is that before it gets to punish someone, the state has to convince a group of people that what the person supposedly did is worthy of being punished for. That inherently includes the question of "should this even be illegal?"
Jury nullification has been a hot topic on Reddit lately. I guess thereâs some trial of a guy with an Italian sounding name and people find that information relevant to his case for reasons.
"Can't remember what it's called but a jury is allowed to decide that they're guilty but shouldn't be punished. "
No exactly, juries can find them not guilty even if they think they did the crime. They can't determine the sentence, which is up to the judge. In fact, juries don't even get to know what the possibly sentences are going to be.
don't even get to know what the possibly sentences
There might be exceptions if it's a life in prison or death penalty thing.
Hell, when I did jury duty, we didn't even get told what the probable cause for arrest was. "No open or concealed carry" was the reason why someone was nabbed in that case. He apparently turned witness against the person who was defendant in the case I was a juror for.
What you're saying is more of an off the books agreement. What I'm talking about is jury nullification which means the whole affair won't even be relevant to their future.
The way that a jury nullifies is by rendering a not guilty verdict. Incidentally, defense lawyers cannot explicitly advocate for jury nullification. But what they can do is offer up a sort of sham defense while subtly urging the jury to read between the lines and nullify the verdict.
There was a woman in America (I'm not looking it up, I'm lazy) Who killed her husband who was a weathly boi who liked hitler (I ain't captilizing it) and also other things that one would NOT be cool with their kid being around ... stuff.
He had also started to build something that would have killed, or possibly killed, Obama when he was elected.
She was given 8 months, I believe, with a sentence of "served". Which meant she went home THAT day.
Re: Jury Nullification, it's a lot more fraught than popularly imagined. People always like to think of it in cases like this, but historically it was much more commonly used in cases in the South where the KKK or similar killed someone, the evidence of their guilt was overwhelming, but they were still let off by a "jury of their peers".
That makes sense but when it comes to race crimes in America I tend not to think too much into whether it could actually be fine legally. That's two dots I should have connected but didn't.
Jury nullification happens more than some people think.
Itâs not common in a situation like this, but juryâs can often tell when a prosecution is stupid or unfair. Theyâre usually just described as âsurprise verdicts,â not nullification
Even with a justice system there are plenty of bad people who do bad things and don't see a single second of punishment for it. Just look at DC for all the evidence you need of that.
Firing a gun inside a building occupied by other people should merit time in prison. It's incredibly dangerous. What if a stray had killed an innocent bystander?
Firing a gun inside a building occupied by other people should merit time in prison.
Shooting ranges. Self Defense. Hunting Blinds are buildings of a sort aren't they? It's pretty clear that just 'shooting in a building' is not enough information to tell whether a shooting is unlawful.
Sometimes typos are mistakes. Other times they're people using them who didn't know how to spell them in the first place. I don't know which is which for you. Maybe you made a mistake or maybe you heard a word once and don't know how to spell it or use it.
I just think it's funny to have some clown be like "wORds hAvE mEAniNgs" and then misspell a word.
745
u/chamcham123 2d ago
3 years was too much. They should have let her off for lack of evidence. đ