Pat Robertson

[Bowdiddley]

No telling what he'd say then!

[EVOL!]

Funny, the Trib had an article today saying that prosecutors around the country are having trouble finding jurors to serve on pot possession cases. People get to the interview step and for various reasons basically say they could not in good conscience punish someone for possession or small time dealing (couple of ounces). Still trying to find if the article is online so I can link to it.

[Bowdiddley]

Funny, the Trib had an article today saying that prosecutors around the country are having trouble finding jurors to serve on pot possession cases. People get to the interview step and for various reasons basically say they could not in good conscience punish someone for possession or small time dealing (couple of ounces). Still trying to find if the article is online so I can link to it.

 

Yeah I was reading about a case of a pot dealer in Montana I think where they couldn't seat a jury that would prosecute. Tickled the crap out of me!

 

Can you imagine if we stuck together and did that for pot cases all over the US!

[Californiaman]

Can you imagine if we stuck together and did that for pot cases all over the US!

 

Sounds like the beginnings of a quiet revolution.

[EVOL!]

Sounds like the beginnings of a quiet revolution.

 

Civil disobedience is a beautiful thing.

[EVOL!]

Yeah I was reading about a case of a pot dealer in Montana I think where they couldn't seat a jury that would prosecute. Tickled the crap out of me!

 

 

I think the Montana case was referenced in this article.

[animalfarm]

 

"Dr. Robertson unequivocally stated that he is HUGE fan of Metallica", and regularly

listens to "Enter Sandman" prior to going on the air...".

 

 

[Dennis G]

Still trying to find if the article is online so I can link to it.

This was from the LA Times

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-marijuana-juries-20101225,0,2484761.story

[Californiaman]

That's great journalism and a wonderful example of our fine citizens of this country standing up for what is right.

Good for them.

[NeoConMan]

they could not in good conscience punish someone for possession or small time dealing (couple of ounces).

They didn't call ME.

 

 

My conscience has no "complicating" issues.

Never smoked anything in my life - legal or not.

 

I've met few people who can say that.

 

[jannusguy2]

They didn't call ME.

 

 

My conscience has no "complicating" issues.

Never smoked anything in my life - legal or not.

 

I've met few people who can say that.

 

 

You would appear to be in the minority here. Having no experience would suggest a dearth of knowledge on which to base an opinion. You seem to wear your abstinence as a badge of some sort of moral superiority. Kinda like Pat Robertson.

[EVOL!]

This was from the LA Times

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-marijuana-juries-20101225,0,2484761.story

 

That's the one. Thanks!

[Bowdiddley]

They didn't call ME.

 

 

My conscience has no "complicating" issues.

Never smoked anything in my life - legal or not.

 

I've met few people who can say that.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRWlnv0_svU

 

[EVOL!]

They didn't call ME.

 

 

My conscience has no "complicating" issues.

Never smoked anything in my life - legal or not.

 

I've met few people who can say that.

 

 

Well that's one juror for the prosecution. Eleven more to go.

 

Just out of curiosity, are you strictly adhering to the law or just going by personal conviction? Not trying to ask a loaded question; I have general curiosity because the potential jurors in the article, whether they know it or not, are exercising civil disobedience.

[Californiaman]

They didn't call ME.

 

 

My conscience has no "complicating" issues.

Never smoked anything in my life - legal or not.

 

I've met few people who can say that.

 

 

Yes few people can say that.

I'm curious as to where you fall on the issue, Neo.

I believe that if we were on the same jury together, we most likely would look at this completely differently. I might be more inclined to acquit while you would be more inclined to convict.

 

You would appear to be in the minority here. Having no experience would suggest a dearth of knowledge on which to base an opinion. You seem to wear your abstinence as a badge of some sort of moral superiority. Kinda like Pat Robertson.

 

Unfortunately Pat Robertson and Neo may both wear their abstinence as a badge of moral superiority, but I believe they both believe in "redemption and second chances." So there might be a chance Neo would not be so inclined to vote for a conviction.

 

Well that's one juror for the prosecution. Eleven more to go.

 

Just out of curiosity, are you strictly adhering to the law or just going by personal conviction? Not trying to ask a loaded question; I have general curiosity because the potential jurors in the article, whether they know it or not, are exercising civil disobedience.

 

That's a good question.

If you were being interviewed for a potential jury would you "truthfully" let your convictions and beliefs be known regarding you, the law and marijuana or would you be vague and wait till you were selected for the jury in an effort to influence the outcome of the trial?

 

It seems to me that as the public's perception on Marijuana has changed in recent years, that it would be very difficult to seat an impartial jury for this type of case.

I know I might be more inclined to exercise some civil disobedience in this regard. I would certainly speak up. It depends on the case though. Simple possession case. No way am I going to participate. The alleged perpetrator has me on his side. I can honestly say that.

[EVOL!]

That's a good question.

If you were being interviewed for a potential jury would you "truthfully" let your convictions and beliefs be known regarding you, the law and marijuana or would you be vague and wait till you were selected for the jury in an effort to influence the outcome of the trial?

 

I could only be fully honest because I take jury duty very seriously. To me it is a civic duty like voting. And if the prosecution or defense doesn't like it, so be it.

[Californiaman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRWlnv0_svU

 

 

 

I heard this song about a month ago on KPIG.

I love it.

Thanks for posting it.

[NeoConMan]

You would appear to be in the minority here.

I'm used to it.

My Dad told me as a child something that has been tattooed on my brain ever since;

"You can always take a stand on your convictions - but you might be standing alone."

 

I have found those words to ring true many, many times in my adult lifetime.

Changes nothing for me.

The lemmings can jump off the cliff all they want to...

 

 

 

Having no experience would suggest a dearth of knowledge on which to base an opinion.

Really?

An opinion on what, exactly?

Bank robbers should only have a jury of their "peers" - other bank robbers?

What about murder?

 

I do not completely disagree, but I have no clue if that is what you were alluding to.

If the bar is set that high, I would feel better about facing a jury of MY peers.

Could I be assured of facing 12 Redneck/White-haired/Blue collared Christians who own guns and believe in Liberty?

12 people who have worked hard, met their personal obligations, and faced the heat for mistakes?

12 people who don't feel they are owed ANYTHING earned by someone else's labor?

 

 

 

You seem to wear your abstinence as a badge of some sort of moral superiority.

You seem to post after me with the sole intent of being a pr!ck.

Two years here provide plenty of empirical evidence - you've NEVER strayed from the habit.

Of course, I take some comfort in knowing that YOU ALONE create that superiority - and then cower from it.

All without EVER learning anything about me.

I've chuckled over this phenomenon for a couple years now - and simply let you cultivate it.

 

 

 

 

Kinda like Pat Robertson.

Not "kinda."

EXACTLY like Pat Robertson.

 

 

As I stated earlier in the thread (don't say you didn't see it) I regard Robertson as a moron - have for years.

But if something DEEP inside you makes you fear both of us in the same manner - I'll accept that with glee.

Not sure where you get ANY of this crap, but I'm no Freud.

 

 

I'm sure Duane will see this thread, delete its content, and allow you to hide away as you always do.

My core convictions equip me to accept that.

Your habits force you to continue as you do...

 

 

 

Well that's one juror for the prosecution. Eleven more to go.

 

Just out of curiosity, are you strictly adhering to the law or just going by personal conviction?

Personal conviction - no more/no less.

Hated tobacco - in ALL forms - since I can remember.

I was the only one in my family who never smoked, though most of them have quit now.

I've simply noted that some of the most militant tobacco haters are former smokers.

My one leaning toward "superiority" is that I was never stupid enough to start when all my friends did.

 

 

 

Yes few people can say that.

I'm curious as to where you fall on the issue, Neo.

I believe that if we were on the same jury together, we most likely would look at this completely differently.

I might be more inclined to acquit while you would be more inclined to convict.

I dunno.

What laws are we using as the benchmark?

Jurors are held to applying the law.

There are THOUSANDS of laws on the books that I disagree with.

 

 

 

Unfortunately Pat Robertson and Neo may both wear their abstinence as a badge of moral superiority, but I believe they both believe in "redemption and second chances."

So there might be a chance Neo would not be so inclined to vote for a conviction.

Thank you.

 

 

 

I could only be fully honest because I take jury duty very seriously.

To me it is a civic duty like voting. And if the prosecution or defense doesn't like it, so be it.

Same here.

But ideology still creeps in.

Gotta be intellectually honest enough to realize it.

If I'm on a jury, my sole focus would be to erase the pop culture prevailing method of thinking.

My default is the Constitution and the Bible.

Everything since is nothing but efforts to undermine them both.

[TommyK]

The judge is a wuss.

 

He should have dismissed the jurors who freely admitted they would not convict for criminal possession, even if it were proved. If at the end of today's pool, he couldn't seat 12 jurors, he should have rescheduled for the next day so they could bring in another batch of new jury recruits.

 

Aside from that if they could have seated 12, then proceed. If the jury would not convict based on clear evidence, assuming the state (us) proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and using the states laws as a guide, the judge is fully capable of setting the idiot filled jury's vote and convict on his own ruling.

 

My guess is this is another bleeding heart judge who does not understand his job and his duty to his community and country. It is not to MAKE laws, but to ENFORCE the laws of his country and his state.

 

This is one judge who needs to be recalled, and / or booted out for non-performance.

[TommyK]

My previous response was based only on the LATimes article. But the judge may have been doing a better job than I understood.... but not much.

 

Seemed strange the LA Times was reporting a court case in Missoula Montana, via a 'reporter' in Seattle. I thought I'd dig a bit deeper. I went closer to the horse's mouth, The Missoulian news paper. Probably better to get this kind of news from a more local reporter: The Missoulian article.

 

While a jury wasn't able to be assembled, the judge retired to his chambers to try to figure out what to do. :unsure: In the interim, the State made a plea agreement with the perpetrator and sentenced him to 20 years with 19 suspended (does that mean he gets one year?) He also was convicted of a theft charge.

 

My problem with the judge is, read The Missoulian article all the way to the bottom, that in addition to the 1/16 oz of MJ, the prosecution had eye witnesses to one or more drug transactions, evidence from the alleged buyer's car, testimony of the alleged buyers saying the MJ in their possession had purchased from the perp, and the perpetrators' admission of dealing drugs and / or hooking people up in exchange for some pot for his personal use.

 

a. There may have been enough to convict.

b. Why in Hades did the judge reveal just one piece of evidence in the case, why not the entire litany of evidence?

 

I honestly do not believe the judge used good judgment by revealing ANY of the pertinent facts of the case. I mean... isn't that what the trial is all about?

 

Yup, even though the dealer copped a plea, and the judge gave the convicted man a tongue lashing, I feel the judge went beyond the scope of his robes here. It is almost as if he WANTED to poison the jury pool before the selection process was completed. Why not reveal to the jury pool that the man admitted to the felony? Why not reveal that there were several credible eye witnesses? Why did he only reveal a seemingly insignificant bit of evidence. Given the information The Missoulian provided, I think the locals need to rethink keeping this guy on the bench.

 

Gosh, I wonder what the eye-witness neighbors think about the prospect that this ne'er do well could be back in their neighborhood dealing drugs by next Christmas?

 

 

 

 

 

Bottom line, I think this is yet another case of selective reporting. The LATimes and many pro-pot entities have excised the salient details that would seem to bolster their childish cause, leaving the other facts on the cutting room floor.

 

 

Why do you think they call it 'Dope'? :blink:

[Californiaman]

Excellent work Tommy!

Good job man. That was good work. Way to follow it up.

[Bowdiddley]

Why do you think they call it 'Dope'? :blink:

 

Because some idiot in the 1920's dubbed it that in a very organized effort to scare the public into believing it was "Public Enemy #1".

[Bowdiddley]

Why do you think they call it 'Dope'? :blink:

 

Because some idiot in the 1930's dubbed it that in a very organized effort to scare the public into believing it was "Public Enemy #1". Watch "Reefer Madness" from 1938 and tell me the Gov. isn't trying to manipulate the public through fear. <_<

[EVOL!]

My default is the Constitution and the Bible.

Everything since is nothing but efforts to undermine them both.

 

But you would agree that the Constitution was designed to be an amendable document to keep up with the times, right? It's not as if it can be amended willy nilly (the whole two thirds of States or both Houses). Some major amendments were giving women the right to vote and outlawing slavery.

 

But ideology still creeps in.

Gotta be intellectually honest enough to realize it.

 

True, which is why it is a jury of your peers with those peers being your community. Jury selection is a lottery with the hopes of getting a good sample of your local community. Here in Chicago jury selection looks like a box of Crayolas; the monster one with a built in sharpener. My home town in rural Michigan? More homogenous than a carton of eggs.

[NeoConMan]

But you would agree that the Constitution was designed to be an amendable document to keep up with the times, right?

I would agree - it's a fact.

 

 

 

It's not as if it can be amended willy nilly (the whole two thirds of States or both Houses).

Beyond the scope of this forum, I can dissect half of the amendments and illustrate how flawed they are.

Whims were multiplied into political expediency, and then "progress" was touted as the result.

 

 

 

Some major amendments were giving women the right to vote and outlawing slavery.

Those amendments are remembered that way through the fuzzy lense of history.

The reality behind them was much more complicated, and somewhat less wholesome.

 

Net gain for women and blacks?

Sure.

But amendments to the Constitution were ALWAYS rammed through like ObamaCare - unintended consequences abound.

It's NOT the same as our Founding Fathers debating the relative merits and perils on the Bill of Rights without time pressure.