Worldnetdaily.com has a piece on jury nullification. What it comes down to is that Judges and Lawyers believe Juries are too stupid to make the right decisions. They would rather not leave it in the Jury's hands at all, and would prefer the jury to rule the way they are told.
Money quote from the piece:
Finally, some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders – that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws.
Read the story here. It comes from healthimpactnews.com
A nursing student questioned the college's teaching to threaten patients into "vaccination compliance". She was dismissed from the school.
They will attempt to vaccinate you, or, more importantly your baby, against your will. Hospital and/or medical staff will try to coerce you, threaten you, or otherwise verbally browbeat you into submitting to THEIR will.
What was this kid's crime? Probably "Failure To Grovel".
Notice the other cop in the background. There is no, "Hey Scooter! You shouldn't be slapping a kid!" Or, "Hey Scooter, lets go get a cup of coffee..." The other cop stood by and watched, and never said a thing. The other cop saw nothing wrong with this. They are proud of themselves. This is THEIR culture.
This was an Ambush. A poorly executed one, but what would you expect from cops? They are NOT trained soldiers, no matter how they dress or that they call themselves "operators".
They murdered a man, nearly murdered another and two women. They are proud of themselves.
Get used to it folks. This is our national reality now. They will ruin your life or murder you at their whim... because they can.
The first shot comes as they round the last turn approaching the blocking position. The second comes just before Finicum drives the truck into the snow to avoid a collision with the blocking vehicles. As Finicum exits the vehicle, he was shot at twice more. What would your state of mind be?
In my mind, when the first round was fired at the truck without provocation, everyone in the truck would have been justified in firing at ANYONE who pointed a weapon at them.
In legal terms, whenever a Law Imposement officer uses more force than is necesssary in the first instance, the "actor" is justified in using equal and opposite force in defending his life.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903. And in case you are called on to help,
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
And since they are shooting first now,
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (FromMutiny on the Amistadby Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court. (The instance of the Branch Davidians, being attacked and shot at in their home comes to mind)
And, just for the record,
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197). You can read the case here, http://www.guncite.com/court/state/41se197.html
I can hear you cops saying, "Why didn't he just submit and comply?"
Is that what free men do? Do they prostrate themselves, grovel and whimper before tools of the state?
A free man owes no obligation to submit to a badged thug just because the thug declares it would please him to have it so.
It seems there are a handful of FBI agents being investigated, by DOJ, for firing at Finicum's truck (without provocation) and then lying about it. Just guess which way that investigation will go.
You can just hear their argument now. "Yeah we fired first, but we didn't hit anything! See how benevolent we are? But then he drove away at high speed after we fired on him! A speeding vehicle is a lethal weapon! Yeah, he avoided the roadblock and got out with his hand up, but he MIGHT HAVE been going for a weapon! No, he never pulled a weapon, but he looked like he might have been about to, so we shot him! Yeah, maybe it bends the rules of engagement a little. So what? He deserved it! A Law Imposement Officer's life is infinitely more valuable than a mere "civilian". Besides, we's Law Imposement and we can't be wrong! So There!"
This woman is proud of herself and proud of her blood sacrifice.
“I felt powerful, as if there were no obstacle I couldn’t surmount. I felt a deep sense of freedom, knowing that my only responsibility was to myself. I was overcome with gratitude and optimism and a new-found sense of control. I felt awesome,” This woman is proud of her blood sacrifice also. She says: “I had an abortion,” Brenneman wrote. “I am simply one of millions of women who have exercised this constitutionally protected right, and according to recent data, I am part of the 95 percent of women who do not regret their choice.” She firmly believes the Constitution secures to her a "right" to murder her child. Afterward she said, "..I breathed huge sigh of relief and thought to myself, I get my life back!” The baby lost his.
Let us be clear. This was a human being, alive in its natural environment before it was killed and removed.