It's a hypothetical according to the OP. Did he actually strike a person, or simply fire a person? Is this a hypothetical about labor law?
Of course the Defendant broke the Law. I do not encourage anyone to break the Law. But any juror has a right to make a decision based on his/her own principles. Myself and anyone who really opposes Cancel Culture may be guided by the following principle: It is sad that even many opponents of Cancel Culture are not willing to live up to the above principle. It is upsetting that even many Conservatives who oppose Cancel Culture, would still not be willing to take all practical legal steps to oppose it.
I can not give an exhaustive answer. Definitely Jury Nullification based on Racism is unethical. Jury Nullification based on valuing Freedom as described in the OP is a right.
You say it is unethical, but it would be very easy to construct another hypothetical in which JN applied along racial lines would be finding justice.
Perhaps this is a philosophical question which can be addressed separately. My point is that JN is a legal right. If anyone can provide a case of a successful prosecution for JN, then I will admit my error.
We don't disagree, we simply discuss hypotheticals. I will do you one better: JN is a civic obligation. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the jury is the best tool yet designed by mankind to keep government within its lawful bounds.
Thank you. Hopefully Jury Duty can be one of many lawful tools by which Freedom is restored to America.
Yes, active jury nullification is maybe the only way to avoid a bloody revolution. The Fully Informed Jury Association has been spreading the message for years now, despite the best efforts of governments everywhere to crush the jury. www.FIJA.org
I voted 'not guilty' in this specific situation -- BUT -- when someone makes comments about another person, that other person can (and sometimes does) file a civil lawsuit for slander when the comments are spoken, and/or, libel when the comments are in written form. It's best to avoid 'social media' like Facebook, IMHO.... There's nothing to gain, and much to lose -- including a lot of time which could be spent doing something a hell of a lot more beneficial to the person who wastes his life obsessing on all this trivial 'social' crap....
Why do you consider that wrong? Weren't they taking entirely legal steps to "make totalitarians life more difficult"? Your fundamental position would support jury nullification in any criminal case, regardless how serious, where a juror considers the victim "totalitarian". You're promoting the idea that murderers, rapists or terrorists should be set free because making your political point is more important. Now you're free to point out that would be technically legal but I think you're on weaker ground claiming it to be ethical.
The devil is usually in the details... I don't know until I see those details. I am not, on principle, opposed to jury nullification. Although get a couple beers into a roomful of prosecutors, and you'll get an earful. But think of JN as being like a bomb. There are times when you want to blow the whole thing up. But you also don't want to nuke a mosquito. Save it for something important.
This sounds logical to me! The other relevant details might well lean me toward "Guilty simple assault" though because Social Justice Warriors can wreck lives. A more ethical response would be to sue them..... and build up an interesting case with assistance from other possible victims of the SJW.
Thousands or tens of thousands of lives have been destroyed by Cancel Culture. Now 62% of regular Conservatives are afraid to voice their opinions. USA 2020 is far from being a Free Society.
That is a good point............. but it does not justify violence against the person who did this. There are so many other ways to deal with a situation like that.
I agree. But for myself and those who really oppose Totalitarianism, the goal is The juror did not commit any prosecutable offense.
You didn't exclude them though. You've said that your principle is to "take every possible and practical legal step to make totalitarians life more difficult" and making use of jury nullification would but just as legal and cause at least as much difficulty in my hypothetical murder, rape or terrorism cases as it would be in your hypothetical assault case. If your unconditional generalised principle doesn't work for any and all hypotheticals, maybe you should reconsider it (though I think double-checking what "totalitarian" actually means might help clarify your position too ).
But........ acting in this way is one of the reasons why so many Social Justice Warriors have been created in our time period...... and it is a big reason as to why they have so much support. For example..... I use my own name here and all over the internet....... and although I am "conservative" I really do believe that near death experiencer Christian Andreason came back with a message about the way that the Being of Light of NDE fame looks at the LGBTQ community......... that most conservatives would do well to at least consider very seriously. https://www.near-death.com/experiences/gay/christian-andreason.html#a11 Just because we have an idea that is "conservative" and just because most of our friends agree with us in our opinion..... that does not necessarily mean that we cannot learn from a social justice warrior............. at least something! What near death experiencer Christian Andreason wrote on this topic shocked me when I first read this because this was nothing remotely like Evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong had taught me when I was a teenager.
Paradoxically, I agree with some Liberal ideas -- I oppose guns, I oppose White Nationalism (I am Jewish), I support Welfare State. But I oppose Totalitarian aspects of Liberalism -- relentless censorship of views which are far from Hate Speech. For instance people have lost their careers for advocating for male victims of Domestic Violence.