Prior to making this post I would like to mention that I do not have a career I can lose, and no boss or former boss I bear grudge against. I also would never encourage doing anything illegal. A case described below is purely hypothetical. Suppose an SJW Boss fired Long Time Employee for a Facebook post which was far from genuine Hate Speech, yet mildly critical of some Politically Coorect idea. The Long Time Employee suffered a lot due to his/her unfair loss of job. Now, you are in a jury trial of Long Time Employee for committing Aggravated Assault upon SJW Boss. The evidence suggests that he/she is guilty. Long Time Employee argues that injustice he/she suffered should be seen as mitigating circumstance. How would you vote?
I would vote Not Guilty. I could not find a single case where a juror was prosecuted for Jury Nullification. Can anyone point me to such a case?
In my opinion, anyone opposed to Cancel Culture should take every possible legal chance to make the life of those who practice Cancel Culture as difficult as possible.
Indeed, the assailant has broken the law. I would never encourage anyone to break the law. But -- a juror who voted Not Guilty -- a donor who contributed to the assailant's Defense Fund -- a sympathetic citizen who legally helped the assailant while he/she is in prison are acting 100% legally.
Just about every disgruntled fired worker could cite a mitigating circumstance, and none of them excuse assault.
Again, no disagreement. I fully support jury nullification. I would still vote guilty in this case. Not because I what happened was illegal, but because the initiation of violence must always be unlawful. There is a place for vigilante justice (which this might qualify as), but vigilantes are still criminals and no system of laws csn survive letting them slide. I would vote for a lite sentence, if juries had any say in that. But they dont.
Jury nullification isn't illegal but that doesn't mean it's always right. In the hypothetical you raised, you're essentially saying it should be perfectly acceptable to beat someone up for any petty dispute you might have with them. Even is an employer had actually unfairly sacked the employee, even if the employer had defrauded the employee out of thousands of dollars, even if the employer had an affair with the employees wife, there is no justification for any kind of physical assault. The mitigation you referred to could apply to sentencing but not conviction. I mean, if I took strong personal offence at your defence of jury nullification, would that make it OK for me to beat you up?
That was once a common practice in the oil field, fire someone and be prepared to fight them. It's still wrong though and I'd vote guilty.
I would vote for them to be found guilty if they assaulted the employer. Mitigation is for sentencing (not that I would likely buy it in this case), not for guilt.
Guilty. Self defense aside, you can't take the law into your own hands. If he has a beef with his boss, he can take him to court. If for some reason he has no case, he will have to cut his losses and carry on with his life. Revenge is the Lords.
No! The defendant has broken the law. But it is my right to support the defendant in any legal way possible. As a Juror, it is my right vote to acquit or try to negotiate conviction for a lesser charge. As a Concerned Citizen it is my right to contribute to the defendant's defense fund or prison account.
I do not dispute your right to vote guilty. But any Juror who really opposes Cancel Culture has a right to vote not guilty. If anyone can point to a case in USA where a juror was convicted for Jury Nullification, I stand corrected.
Suppose my goal is to make life of Totalitarians more difficult in every possible legal way. Based on this goal a juror who really supports Freedom should vote Not Guilty. Of course the defendant is wrong, but this is not about the defendant.
I'm never denied that a juror would have the legal right (to vote to acquit at least, I don't expect juries get involved in negotiating other charges anywhere) but that wouldn't necessarily make their choice morally correct. Rights come with responsibilities. You've not really explained why you'd work to avoid this hypothetical violent criminal being convicted but your clear implication is political - because the person they attacked was an "SJW" who (apparently) did something they and you didn't like. I don't see how the conclusion can be anything other than you believing that assault would be a perfectly acceptable response to the person being sacked and shouldn't be illegal - that is the core point of jury nullification after all. I would be curious if you'd hold the same opinion if the politics were different, if some other employer sacked someone for supporting things like socialism, same-sex marriage or immigrants? I'm also curious how serious an offence you'd defend the attacker on - what if they murdered the employer, torched the employers house with their family inside or went on a mass shooting at the management offices?
I would never excuse such deeds -- I am not a monster. Nevertheless we must keep in mind that very respectable people supported Clara Harris who murdered her husband for infidelity and Emily Javier who tried to behead her boyfriend Alex Lovell with a Samurai katana. Alex Lovell did lose two fingers.
But you will excuse aggravated assault, despite that covering actions that could potentially lead to the victims death (if only unintentionally)? It seems very fuzzy where you're drawing the line. You've also avoiding addressing the key points of whether you're basing you justification on the basis of the politics implicit to your hypothetical or whether you would still excuse the assault if the underlying reasons were different. That's an entirely different topic. If you wanted to discuss domestic violence, you should have proposed a hypothetical about domestic violence and not your partisan political employment dispute.
If memory serves that was quickly changed from fighting to having a physical contest. The worker and the boss would race to climb their oil rig to the top and the worker could keep his job if he won. J. Paul Getty was famous for never having to reinstate anyone.
He's clearly guilty, so that's what I'm voting. Abusing positions of power to push your ideology is what SJWs do. Don't stoop to their level. The answer to injustice is not more injustice. As far as I'm concerned, the SJW who fired him for expressing his opinion on Facebook should be in jail too.