Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
you call me out for a strawman for pointing out that you are attacking articles which seem to support the positions you support, and then say i am telling you to shut up, when i never said you should stop talking?
You say you support anti-monopolistic regulations, but you are bashing Techdirt for supporting it. Why are you so instant that techdirt can't support regulations that you yourself support?
No, jury nullification is a by product of our justice system, not an intentionally designed part of it.
my point was that even if he sticks to his guns instead of accepting a plea deal (unlikely) and the DA takes the case (unlikely) and the judge doesn't throw it out (unlikely), Jury nullification still wont save him from the thousands in medical bills he earned from that beating, and wont bring the cops to justice. so how is jury nullification a solid answer to this case?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
Except as those articles shows its not. legislation designed to prevent abuse of monopolistic positions is viewed positively, but by your own admission you like that kind of regulation. On the other hand, the majority of articles about 'regulation' are against them. In a non-regulated, high captial investment market like Broadband, you will eventually get monopoloistic practices. You need to legislate anti-monopolistic regulations. You admit this. Thats the only time Techdirt has ever supported legislation. But its regulation so you are attacking techdirt for it.
So we let law enforcement supress the recording and drive the narrative about how they had no choice but to kill his mother? he doesn't need to watch you tube videos of this standoff. But that video could provide real information to the public about the actions of the police, Real Evidence.
So, when Mr. Bundy had an armed standoff he was a guy backed up by other guys with guns, who all said they would shoot and kill federal agents if provoked. so they negotiated a settlement by which Bundy could continue to break the law, and the roundup of cattle to prevent the breaking of the law was suspended.
But when a single mother decides to take a stand, a single verbal warning for officers to leave was considered sufficient grounds to open fire.
Does her less then Caucasian appearance have anything to do with this decision? Studies have shown that Police will perceive a threat more readily when you appear non-Caucasian.
But, basically, if you want to bully the government make sure you have friends with you. and make sure you're a respectable white man.
How does declaring the victim not guilty of assaulting police officers, assuming the judge and public defender let this go to trial, do anything significant? Your obsession with Jury Nullification as the end all be all of justice is wearing thin.
Re: Sheesh - could the Court have punted any harder?
Juries have the POWER to nullify. That comes as a natural extension of the design of our court system. what is debated is if they have the RIGHT to nullify. In several jurisdictions that will get you booted off the jury.
In either case, Jury Nullification has no baring on judges using software to decide sentencing lengths. You can not nullify sentencing, you'd have to nullify the conviction that happens before the sentencing, and we are talking about a problem that occurs even for those who should be punished.
The software does not measure inhearent nature. Its collects data about neighborhood, race, previous accusations and convictions, and statisticly models you. 5-10 years of data can significantly change that model.
in fact, if there was enough comeption for someone to make that ad, we wouldn't be in this position in the first place. The only reason ISPs are getting away with this is they bought up all the competition and developed monopolies and duopolies in the broadband market.