Teacher Faces 1 Year In Prison, Job Loss, For Protecting Children with Concealed-Carry

[Guest TankerHC]

So what do you all think? Everyone I know who carries always talks about abiding by the law, printing etc. So the teacher is being made out to be some sort of hero (Protecting children with his gun), OK, I agree, schools should not be gun free zones for law abiding members of the public, for criminals it doesn't matter anyway.

 

On the other hand.

 

He is a teacher there, he knew his school was a "gun free zone" AND he was printing, at least enough that the observer caught it.

 

 

On the one had it's pretty cut and dried, he broke the law.

 

But on the other, I would like to see this challenged as far as it can go, all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary. But of course we have Roberts up there, regardless of how the rest voted Roberts is the biggest liberal conservative on the bench. The JD and WH know they already control the SCOTUS, no worries about putting another one in, they already have him.

 

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/05/17814-teacher-faces-1-year-in-prison-job-loss-for-protecting-children-with-concealed-carry/

Edited June 4, 2013 by TankerHC

[Dolomite_supafly]

What jurers should be told is they also have the option of nullification. That is finding the law the defendant broke as unjust and refusing to punish him for breaking an unjust law. He may have been guilty of breaking the law, as written, but it doesn't mean the law itself is just and legal.

 

There are thousands of laws that are unjust and people were convicted because most jurors are unaware of the right of nullification. Had the jurors known they could declare the law unjust a lot of people would be free.

 

Maybe if more juries were to nullify and begin ruining DA's conviction rates they would quit charging people with laws that are unjust.

[JGunner]

What jurers should be told is they also have the option of nullification. That is finding the law the defendant broke as unjust and refusing to punish him for breaking an unjust law. He may have been guilty of breaking the law, as written, but it doesn't mean the law itself is just and legal.
 
There are thousands of laws that are unjust and people were convicted because most jurors are unaware of the right of nullification. Had the jurors known they could declare the law unjust a lot of people would be free.
 
Maybe if more juries were to nullify and begin ruining DA's conviction rates they would quit charging people with laws that are unjust.

I did not know this. You've already educated at least one more person. (Me!)

[Guest nra37922]

Judges just hate it when someone brings up 'jury nullification'.  Want to get out of jury duty just ask the question during the selection process.

[Spiffy]

What jurers should be told is they also have the option of nullification. That is finding the law the defendant broke as unjust and refusing to punish him for breaking an unjust law. He may have been guilty of breaking the law, as written, but it doesn't mean the law itself is just and legal.

 

There are thousands of laws that are unjust and people were convicted because most jurors are unaware of the right of nullification. Had the jurors known they could declare the law unjust a lot of people would be free.

 

Maybe if more juries were to nullify and begin ruining DA's conviction rates they would quit charging people with laws that are unjust.

Yup Yup because 95% of them only care about their conviction rates. That is why they plead out criminals and it's a revolving door.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't think there is a liberal conservative, but I know what you meant. :D Roberts can't be trusted any more

after the Obamacare decision.

 

There is also this notion of just and unjust laws. Gun Free Zones is an example of the latter that we continually

allow Congress to get away with.

[JAB]

I did not know this. You've already educated at least one more person. (Me!)

 

Another interesting facet that kind of goes along with 'jury nullification' is that a judge can set aside a 'guilty' verdict if he/she doesn't believe the evidence in the case supports such a verdict.  However, a judge cannot set aside a 'not guilty' verdict even if the defendant clearly broke the law.  IANAL but to my understanding, that is at least one way a jury can 'nullify' - by finding a defendant 'not guilty' even if there is no doubt he/she broke the law due to a belief on the part of the jury that the law, itself, is unjust OR a belief that the defendant broke the law but did so for a 'good reason' or was justified in doing so by extenuating circumstances and, therefore, should not be punished.

Edited June 5, 2013 by JAB

[Guest TankerHC]

I am not Attorney, thats a fact. But a few years ago I read something pretty interesting (To me) that goes along with nullification. I decided to research it and what I found, that seems to be the case, is pretty amazing (Again, to me).

 

If you are found guilty, then legally you are guilty.

 

But if you are found Not Guilty, you are NOT Innocent!

 

As I remember reading it a Not Guilty means you are "Not Guilty as charged" and cannot be tried again on the same charges but can be tried on other related charges.

 

In our laws, apparently there is the option of finding someone innocent. I had never heard of that.

 

Since this countries founding the number of people charged who have been found "innocent" is zero.

 

As mentioned, I am no attorney. But if that is the case (As it seems to be) then why is a Jury not instructed that they can find someone "Guilty, Not Guilty or Innocent" along with the possibility of nullification?

[Tim Nunan]

What jurers should be told is they also have the option of nullification. That is finding the law the defendant broke as unjust and refusing to punish him for breaking an unjust law. He may have been guilty of breaking the law, as written, but it doesn't mean the law itself is just and legal.

 

There are thousands of laws that are unjust and people were convicted because most jurors are unaware of the right of nullification. Had the jurors known they could declare the law unjust a lot of people would be free.

 

Maybe if more juries were to nullify and begin ruining DA's conviction rates they would quit charging people with laws that are unjust.

 

http://fija.org/ Fully Informed Jury Association