As a Juror, would you vote to convict someone that killed a wolf?

[QuackAttack]

This one hits pretty close to home. I am a prosecuting attorney. I am no fan of wolves but I’ve been through dozens of jury trials…just never as a defendant. For those of you saying that jury nullification is a thing, respectfully, you are incorrect. Jurors are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.

There are a couple of steps to the jury selection process that I want to highlight. Step 1) You are placed under oath. You have raised your hand and promised to answer all the questions honestly. Step 2) While you are still under oath you are asked if you will be able to follow the judge’s instructions. Step 3) One of those instructions includes (more or less) “You must apply the law as I give it to you even if you believe the law is, or should be, different.” For both sides to have a fair day in court, they need jurors who will follow the law, not take it into their own hands.

For those advocating “civil disobedience” I suggest you look into what exactly civil disobedience entails. If you think a law is unjust you break it openly and suffer the consequences in an effort to get the unjust law overturned. Thoreau wrote “civil disobedience” from jail for refusing to pay a tax he thought was unfair. One of MLK’s most famous writings is “A Letter From the Birmingham County Jail” Because HE WROTE IT FROM JAIL! Rosa Parks was jailed because she wouldn’t give up her seat as the law, at the time, required. Are you really suggesting that you would willingly serve a jail sentence for contempt (not following the Judge’s orders) because you disagree with wolf (mis)management policy?

To answer the original question, without inserting hypothetical defenses or excess information, I would convict. If the judge explained the law and the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence that the Defendant broke the law, I would convict. I would NOT like it; I live in Northern Minnesota where we are over-run with wolves. But I would remember that I raised my right hand and swore to follow the law, then I would do just that. Our system does not work otherwise.

The law is not a suicide pact and the verdict was placed in the hands of the people, not the government, specifically so that they could both vote on guilt and whether the government has gone too far with its application of the law.

Lots of things were legal, but evil.

 

[wind gypsy]

I never fail to be astounded when I read the comments in literally all Rokslide threads pertaining to wolves, seemingly the most polarizing megafauna in North America. I live in Idaho where wolves were reintorduced in 1995 by the USFWS as a "nonessential experimental population" and were labeled the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolves. Every living ungulate in the state has grown up with wolves on the landscape. I highly recommend that those with interest regarding wolf reintroduction read a book by Carter Neimeyer titled Wolfer. It is a wonderful and very educational read. Virtually EVERYONE, from soccer moms to outfitters, has strong and polarized opinions on wolves.

Everywhere I see Carter's name he's saying the same misleading bullshit. "The Elk population in MT/WY/ID has grown since the intro of wolves" said without context of that growth being almost entirely in areas where wolves are not with the opposite occurring in the wolf range. He's a good boy for the center of biological diversity and their type.

 

[sneaky]

Carter Niemeyer is a..... nevermind, there's nothing good to say about that man. I can't believe his book was actually recommended as reading. It should be called "Judas, How to Screw Your Fellow Sportsmen"

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Everywhere I see Carter's name he's saying the same misleading bullshit. "The Elk population in MT/WY/ID has grown since the intro of wolves" without context like that growth being almost entirely in areas where wolves are not with the opposite occurring in the wolf range doesn't matter. He's a good boy for the center of biological diversity and their type.

100%.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I never fail to be astounded when I read the comments in literally all Rokslide threads pertaining to wolves, seemingly the most polarizing megafauna in North America. I live in Idaho where wolves were reintorduced in 1995 by the USFWS as a "nonessential experimental population" and were labeled the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolves. Every living ungulate in the state has grown up with wolves on the landscape. I highly recommend that those with interest regarding wolf reintroduction read a book by Carter Neimeyer titled Wolfer. It is a wonderful and very educational read. Virtually EVERYONE, from soccer moms to outfitters, has strong and polarized opinions on wolves.

I would recommend no one give that idiot a dime. He couldn't carry Ed Bangs' jock strap. You can tell he's lying about idaho wolves and their effects if his lips are moving.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[roadrunner]

After a little time to think about, my answer is still a hard NO!

 

[roadrunner]

This one hits pretty close to home. I am a prosecuting attorney. I am no fan of wolves but I’ve been through dozens of jury trials…just never as a defendant. For those of you saying that jury nullification is a thing, respectfully, you are incorrect. Jurors are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.

There are a couple of steps to the jury selection process that I want to highlight. Step 1) You are placed under oath. You have raised your hand and promised to answer all the questions honestly. Step 2) While you are still under oath you are asked if you will be able to follow the judge’s instructions. Step 3) One of those instructions includes (more or less) “You must apply the law as I give it to you even if you believe the law is, or should be, different.” For both sides to have a fair day in court, they need jurors who will follow the law, not take it into their own hands.

For those advocating “civil disobedience” I suggest you look into what exactly civil disobedience entails. If you think a law is unjust you break it openly and suffer the consequences in an effort to get the unjust law overturned. Thoreau wrote “civil disobedience” from jail for refusing to pay a tax he thought was unfair. One of MLK’s most famous writings is “A Letter From the Birmingham County Jail” Because HE WROTE IT FROM JAIL! Rosa Parks was jailed because she wouldn’t give up her seat as the law, at the time, required. Are you really suggesting that you would willingly serve a jail sentence for contempt (not following the Judge’s orders) because you disagree with wolf (mis)management policy?

To answer the original question, without inserting hypothetical defenses or excess information, I would convict. If the judge explained the law and the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence that the Defendant broke the law, I would convict. I would NOT like it; I live in Northern Minnesota where we are over-run with wolves. But I would remember that I raised my right hand and swore to follow the law, then I would do just that. Our system does not work otherwise.

As a prosecutor, you are full well aware the difference between 'guilt' and 'innocence' is how well each side spins the "evidence" to convince the jury they're right, according to how a judge says what the law is under their own interpretation that could be subjective at best.

As a prosecutor, you have to convince me as a juror, without a shadow of a doubt, the law was purposfully broke relative to the killing of a wolf regardless of how a judge "dumb-splains" the law to me.

Recently, some judges in HI declared the supreme law of the land, namely the United States Constitution, doesn't apply in HI. They chose which laws they want to follow and which laws they don't by cherry-picking which of the Bill of Rights they don't like, even after the SCOTUS has succinctly stated the sole purpose to the Right.

Pretty dishonest, to say the least, that a trial judge will set the tone to begin with under threat of prosecution to a juror to apply the law the way they say to.

Just like in a banana republic...

 

[Rthur]

As a prosecutor, you are full well aware the difference between 'guilt' and 'innocence' is how well each side spins the "evidence" to convince the jury they're right, according to how a judge says what the law is under their own interpretation that could be subjective at best.

As a prosecutor, you have to convince me as a juror, without a shadow of a doubt, the law was purposfully broke relative to the killing of a wolf regardless of how a judge "dumb-splains" the law to me.

Recently, some judges in HI declared the supreme law of the land, namely the United States Constitution, doesn't apply in HI. They chose which laws they want to follow and which laws they don't by cherry-picking which of the Bill of Rights they don't like, even after the SCOTUS has succinctly stated the sole purpose to the Right.

Pretty dishonest, to say the least, that a trial judge will set the tone to begin with under threat of prosecution to a juror to apply the law the way they say to.

Just like in a banana republic...

A right is endowed by a higher authority than the local/current government.
If not it will always be at the whims of opinion and recent "popular" trends.
A case of do as we say not as we do.

R

 

[tpicou]

If it's illegal then absolutely lmao. If we want to live in a high-trust society then we need to make sure rules are followed and change them through appropriate means.

 

[11boo]

I’m just hoping a few make it down to the front range.

 

[Hnthrdr]

All the talk of high trust society and the law is the law makes me laugh. My brother picked up a felon last week who was imposession of a stolen AK style rifle, who was caught in the act trying to kick in a door and burglarize a home. A super liberal DA had the felon back on the street in two days, yep high trust society my ass. Keep believing that the state won’t railroad you the second they see fit and that they don’t release scum on the regular and I’ll have some ocean front property in Co to sell you.

 

[tpicou]

All the talk of high trust society and the law is the law makes me laugh. My brother picked up a felon last week who was imposession of a stolen AK style rifle, who was caught in the act trying to kick in a door and burglarize a home. A super liberal DA had the felon back on the street in two days, yep high trust society my ass. Keep believing that the state won’t railroad you the second they see fit and that they don’t release scum on the regular and I’ll have some ocean front property in Co to sell you.

Cool, your DA sucks. That fact has no bearing on how honest people who want good things should act.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Cool, your DA sucks. That fact has no bearing on how honest people who want good things should act.

Not my DA, I’m sure mine are even softer on crime, but talking about law and order in an absolute vacuum is convenient. If you knew half of what went on with our legal system I think it would change your tune. But like most things it is never a problem until I happens to you or your family. Do you believe there is no nuance is laws or that a law might not be just or right?

 

[tpicou]

Not my DA, I’m sure mine are even softer on crime, but talking about law and order in an absolute vacuum is convenient. If you knew half of what went on with our legal system I think it would change your tune. But like most things it is never a problem until I happens to you or your family. Do you believe there is no nuance is laws or that a law might not be just or right?

My family has been in business lawsuits and court battles for years over things with numbers involved that would make people's heads spin. At the end of the day we won because we didn't do anything wrong.

Of course there is nuance involved. And my view on a law being just or right does not mean I should just throw it out because I disagree with it. I'm sure that felon with the stolen AK who wanted to burglarize a home also didn't think the law was just because they were <insert poor/on hard times/whatever lame excuse>. Poachers in various countries abroad shoot animals because they are starving. It's still poaching and it's a very serious crime.

If I am a juror and let someone off because I think the law was wrong then it would make me no better than the idiotic DAs who believe in catch & release--they too believe that the laws are not just.

 

[KenLee]

This one hits pretty close to home. I am a prosecuting attorney. I am no fan of wolves but I’ve been through dozens of jury trials…just never as a defendant. For those of you saying that jury nullification is a thing, respectfully, you are incorrect. Jurors are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.

There are a couple of steps to the jury selection process that I want to highlight. Step 1) You are placed under oath. You have raised your hand and promised to answer all the questions honestly. Step 2) While you are still under oath you are asked if you will be able to follow the judge’s instructions. Step 3) One of those instructions includes (more or less) “You must apply the law as I give it to you even if you believe the law is, or should be, different.” For both sides to have a fair day in court, they need jurors who will follow the law, not take it into their own hands.

For those advocating “civil disobedience” I suggest you look into what exactly civil disobedience entails. If you think a law is unjust you break it openly and suffer the consequences in an effort to get the unjust law overturned. Thoreau wrote “civil disobedience” from jail for refusing to pay a tax he thought was unfair. One of MLK’s most famous writings is “A Letter From the Birmingham County Jail” Because HE WROTE IT FROM JAIL! Rosa Parks was jailed because she wouldn’t give up her seat as the law, at the time, required. Are you really suggesting that you would willingly serve a jail sentence for contempt (not following the Judge’s orders) because you disagree with wolf (mis)management policy?

To answer the original question, without inserting hypothetical defenses or excess information, I would convict. If the judge explained the law and the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence that the Defendant broke the law, I would convict. I would NOT like it; I live in Northern Minnesota where we are over-run with wolves. But I would remember that I raised my right hand and swore to follow the law, then I would do just that. Our system does not work otherwise.

So the prosecutor gets to harrass a juror about why he/she voted not guilty?

 

[gabenzeke]

So the prosecutor gets to harrass a juror about why he/she voted not guilty?

Some government employees seem to generally believe might makes right.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[roadrunner]

A right is endowed by a higher authority than the local/current government.
If not it will always be at the whims of opinion and recent "popular" trends.
A case of do as we say not as we do.

R

In essence, a side of gov't doesn't believe a private citizen has the right to defend themselves or their property.

The only ones in the long history of mankind that want to take what you have are the strong and lazy or government...

 

[roadrunner]

So the prosecutor gets to harrass a juror about why he/she voted not guilty?

The prosecutor had better have their ducks in a row if they do...

 

[49ereric]

All the talk of high trust society and the law is the law makes me laugh. My brother picked up a felon last week who was imposession of a stolen AK style rifle, who was caught in the act trying to kick in a door and burglarize a home. A super liberal DA had the felon back on the street in two days, yep high trust society my ass. Keep believing that the state won’t railroad you the second they see fit and that they don’t release scum on the regular and I’ll have some ocean front property in Co to sell you.

The guy made bail then? Blame the judge.

 

[Hnthrdr]

The guy made bail then? Blame the judge.

RoR’ed didn’t you know bail is racist