I think you may be on to something. When I see a group of MAMILs, as you call them - riding in a pack of 20, preventing traffic from going even the minimum speed limit, what's there to learn?
I think you may be on to something. When I see a group of MAMILs, as you call them - riding in a pack of 20, preventing traffic from going even the minimum speed limit, what's there to learn?
that they aren’t necessarily breaking any laws?
hard to say exactly since laws very state to state, though. Again, I encourage you to get out and try it. You might even meet some Lycra clad men who are far tougher you realize
Screw'em. If they can't keep up with traffic, they need to ride somewhere else. You don't see me running down the middle of the road - why? Because I have enough sense to know I don't belong there, AND I'm courteous enough to NOT cause an accident by running out in front of cars.
As for protesters...they oughta stay out of the road as well. Maybe turn loose a pack of mean dogs in amongst them, that would be entertaining.
I'm not required to notify the court or its officers that I believe in jury nullification unless directly asked, which they aren't going to do. Of course they're going to kick me anyway based on employment so it's a non-issue.
Were I to sit on such a jury, my decision would rely entirely on the facts. IF the driver intentionally evaded barriers and broke traffic laws, then hit protesters with their vehicle, I'd probably vote to convict. IF it were proven that a driver intentionally targeted protesters or didn't use readily available means to avoid driving into protesters, I'd probably vote to convict.
If the driver was trapped through no fault of their own and couldn't escape a mob of protesters in direct contact with their vehicle without hitting some of them, I'd vote to exonerate regardless of the way the law was written. If you're a protester and you're beating on, slapping, standing on or otherwise menacing a vehicle's occupants, you're no longer a protester, you're a rioter.
I'd sit calmly if apprehensively in my locked vehicle, scanning for threats for as long as it took to get a clear path out of a non-threatening protest. The second they start attacking my vehicle with hands, feet, objects, etc., then I'll pick the path of least resistance and gtfo of there. My physical safety is not less important than theirs, regardless of how many of them there are.
Haha.... you've definitely got some colorful fantasies running around in your head.
again that isn't what the law says for the most part. The the presence of a cyclist does not generally cause an accident. And either you’re being hyperbolic or much of your statement betrays the type of person you are. If you change your mind I will gladly facilitate you getting to join folks for a ride.
You've obviously never served on a jury. The questions are more oblique than asking about "jury nullification." An Oklahoma County case, for instance, involved a felon in possession of a gun, so there were questions about being a gun owner, how many guns owned, questions about being an NRA member, and so on and so forth. The decision matrix for the questions was designed to identify prospective jurors who were more likely than not to decide against the defendant and recommend a harsh verdict if convicted. Even the Oklahoma County DA's office supported this.
I don't really have an answer for this.
I would hope that I would decide based on the particular case,,,
Not a pre-set attitude to curb civil upheavals.
I might have the chance to find out though,,,
I just received my first Jury Duty Summons in over 30 years.
Aarond
.
I would hope that I would decide based on the particular case,,,
Not a pre-set attitude to curb civil upheavals.
I might have the chance to find out though,,,
I just received my first Jury Duty Summons in over 30 years.
Aarond
.
Similar threads
