Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 84 Posts

·
Romans 10:13
Joined
·
4,632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Have you ever wondered what would happen if you ever had to go court becuase you had to use your firearm to defend yourself? Would you totally trust the court system?

I was was on two juries several years ago. Both were crack cocaine cases. In both they had an informant they paid $20 to purchase the crack. In this case they had a hidden camera in his truck which captured the whole drug transaction on video. The prosecutor also had a GBI agent come in to tesify that the substance was indeeed crack concaine. We entered the jury room and our jury foreman deceided to take a secret ballot. 10-2 guilty. I thought who on earth thinks this guy is not guilty! We soon found out who the two were and began to discuss the case. After about an hour, they decided they wanted to see the video again. The judge brought us back out in to the court room. We saw the video (it lasted about 40 seconds) and we returned to the jury room. The foreman took another vote. 11-1 guilty. We soon found out who the one hold out was. After about 4 hours of arguing she changed her mind. 12-0. Guilty. He received 18 years in prison. This happened to be his 3rd conviction.

The next day I was choosen again with some of the same folks from yesterday. This time there was no video. The same GBI agent came in and testified that it was indeed crack cocaine. Our foreman took a vote 8-4 guilty. One of the guys next to me said it would be nice if we had a video like we had yesterday. We talked and we quickly found out that we were wasting our time. The four told us they were not changing their minds. They did not care what the judge told them. They did not care what the GBI agent said. The did not care about anything that was said in this trial. I looked at them at said you shouldn't even be on this jury. And that was some of the nicer things said. I mean people were screaming back and forth at each other.

My point to all this is this: Juries are suppose to abide by what the judge and the law says but in my experience that was not the case. How often does this happen in trials? I don't know. But you would never know if it was happening to you in your trial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
GeorgiaGlocker said:
My point to all this is this: Juries are suppose to abide by what the judge and the law says but in my experience that was not the case. How often does this happen in trials? I don't know. But you would never know if it was happening to you in your trial.
GeorgiaGlocker, I must respectfully disagree with you. I too would have voted not guilty. Allow me to explain why, I reject the idea that the selling and buying of drugs is somehow morally wrong. Now if that person gets high and then commits a true crime, say like hitting someone else or stealing money for more drugs then by all means convict them for that crime.

What do we have here? We have capitalism at its finest; a consumer wishes to buy a product and a producer/seller is willing to furnish the product. What crime was committed? Who was harmed? What other parties are significantly affected in a substantial way so as to warrant the prohibition of the substance? For all I know the guy just wants to buy his crack and sit in a corner and get high for the rest of the night. There is no distinction between the crackhead getting high in the corner and an alcoholic going home with a case of Natty Lite and getting drunk as hell.

What good will sending him to prison do? Prison is a school for criminals. Want to eliminate his drug dependency? Send him to a rehabilitation center.

Furthermore, there is such a thing as jury nullification. More info here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
I looked at them at said you shouldn't even be on this jury. And that was some of the nicer things said. I mean people were screaming back and forth at each other.

My point to all this is this: Juries are suppose to abide by what the judge and the law says but in my experience that was not the case. How often does this happen in trials? I don't know. But you would never know if it was happening to you in your trial.
No, you are WRONG! Juries are not supposed to "abide by what the judge and the law says."

Juries in Georgia have the right to rule based on the facts of the case and/or the law.

This means if they don't actually think the person committed the crime, not guilty. This also means that if the jury thinks the law is unjust/unconstitutional, not guilty.

For example, you are on a jury and a GFL holder is on trial for carry at a "public gathering." The state proves beyond a doubt that the GFL holder committed this crime. You, however, feel that this is an unjust law. You vote not guilty. You are well within your rights to do this.

This is the last check of the people against a tyrannical government's laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
I think there are other, better, threads on this topic. If they exist I can't find them.
 

·
Romans 10:13
Joined
·
4,632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Rammstein said:
GeorgiaGlocker said:
My point to all this is this: Juries are suppose to abide by what the judge and the law says but in my experience that was not the case. How often does this happen in trials? I don't know. But you would never know if it was happening to you in your trial.
GeorgiaGlocker, I must respectfully disagree with you. I too would have voted not guilty. Allow me to explain why, I reject the idea that the selling and buying of drugs is somehow morally wrong. Now if that person gets high and then commits a true crime, say like hitting someone else or stealing money for more drugs then by all means convict them for that crime.

What do we have here? We have capitalism at its finest; a consumer wishes to buy a product and a producer/seller is willing to furnish the product. What crime was committed? Who was harmed? What other parties are significantly affected in a substantial way so as to warrant the prohibition of the substance? For all I know the guy just wants to buy his crack and sit in a corner and get high for the rest of the night. There is no distinction between the crackhead getting high in the corner and an alcoholic going home with a case of Natty Lite and getting drunk as hell.

What good will sending him to prison do? Prison is a school for criminals. Want to eliminate his drug dependency? Send him to a rehabilitation center.

Furthermore, there is such a thing as jury nullification. More info here.
Ramm, I can see the big difference in our age here. No offense intended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
Ramm, I can see the big difference in our age here. No offense intended.
Freedom is not about age, it's about freedom and not wanting to control other people's lives.

Are you saying that when he get's older he'll want to control people who aren't harming anyone else? :p

I'm sorry, but the "I'm older than you, you'll see when you get my age" argument doesn't fly with me.
 

·
Romans 10:13
Joined
·
4,632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
GAGunOwner said:
I looked at them at said you shouldn't even be on this jury. And that was some of the nicer things said. I mean people were screaming back and forth at each other.

My point to all this is this: Juries are suppose to abide by what the judge and the law says but in my experience that was not the case. How often does this happen in trials? I don't know. But you would never know if it was happening to you in your trial.
No, you are WRONG! Juries are not supposed to "abide by what the judge and the law says."

Juries in Georgia have the right to rule based on the facts of the case and/or the law.

This means if they don't actually think the person committed the crime, not guilty. This also means that if the jury thinks the law is unjust/unconstitutional, not guilty.

For example, you are on a jury and a GFL holder is on trial for carry at a "public gathering." The state proves beyond a doubt that the GFL holder committed this crime. You, however, feel that this is an unjust law. You vote not guilty. You are well within your rights to do this.

This is the last check of the people against a tyrannical government's laws.
How can you say I was wrong. That was my opinion. Why did the judge give us jury instructions on how to reach a verdict in this case before we went to the jury room? We were asked during the questioning process "can you make a decision in the case based on the facts? It was a yes or no question. These four could care less about the facts. They told us so. Based on that statement we believed (although I made it sound like it in my original post, I wasn't the only one that told them that) that they did not belong on this jury. In essense they lied to the judge.

Would you like it if you were on trial for some GFL offense and there were several anti 2nd amendment people on your jury and they paid absolutely no attention to the facts?? It works both ways GAGunOwner.
 

·
Romans 10:13
Joined
·
4,632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
GAGunOwner said:
Ramm, I can see the big difference in our age here. No offense intended.
Freedom is not about age, it's about freedom and not wanting to control other people's lives.

Are you saying that when he get's older he'll want to control people who aren't harming anyone else? :p

I'm sorry, but the "I'm older than you, you'll see when you get my age" argument doesn't fly with me.
Freedom...what are you talking about? I am probably twice as old as Ramm is. I have no idea how old you are. Young people today have a more liberal view of drugs than folks of my age. I am not bashing Ramm at all! There are laws on the books about illegal drugs. I simply disagree with Ramm on this issue. If someone is caught breaking the law about crack and the evidence is there and they are convited. Then they go to prison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
997 Posts
GeorgiaGlocker said:
Young people today have a more liberal view of drugs than folks of my age. I am not bashing Ramm at all! There are laws on the books about illegal drugs. I simply disagree with Ramm on this issue. If someone is caught breaking the law about crack and the evidence is there and they are convited. Then they go to prison.
yeah I never met so many pro drug folks till I moved to athens.... i attribute that to the young and counter culture societies around here...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
How can you say I was wrong. That was my opinion.
Because under GA law juries are to judge the LAW((is the law a good or constitutional?) and the fact (is the person guilty or innocent?).

I'm in my 20's like Rammstein. I'm pretty sure about him (I don't actually know him), and positive about myself that the reason that we support freedom in this case (non-violent drug use) is not because we are young and support the "drug counter culture", etc. I guess we just have a libertarian concept of the way things should be.

I've never used drugs in my life and NEVER will. Heck, I've never even smoked a cigarette. I have no use for either. When I find out someone uses them, I stay clear. I actually think it is pretty stupid to use them. That said, if someone wants to sit at home and smoke a joint (or whatever) and they aren't hurting anyone else. Let them. It is of no concern to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
I am not bashing Ramm at all! There are laws on the books about illegal drugs. I simply disagree with Ramm on this issue. If someone is caught breaking the law about crack and the evidence is there and they are convited. Then they go to prison.
So if you were on a jury and a GFL holder was on trial for carrying at a public gathering for his own protection (he wasn't doing anything else illegal, a cop just noticed his gun) and the state proved beyond a doubt that he committed the crime would you convict him? After all there are laws on the books against it. Then he'd go to prison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
Was this thread about drugs, or the court, and its instruction?

Kill the war on drugs... totally pointless.

Were I on a jury, with the ultimate power to decide whether the LAW made/makes sense, I would so do, reagrdless of direction from a judge. I got to deal with a "judge" in Fulton probate. Unfortunately, the woman can't read or can't think. So why should I "trust" some judge's interpretation of the law, and help imprison someone, instead of interpreting it myself, and making an intelligennt decision based on what the law really says?

60 days anyone?

T
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
GeorgiaGlocker said:
Ramm, I can see the big difference in our age here. No offense intended.
While I certainly respect your opinion and I recognize that you have had more time and experience in this world, I still can not find it morally justifiable for me to tell others how to live their life. Especially when they do no harm to others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
GeorgiaGlocker said:
How can you say I was wrong. That was my opinion. Why did the judge give us jury instructions on how to reach a verdict in this case before we went to the jury room? We were asked during the questioning process "can you make a decision in the case based on the facts? It was a yes or no question. These four could care less about the facts. They told us so. Based on that statement we believed (although I made it sound like it in my original post, I wasn't the only one that told them that) that they did not belong on this jury. In essense they lied to the judge.

Would you like it if you were on trial for some GFL offense and there were several anti 2nd amendment people on your jury and they paid absolutely no attention to the facts?? It works both ways GAGunOwner.
Of course those are the instructions of the Judge. He is not going to tell the jury that they have the option of jury nullification.

Not knowing the actual objections of those four I can't actually say if they were objecting for the right reason or not. However, if they believed that the law was unjust they have the right to vote not-guilty. I think that they probably did make a decision in the case based on the facts, and the fact that he was being tried under a draconian law probably played into their decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
GeorgiaGlocker said:
Freedom...what are you talking about? I am probably twice as old as Ramm is. I have no idea how old you are. Young people today have a more liberal view of drugs than folks of my age. I am not bashing Ramm at all! There are laws on the books about illegal drugs. I simply disagree with Ramm on this issue. If someone is caught breaking the law about crack and the evidence is there and they are convited. Then they go to prison.
While most young people do have a liberal viewpoint, I am an exception. I believe in limited government, fiscal conservatism, and liberal social policies. I have no right to tell others how to live so long as their actions do not harm others. I believe it was Justice Black that said "Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins."

Edited to add:

I think my viewpoint is being confused. I am not so much pro drug as I am pro do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
Would you like it if you were on trial for some GFL offense and there were several anti 2nd amendment people on your jury and they paid absolutely no attention to the facts?? It works both ways GAGunOwner.
That is the price we pay for a free system. What if a feminazi was on there jury? What about a Black Panther? What about a GCO member? That would be my luck of the draw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Last post until someone else responds...I promise.

GeorgiaGlocker do you really think there is a difference between someone who smokes some crack, gets high, and sits in their crack house all night versus someone who brings home a 36 pack of beer and gets plastered at home?

I see no distinction, but I am open to other viewpoints.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
Truth be know I'd probably convict someone of a drug charge if the state could prove to me they were guilty because I think that many drug laws are constitutional (though unwise). You don't have a right to use/posses drugs.

On the other hand when it comes to gun laws...unless they were of a violent nature....I'd almost certainly say not guilty because I feel that 99% of gun laws are unconstitutional. You do have a right to own/carry guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
From the Constitution of Georgia

ARTICLE I. BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION I. RIGHTS OF PERSONS
Paragraph XI. Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors. (a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts [bolding mine; W]
As a Juror, I decide if the accused is guilty based on the facts. I also am constitutionaly empowered to decide if the crime should even be a crime, i.e., should the law even exist.

I'm 58 and I agree with tha' Kid. :)
 
1 - 20 of 84 Posts
Top