That leads to where right and wrong are arbitrary and at the whim of the one making the judgement. If you are going to continue to make up definitions for words like "right", "wrong", "lawful", "crime" so they fit your argument I can't have an argument because an argument is based in fact, not arbitrarily assigned meanings to words.
It is no assumption, it is the logical conclusion to your arguments.
"Jury nullification (US), jury equity[1][2] (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK)[3][4] generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway, because the jurors consider that the law itself is unjust,[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,[7] or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favour of the defendant.[8]
Like I said, I wont argue while you bend and twist meanings to suit your position, you claiming the moral high ground in your own mind and using Latin you had to look up won't change this.
11ng/ml fentanyl (therapeutic is 1ng/ml)
Precisely why I posted it.
And the jury was not allowed to be presented with this! It is madness!
Have not read all posts, sorry if something like this has already been posted. Although thoroughly debunked by Fact Checkers (and we all know how fair and un-biased they are) one if not more of the jury pool was concerned about unrest and the safety of their person and property if the "right" verdict was not returned. These thoughts were as the trial was beginning.
That’s fact. Thank you. I still stand by my opinions on the departments possible. That’s a different topic at this point. He definitely got made an example out of and there’s definitely corruption involved.
