henktermaat
Master
- Jan 3, 2009
- 4,952
- 38
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Jury Duty
- Thread starter henktermaat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jury duty
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
I just had to send in a survey for federal district court.
public servant
Grandmaster
I always get turned down... 
If I had to choose another career..it would be a professional juror...if there were such a thing. But there should be.
If I had to choose another career..it would be a professional juror...if there were such a thing. But there should be.
henktermaat
Master
- Jan 3, 2009
- 4,952
- 38
Hey, I got it in mine. I'm just paying it forward. See? Now you can do it to the next person! It's like a holiday fruitcake that gets gifted around the family every Christmas!
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/politics_laws_and_2nd_amendment/11436-jury_duty.html
I know it is no fun showing up for it, but do us all a favor and take it seriously and perform your civic duty well and with pride. When we don't do it we get a dog and pony show because of the idiots they put on the juries and we then complain why some piece of dirt walked or got little to no time.
Not accusing you of anything just trying to offer some encouragement and say thanks.
Not accusing you of anything just trying to offer some encouragement and say thanks.
public servant
Grandmaster
"Vengence is mine" sayeth Scutter01.
henktermaat
Master
- Jan 3, 2009
- 4,952
- 38
Thanks, what a terriffic site that is... It seriously needs to be spread around. I'll do my best to act "dumb and un-interested" or whatever it takes to get in.
I always get turned down...
If I had to choose another career..it would be a professional juror...if there were such a thing. But there should be.
Strongly disagree. If we had professional jurors, we would have people in the positions as corrupt as any politician. I'm quite happy with having "amateurs" fill the job.
FTR, I will happily serve anytime I get the notice that my service is needed. I make no attempt to get out of serving and part of the reason why is "jury nullification". I would hope that if, God forbid, I was ever the one on trial, I would have good, honest people who are aware of their power in that position. As such, I do what I can and hope someone pays it forward.
Blessings,
Bill
evansvillethompsongunner
Shooter
- Oct 29, 2009
- 2,434
- 36
I wouldn't toss the fight unless I felt I must... I read the newspaper daily, also read news online from four to ten different sources per story (Google News: who doesn't love aggregated spying on you with NEWS??), I'm very stubborn, anti-thetical to the notion that any circumstance can be trumped by one broad rule, and in general, just plain contrary. Couple that with a sardonic wit that's been honed to a point from years of blunt sharpening via ignorant statement and Socratic discussion, and I think I'd be a prosecutor's (or defense's, in the rare instance that I'd side against the defendant) nightmare - as would any thinking Citizen of this once-grand Republic. I can't imagine anyone on this Forum not getting disqualified by either prosecution or defense for being too intelligent and opinionated:
'Someone who thinks on their own, unable to be manipulated?!'
We can only imagine their (perhaps justifiable) fear...
Oh, my fellow free-thinkers... why must we continue to make life difficult for the State?
'Someone who thinks on their own, unable to be manipulated?!'
We can only imagine their (perhaps justifiable) fear...
Oh, my fellow free-thinkers... why must we continue to make life difficult for the State?
1032JBT
LEO and PROUD of it.......even if others aren't
I wouldn't toss the fight unless I felt I must... I read the newspaper daily, also read news online from four to ten different sources per story (Google News: who doesn't love aggregated spying on you with NEWS??), I'm very stubborn, anti-thetical to the notion that any circumstance can be trumped by one broad rule, and in general, just plain contrary. Couple that with a sardonic wit that's been honed to a point from years of blunt sharpening via ignorant statement and Socratic discussion, and I think I'd be a prosecutor's (or defense's, in the rare instance that I'd side against the defendant) nightmare - as would any thinking Citizen of this once-grand Republic. I can't imagine anyone on this Forum not getting disqualified by either prosecution or defense for being too intelligent and opinionated:
'Someone who thinks on their own, unable to be manipulated?!'
We can only imagine their (perhaps justifiable) fear...
Oh, my fellow free-thinkers... why must we continue to make life difficult for the State?
And the bolded statement above is why you wouldn't make a good juror in ANY case. I'm not saying you have to side with the prosecution or the cops, just go into it with a clear and open mind, which by that statement you do not have.
evansvillethompsongunner
Shooter
- Oct 29, 2009
- 2,434
- 36
No, the burden is on the State to prove guilt, not the other way around - our system of law demands innocence until guilt is proven. That's the way I see it.
Also, the emphasis you put in is not original and is not mine - it's in parentheses, as an offset phrase.
Nor did I say 'never': I said "on the rare occasion" - implying that yes, if the facts found for it, I could find against the defendant.
But the burden of proving guilt is upon the State. Period. Next song.
Last edited:
1032JBT
LEO and PROUD of it.......even if others aren't
You are absolutely right.....the burden is on the state as it should be and if they do not meet that burden then I wouldn't expect anyone to find them guilty. I guess it's just my opinion that someone going into Jury Duty thinking they would go against the defense only in a "rare instance" is not going into it with an open mind, but again that's just my opinion.
public servant
Grandmaster
Yeah...you and I both know that corruption would play into it. I was just saying...in a perfect world. We have professional attorneys...professional judges...
I think in reality though we have a lot of problems with the "amateurs"... For instance...we have the group mentioned above (post 3) that wants the jurors to find the defendant "not guilty" (regardless of the evidence) just because the juror disagrees with the legality of the law. That is for higher courts to determine. IMO.
I think my biggest problem with "amateur" jurors is they allow emotion, sentiment and personal feelings to enter into the equation. Me? "Just the facts, ma'am"...
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
There is no higher court than the Constitution.
"In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts."
Indiana Constitution, Article I, § 19.
Indiana Constitution - Article 1
Ballot box, jury box, cartridge box.
Some time back, I saw a juror "test".. not, obviously, a test to allow one to be a juror, but rather a personal quiz for those who may find themselves called to serve someday.
The question before the court was that a citizen had broken a law. He had admitted to doing so, and the penalty was death. No proof of his violation of the law was required because of his admission, however the proof was plentiful, both in the form of eyewitnesses to his action and the police reports when he was caught in the act.
You stand as the lone juror who has not yet entered a vote. All 11 others have voted "guilty". How vote you?
If you just said (or thought) "Guilty"... you just condemned the man who hid Anne Frank and her family from the Nazis.
It is both essential and critical for the jury to judge both the law and the facts. One cannot be divorced from the other.
Blessings,
Bill
Sorry, but as a juror you not only have the right, you have an obligation to judge the law. That's a right that's over 700 years old and is part of the common law upon which this country was founded. If you were on a jury and had to see to a case that involved the fugitive slave act (which was the law of the land at once point) would you vote to send a slave back or vote against an immoral and unConstitutional law? By just following the facts (as immoral judges and prosecutors would have you do) you do a disservice to the law and the very foundations of our country.
Honestly... I really, REALLY hope that that's exactly what they do. I want them to be human beings. I want them to understand what went into what happened. Without that, we would do as well to program a computer to be the "jury".
"We are a nation of laws and not of men", said President Ford.
"The law is reason, free from passion", said Aristotle.
"Justice is blind", goes the motto.
Perhaps so, but she is not deaf, mute, nor heartless. The letter of the law is important, but it must, MUST, IMHO, be tempered by humanity.
Otherwise, should we ever in the slightest way run afoul of the printed word, we trust our own fates to legislators who can't be trusted with money, can't stay faithful in their marriages, and can't seem to recall that it is the people who employ them, not they who rule (as contrasted against "govern") the people.
I'm not willing to go that far, and I cannot see any reason why anyone else would. I respect your right to your opinion. I respect your right to differ. I simply do not understand the thinking that gets you where you seem to be, (apparently) thinking that those in higher courts are somehow our betters.
Blessings,
