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

[49ereric]

as a citizen you are obligated to be an impartial juror and if not there is no Justice.
this was proven down south with black people being murdered and the murderers not being convicted in state court so then the Congress Legislated federal murder laws.
i Believe in the Justice System despite how flawed it is cuz without it chaos.
I would convict if supported by evidence.

 

[roadrunner]

I would convict if supported by evidence.

...and sometimes that evidence is testimony (speculation and opinion) and how well it is delivered and presented.

 

[deltadukman]

Knowing what I know from the voir dire process, no one with a login to Rokslide would ever be picked. They actively try and pick the dumbest and most uninformed people they can find. I have seen it with my own eyes. If you even hint at looking conservative or a hunter, you'll get cut quick.

 

[TheGDog]

Well... morally I believe it's your Civic Duty... participating in your governance as an American... to act to correct something you believe is unjust or flawed in it's thinking. IF it gets under your skin and chaps your hide... ya can't go and b!tch about it later if you didn't at least TRY to bring about change, right?

Now... in a properly functioning legal system... this would be you grassroots trying to spread the word to have as many people as possible contacting their particular representative about "the thing", right?

To create the needed "pressure" from the constituency to coerce these numb-nuts politicos to actually work for US, for a change.

Seems though, that as far as rules related to us and hunting... that when you reside in a more BLUE state... there's this tendency of the constituency to run off "The Feels" way way more... in terms of the logic controlling how the lesser-educated citizenry elects to get-behind and "support" a proposed new change to rules/regs/laws.

A great example we can focus on to see what I'm talking about is the recent enacting of the Ban on take of Bobcats here in CA.

Here's the quandry though: It's a representative form of governance, right? So the idea is we're supposed to be reflecting "the will of the people". BUT... inherently w/in that "will of the people" part... is where the problem lies in our scenario here, looking specifically at this Ban of Bobcat take, for example. (How they actually put it to a Vote, on the ballot, to the general public, of all things!)

Because the vast majority of the population, in my opinion, just my opinion here, isn't all that great at critical thinking skills. And is ridiculously easily manipulated, or falls prey to simple Psychology tricks executed by politicos and further amplified by the news media.

An example of this would be the whole "Identity Politics" phenomenon, a politico essentially pounds into their heads (with ridiculously simple Psychology tricks) "we're the good guys here, those other guys, they're EVIL!" i.e. those other people with a differing view/opinion/take on the matter-at-hand are the "bad guys".

So as such, if among they're ranks... someone were to try to say "Ok, but going over what the other side proposes, in this instance, I think this makes sense." That guy? They will brow-beat him down, severely.

Ya might even say that the emergence of all of us noticing what is referred to as TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is the perfect example of this problem. And essentially it's a problem of the majority running simply off "Feels" with like almost zero logic and reasoning being considered.

"Aww.. those Wolfs are soo beautiful, I just want to pet one! Why do you want to kill them? What's WRONG with you!!?" type of deal. And the way our society is laid out... in terms of sheer numbers.. you're never going to out-numbered the opinion trends coming from all the folks in major metro centers, who are FAR removed from understanding this issue with a level of competency to be able to make a rational decision on the matter.

So.. there's this Catch-22 kinda going on. Overall.. we all can agree that, in general, we want our governance to be reflecting "the will of the people"... cause that's the thing that gives each of us a voice in the matter. BUT... on the other hand.. like in the case of this Bobcat ban... any logical thinking person SHOULD have the thought pop into their mind of "Why would they put this to a vote by the public? When the VAST majority of them don't understand this issue enough to properly judiciously weigh-in on it to begin with!".

So, I dunno. Maybe that was part of the Founding Fathers intended architecture? This idea of "political activism" within the courts, meaning, in the end, the jury... has the ability, with their decision, to potentially fly in the face of ALLLLLL these politicos above them which may have been acting in a more self-serving way perhaps? In terms of their stance on a particular issue.

 

[Matt5266]

Happens all the time my friend.

O, yes I know.

Happens all the time my friend.

I agree it does. Its unfortunate.

 

[Matt5266]

I understand what you’re saying about impartiality but it seems to be more common lately to have judges/prosecutors deciding laws on their own bias. We have a few highly publicized trials going on where the judge is openly and enthusiastically displaying their bias while prosecutors are being praised for their stated vendettas. How do those actions not trickle down to jurors? We also hear all the time about a judge being pro this or pro that….shouldn’t it be pro law?

I 100% agree.

 

[TWHrunner]

Mistaken for coyote. So, NO.

 

[KenLee]

Nope, nor would I convict anyone of killing a pedophile.

 

[Divide93]

I am not too worried about it and hopefully some nincompoop is not seriously considering offing one of the First and Second Gentlemen of Colorado's beautiful new pets! Not that I think everyone should get "behind" them!

 

[NRA4LIFE]

If I was to get on the jury, which I doubt (I have never made it to a jury in numerous attempts), and the evidence was there, I would absolutely vote to convict.

 

[gabenzeke]

Depending on the situation, jury nullification makes sense here.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Gutshot007]

Maybe? if he showed up to court wearing his new hat

 

[Gutshot007]

Not sure if you guys remember thread on guy and his son accidently shooting a grizzly bear they thought was a black bear . No mercy $10, 000 fine. ouch!

 

[cuerro viejo]

EDIT

Just for discussion purposes let’s say the person mistakenly shot a wolf thinking it was a coyote.

after seeing what WY did on that self reported Grizz… absolutely would vote NO!!!

 

[KurtR]

If they thought it was a coyote living in the free state that i do they might get a small fine or co would say just dont do it again. Seems to happen here about every other year. Im assuming it happens more.

Now if they are dumb and say they were intentionally going out to break the law I would convict.

 

[ladogg411]

What wolf? I swear that was a coyote.

 

[Flyjunky]

What wolf? I swear that was a coyote.

Coywolf

 

[awbowhunter]

There are laws and then there are ethics. Sometimes the two dont align. And in this fruit cake day and age i lean toward ethics instead of unreasonable laws in some cases.

As already mentioned, doubt I would clear jury selection, but if I did It would be a not guilty in my case.

In the case of Calirado, they will find out soon enough that wolves will need to be managed in much the same way as coyotes.

 

[ladogg411]

after seeing what WY did on that self reported Grizz… absolutely would vote NO!!!

That father was taking video of the shot when he told his son to shoot at that wet grizzly (looked black).

Perhaps an unfair judge at sentenc8ng. And the dad pled guilty, right? And then was shocked at sentencing stage?

The video allowed everyone to see exactly what dad saw.

I will not be recording video when I shoot at large coyotes.

 

[awbowhunter]

Let`s just pick the laws with which we personally agree to uphold, correct? This thread is in danger of spiraling out of control pronto. It will slip into the political instantaneously.

Do a google search of most rediculous laws and tell me you agree with ALL of them.

Heck I read yesterday that in New York you will be fined for letting your car idle without being in it. HOWEVER, if you have remote start it does not apply??? They say its to reduce motor vehicle theft...but It is NOT lawmakers job to tell me when I can and cannot idle my vehicle unattended.

As with wolves, the people who made the law DO NOT know anything about wildlife biology or management, so their law does not mean much to me.

I Digress.....