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

[Fartrell Cluggins]

I read some chatter online that some people wouldnt vote to convict someone who killed a wolf.

If you were called for jury duty, would you vote to convict?

I'd get myself dismissed from the case if I knew I was incapable of fairly measuring the facts of the case against the language of the law. Otherwise, I'd have to hear all of the evidence then examine it against the law.

 

[Flyjunky]

It`s irrelevant if I (or anyone else for that matter ) agree with ALL of them or not. If they are law, then one has to expect consequences ( well, except perhaps for our laws pertaining to immigration ) for either breaking said laws or ignoring them.

Why don't you go to DC and explain that to those running this country, or the rich who seem to be above the law. A book could be written with examples of the above, yet those same laws are applied heavily to those with less means.

I'll start believing we have a country of laws when they start applying them across the board. Until then, it comes down to who you are, who you know, or how much $$ you have.

 

[Dust Rider]

No

 

[manitou1]

I know how hard it is to prove a case like that beyond a reasonable doubt. If the suspect follows a few basic rules I couldn’t vote guilty.

Turn your phone off.
Don’t make any statements.
Don’t take any pictures or tell anyone about the coyote you killed.

And don't go admiring it after the kill!

 

[Flyjunky]

And don't go admiring it after the kill!

and use mono

 

[z987k]

Very unlikely given the circumstances that put the wolf there.

I have an absolute right to nullify a law as a juror as do all of you. The jury is the very last backstop against unjust or just outright stupid laws.

 

[bergie]

Probably wouldn't be chosen to be on the jury after letting my opinions be known. Now if it was a grizzly....I 100% wouldn't be chosen to be on the jury.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Very unlikely given the circumstances that put the wolf there.

I have an absolute right to nullify a law as a juror as do all of you. The jury is the very last backstop against unjust or just outright stupid laws.

Sheeple seem to forget that…

 

[z987k]

Sheeple seem to forget that…

The replies that say something along the lines of "well if it's against the law, I'd convict." Makes my skin crawl. Talk about the banality of evil.

 

[MattB]

You guys who answered "no" would be all good if a BLM protester who was videoed burning a private business was let off because of a juror who felt compelled by their personal ethics? The sad thing is when you advocate disregard for the law because of...reasons...it can go both ways. The law either matters or it doesn't.

 

[49ereric]

Sec. 97B.645 MN Statutes

Mn law does protect a wolf killing in these cases.

 

[RyanT26]

You guys who answered "no" would be all good if a BLM protester who was videoed burning a private business was let off because of a juror who felt compelled by their personal ethics? The sad thing is when you advocate disregard for the law because of...reasons...it can go both ways. The law either matters or it doesn't.

Well first, they would have to be charged with a crime…….most CA/DA haven’t and won’t let that happen. So someone has already made a decision on that.
The enforcement of laws has been favoring onside for quite a while now if you have been paying attention.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

The replies that say something along the lines of "well if it's against the law, I'd convict." Makes my skin crawl. Talk about the banality of evil.

Poaching is just that. Poaching. It is illegal. Most of us hate the fact the wolves are here. But again, if it's illegal, I do not condone.

 

[MattB]

Well first, they would have to be charged with a crime…….most CA/DA haven’t and won’t let that happen. So someone has already made a decision on that.

Agreed, that was regrettable. The right way to address the issue is to vote out those who won't enforce the law.

Not to join them.

 

[RyanT26]

Agreed, that was regrettable. The right way to address the issue is to vote out those who won't enforce the law.

Not to join them.

Vote them out
Which major city has that worked?

 

[Hnthrdr]

Agreed, that was regrettable. The right way to address the issue is to vote out those who won't enforce the law.

Not to join them.

It is impossible in metro Co these days… not joining them, resisting them. Here is a thought for ya say they legalized pedophilia? Are we supposed to uphold it since “it’s the law!”

 

[rabbithuntr]

I’d never make it through the jury picking process once they started asking me questions. Not that I think wolves are the boogeyman but they’d full well know how I felt about the politicians that forced them onto the landscape

Depends on the rest of the pool and the defense can make a strong argument to make it till you are in the final pool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rabbithuntr]

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.

All laws are not constitutional and shouldn’t be upheld.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rabbithuntr]

Your job as a juror is to be impartial and not operate on feelings or bias.

Everyone has some bias and cannot completely remove it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheGDog]

I'll start believing we have a country of laws when they start applying them across the board. Until then, it comes down to who you are, who you know, or how much $$ you have.

Tell ya a story... former President of the Company I work for (we make software for the Legal Industry) told me a saying one time, that really stuck with me, and is very spot-on... and unfortunately ALSO jives with what you're saying here.. which is...

"Life?... Is like a Big Sh!t Sandwich... The More Bread Ya Got?... The Less Sh!t ya Have To Eat!"