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

[rabbithuntr]

I doubt I would ever make the jury pool, but if I did I would vote to convict if the evidence supported it. Whether you agree with the law or not. It is what jurors affirm they will do in the event they make the pool.

What law? The law is so convoluted that it is often impossible to agree with part of the law and not disagree with another part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[7mm-08]

I never fail to be astounded when I read the comments in literally all Rokslide threads pertaining to wolves, seemingly the most polarizing megafauna in North America. I live in Idaho where wolves were reintorduced in 1995 by the USFWS as a "nonessential experimental population" and were labeled the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolves. Every living ungulate in the state has grown up with wolves on the landscape. I highly recommend that those with interest regarding wolf reintroduction read a book by Carter Neimeyer titled Wolfer. It is a wonderful and very educational read. Virtually EVERYONE, from soccer moms to outfitters, has strong and polarized opinions on wolves.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Carter is a very interesting guy to visit with. So is Ed Bangs.

 

[Q child]

As a jury member I would follow the instructions from the judge, consider the law and the facts, then vote appropriately.

 

[Maverick1]

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?

When is your trial?

 

[7mm-08]

Carter is a very interesting guy to visit with. So is Ed Bangs.

Now THERE is a guy who instantly earned my respect.

 

[Rich M]

It's the same as shooting an eagle, isn't it? Federally protected species?

Trying to decipher the law on this one is pretty mute - did he kill it, yes or no.

 

[HOT ROD]

I cant imagine I would make it through the interview process but if they did chose me than the answer no i wouldn't convict...

 

[Coopsdaddy]

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?

If it wasnt doing harm and is illegal or against the law in that area than yes.
That’s cut and dry.
Why not just shoot a moose?
We have laws and are a nation of laws(some stupid but nevertheless)and that’s a big issue in our country.Look at the border.
If it’s killing livestock or harassing us it will die and nothing would ever be said and be left to rot.
I’m not a wolf lover and would send a arrow or bullet through one in a second but not in a state it’s illegal.I live in Oklahoma and theres mountain lions and if your shoot one you better make sure your in the right.
Respect our laws in this country or get off the couch and go rally to change it,we have a process.

 

[Turkeytider]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That may well be true, and that`s what the courts are for, particularly the SCOTUS. It appears to me that what`s being said by some in this thread is that they would convict only for violations of laws with which they personally agree. I think it`s a pretty short step from there to only obeying laws with which I, myself , personally agree . That sounds like the makings of a mob as opposed to any sort of cohesive society.

 

[Jethro]

Must be tough to empanel a jury of 12-14 that are able and willing to uphold their oath.

 

[AK_Skeeter]

Juries are interesting. I was on a Grand Jury in Fairbanks
A drug addict had shot his girlfriend in the head with a derringer.
The question before us was it similar to a derringer lighter.
All gun owners on the jury said irrelevant...never point anything like a gun at a person.
Some of the non-gun owners voted for the derringer lighter excuse.

 

[stanginthe11s]

while I enjoy reading all this, I can't help but put my head down in disappointment. this thread was nothing more than a test. the fact that any of us responded with guilty or not guilty proves there's no such thing as an impartial jury.
for those of you who need to hear the evidence, what evidence? this is not a case that has any meat to it. its beyond simple as far as facts go. there are only 2 solid facts and one questionable fact. fact 1) dead wolf. fact 2) person shot it. the questionable fact is mistaken identity, and there's no way anyone can prove beyond a doubt that the defendant didn't see a coyote in his mind.
you guys have to realize that based on our legal system, if a case makes it as far as a jury, then its highly likely the prosecution has no substantial evidence. juries are a last option for both sides, and 90% of prosecutors will do everything they can to not go to trial. even when cases do go to trial the whole argument is designed to distract you from reality and lose focus on facts.
nothing in this world is black and white, it's all grey. if you want to say "its the law period" let me throw a scenario at you because I love ridiculous examples lol.
its 2 am, your wife, kid etc. has a life-threatening emergency. you have minutes to react, or they die. you grab them, jump in the car, and drive as fast as you can to the hospital down the road. in doing so, you broke many laws so when you arrive at the hospital you are arrested and thrown in jail.

what kind of person do you want deciding your fate? someone like you, or someone who knows laws don't always fit every situation or do anything to better society.​

 

[dsotm]

Jury nullification is a thing

 

[roosiebull]

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

What percentage of Americans are objective these days? I agree, but it’s no longer reality, there have been enough high profile court cases/rulings that almost brag about the justice system being disgustingly flawed.

Anything that can be attached to politics is, and people have no problem justifying bias if it supports their ideology. The court system is supposed to be objective, but it’s so far away from that now if there is any political attachment to the crime

I could list a page full of examples that are fresh on everyone’s minds, but obviously that would do no good here and the mods wouldn’t appreciate it, but everyone could think of several examples without thinking too hard about it.

I certainly wouldn’t want to be on that jury and would voice my bias before I was put on that jury. I have been called for jury duty a few times and have gotten out of it every time, this case would be the same, I really wouldn’t want to participate in a case like that, especially if the evidence was pretty strong

 

[TWHrunner]

Pretty soon we’ll be asking the same questions about rats.

Democrats introduce bill to ban rodent-killing glue traps

Democrats in Congress have introduced a PETA-backed bill that, if passed into law, would ban the use and possession of glue traps used to catch rodents.

www.foxnews.com

 

[TWHrunner]

Good luck convincing me that the world hasn’t gone mad…

 

[Squincher]

Blind obedience to the law without consideration of justice is a dangerous thing, and justice isn't simply the enforcement of law. Just think of the decades of enforcement of Jim Crowe laws. Would any of you "the law is the law" types have voted for those convictions?

 

[Mtnman84]

Maybe a high five! Or a fist bump!

 

[z987k]

If it wasnt doing harm and is illegal or against the law in that area than yes.
That’s cut and dry.
Why not just shoot a moose?
We have laws and are a nation of laws(some stupid but nevertheless)and that’s a big issue in our country.Look at the border.
If it’s killing livestock or harassing us it will die and nothing would ever be said and be left to rot.
I’m not a wolf lover and would send a arrow or bullet through one in a second but not in a state it’s illegal.I live in Oklahoma and theres mountain lions and if your shoot one you better make sure your in the right.
Respect our laws in this country or get off the couch and go rally to change it,we have a process.

And a part of the process, if need be, is jury nullification.