>In short, I think you're believing me to be saying something quite different than I am. It's possible that you /meant/ something different, but everyone can r

>In short, I think you're believing me to be saying something quite different than I am. It's possible that you /meant/ something different, but everyone can read what you said. What you say matters my friend. >This has nothing to do with jury nullification. That's a situation where conviction is certain, unless the jury finds the law unjust. Nonsense, jury nullification is inherently intertwined with this topic, because if we're writing laws that may be unjust in order to ensure that they cast as wide a potential prosecutorial net as possible, the only defense that the citizenry has against a corrupt bureaucracy is consistent defiance via jury nullification. The problem is, consistency is incredibly hard to achieve across a whole population, which is why we should not be writing laws that can be abused by the corrupt.