3 ms·

Jury's can't vacate the verdict just because they sympathize with you. Your argument is "I take what I want because I want it and I have no other way" isn't at

Jury's can't vacate the verdict just because they sympathize with you. Your argument is "I take what I want because I want it and I have no other way" isn't at all convincing. Canada doesn't turn a blind eye, they explicitly decriminalized it especially for people that are not distributing. Your argument would be bunk regardless though.

dbspin 3y ago
Juries absolutely can vacate the verdict. Its called Jury Nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Yeah, no. I almost mentioned that in my comment to preempt you mentioning that, seems I should have. Jury nullification would not apply in your case, and the jury may not even have that option. If you honestly think you could take some illegally with the defense "I wanted it" and walk you are delusional.
  - dbspin 3y ago
    I don't think there's a coherent point here. Jury nullification can occur in most common law jurisdictions (i.e.: legal systems that descend from the British legal system). There's no specific limit (say civil versus criminal) on when it can occur. And it absolutely could apply in a copyright case - that happened to come before a jury. It specifically does not depend on the validity of a legal defence, but despite it. On a different but related note It's worth remembering that the reason piracy is enforced with legal payment demands in Germany and Japan, but not the US, UK or most of continental Europe, is that civil disobedience made such legal demands ineffective in most territories.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      There is certainly a coherent point here and it's been conveyed pretty clearly - you just disagree. So say that instead of pretending you don't understand what the point being made is. > Jury nullification can occur in most common law jurisdictions (i.e.: legal systems that descend from the British legal system). There's no specific limit (say civil versus criminal) on when it can occur You need to do some more reading. As much as people like to post jury nullification as though it's some sort of 'aha', it's kind of amazing they miss all the stories and articles about how jury nullification is removed as a practical option for a jury to exercise. > And it absolutely could apply in a copyright case - that happened to come before a jury. It specifically does not depend on the validity of a legal defence, but despite it. A judge will order what facts a jury can consider and deliberate on. The parents argument "I took it because I wanted it" wouldn't even be allowed as a defense most likely, and certainly the jury would not be allowed to consider it. > On a different but related note It's worth remembering that the reason piracy is enforced with legal payment demands in Germany and Japan, but not the US, UK or most of continental Europe, is that civil disobedience made such legal demands ineffective in most territories. What are you talking about when you say "civil disobedience"
sandworm101 3y ago
The judge is key. They are always in a position to drift a case one way or another. There are two thing you never speak bad about in front of a judge: cats, and star trek. Either one will put you in the bad books of half the bench.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Buddy, again, you're delusional if you think your argument would work. Clearly you have no legal education, at all. Someone told you about jury nullification or you read an article and now you think it has all sort of powers it actually doesn't. The judge doesn't matter. Jury nullification doesn't matter. "I took it because I wanted it" is a shitty argument, end of story.

dbspin 3y ago

Juries absolutely can vacate the verdict. Its called Jury Nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Yeah, no. I almost mentioned that in my comment to preempt you mentioning that, seems I should have. Jury nullification would not apply in your case, and the jury may not even have that option. If you honestly think you could take some illegally with the defense "I wanted it" and walk you are delusional.
- dbspin 3y ago
  I don't think there's a coherent point here. Jury nullification can occur in most common law jurisdictions (i.e.: legal systems that descend from the British legal system). There's no specific limit (say civil versus criminal) on when it can occur. And it absolutely could apply in a copyright case - that happened to come before a jury. It specifically does not depend on the validity of a legal defence, but despite it. On a different but related note It's worth remembering that the reason piracy is enforced with legal payment demands in Germany and Japan, but not the US, UK or most of continental Europe, is that civil disobedience made such legal demands ineffective in most territories.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    There is certainly a coherent point here and it's been conveyed pretty clearly - you just disagree. So say that instead of pretending you don't understand what the point being made is. > Jury nullification can occur in most common law jurisdictions (i.e.: legal systems that descend from the British legal system). There's no specific limit (say civil versus criminal) on when it can occur You need to do some more reading. As much as people like to post jury nullification as though it's some sort of 'aha', it's kind of amazing they miss all the stories and articles about how jury nullification is removed as a practical option for a jury to exercise. > And it absolutely could apply in a copyright case - that happened to come before a jury. It specifically does not depend on the validity of a legal defence, but despite it. A judge will order what facts a jury can consider and deliberate on. The parents argument "I took it because I wanted it" wouldn't even be allowed as a defense most likely, and certainly the jury would not be allowed to consider it. > On a different but related note It's worth remembering that the reason piracy is enforced with legal payment demands in Germany and Japan, but not the US, UK or most of continental Europe, is that civil disobedience made such legal demands ineffective in most territories. What are you talking about when you say "civil disobedience"

sandworm101 3y ago

The judge is key. They are always in a position to drift a case one way or another. There are two thing you never speak bad about in front of a judge: cats, and star trek. Either one will put you in the bad books of half the bench.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Buddy, again, you're delusional if you think your argument would work. Clearly you have no legal education, at all. Someone told you about jury nullification or you read an article and now you think it has all sort of powers it actually doesn't. The judge doesn't matter. Jury nullification doesn't matter. "I took it because I wanted it" is a shitty argument, end of story.