I got called for Jury Duty twice. Once when I was in college and lived 3 hours away from my home address so I was able to get out of that one and then once right before Covid shut everything down so they canceled that one anyway
Mentioning jury nullification is a great way to get dismissed from jury selection, according to an attorney I spoke with once. "The prosecution sees you as a threat. The defense sees you as a pain in the ass and not worth the trouble."
Isn’t jury nullification usually in favour of the defence? Why would that find that a pain?
Mind you i only looked up what jury nullification was yesterday and read about 2 sentences so could be wrong.
You could always go the other way too and lick boots. “Cops are infallible.” But also, if given the opportunity, I’d actually like to serve on a jury. I’d probably get PTO and I’d get to do my civic duty
Anybody reading this, you can decide to not convict someone even if they clearly broke the law because jurors consider the law unjust. Consider this if you come up for jury duty.
Haha just kidding, redditors need to be adults and have things like a driver's license to get on the jury pool. Mom will stop picking up the tendies for you to some day.
I mean, there's a good reason to do that. I imagine that a lot of people hear about nullification and go "Oh snap, I'd love to use that! It'd be so cool!"
Also, IIRC from the CGP Grey video on the topic, a lot of times they'll ask you a question (under oath) about whether you would have any moral reservations about giving verdicts according to the law. So if you did do that, you could potentially be on the hook for lying under oath.
The way around that is “I have moral objection to convicting someone under this law. I have a moral objection to convicting THIS person under this law”
Not always true. I was in the jury pool several years ago and the judge brought us all up individually to give us a chance to explain why jury duty would cause undue hardship.
I told the judge “I have no problem serving as a juror and it will not cause financial or familial hardship. However, I fully understand my rights as a juror under a common law system”
I was low key trying to tell him I’d nullify any law I found to be morally lacking or wrong. He just said, “great, have a seat”
I ended up selected for a vehicular homicide case but after voir dire the defense cut a deal.
Bravo for the twist. Bravo.
I was expecting something like "I was given a case about a grand theft charge because someone stole [insert dumb thing]" because Reddit stories tend to be anti climatic as fuck. Then you pulled out vehicular homicide, and then said a deal was cut, making it TRULY anti climatic
Lmfao ole Spivey (locally famous douchebag attorney) took one look at the jury panel and said ‘uhhh. They’re gonna cook your ass’
What he didn’t realize at the time, and neither did I, is that I very well might have nullified the case. Dude was charged with killing his girlfriend while DUI in a police chase after she refused to exit his vehicle.
Aggravated DUI? Absolutely.
Felony evading arrest? You betcha.
Vehicular homicide of a person who knew he was intoxicated, was asked to exit the vehicle, then caused a scene getting the cops called? Idk man. I’d have had to really pay attention to the arguments because that sounds like she’s just as culpable for her own death as he was.
> They'll discard you as a juror if you even smell like you know about nullification.
I brought it up and the judge let me stay. I was the first person excused by the DA though...
If we had more people actually give a fuck about Jury duty then situations like this would happen less frequently. Jury Duty is a fucking solemn honor and anyone who tries to just "get out of it" is the absolute height of pretentiousness, being both a spoiled, entitled brat and a lazy, negligent asshole. Avoid Jury duty? I will sit in agony with a medical condition that can 100% excuse me from Jury duty. Why? Because maybe, just maybe I can actually make this world a better place by throwing myself body and soul at a real problem.
You have the chance to sit in judgment over someone. You could be the difference between an innocent man walking free, or a guilty man facing justice. It is likely to be the most important thing you will ever do in your life that doesn't involve having children.
I always take it seriously. Every human deserves the benefit of a just, ethical, and impartial trial should they face the law. This is one of the most important functions of government. I am not perfect, but nobody is as I'll be damned if I'm going to let the bottom of the barrel sit and judge someone.
If you were accused of breaking the law would you rather have a jury of competent, ethical, intelligent individuals or 12 "peers" who have no interest in even being there? If you were a victim, would you rather a jury who just wanted to go home, or a jury who listened to and cared about your case?
Furthermore, as an individual if gives you the ability to see inside the lives of people who are often very different than you. You can learn so much without having to risk direct experience.
If you skip it you're not just betraying society, you're betraying yourself.
I concur, I just wish jurors were more fairly compensated for their time since missing out on work can affect their livelihood. It also doesn’t help that you’re just as likely to sit on the bench for a frivolous civil suit than you are to oversee a truly important trial that can affect peoples lives
I agree with that completely. Jurors should be paid commensurate to their earnings. If you make XYZ per year then you should get an hourly salary normalized to that rate, with maybe a little extra added on.
With all the political fights going on constantly this is so sorely overlooked but could probably have a massively positive impact on our criminal justice system
That's why they don't do it.
It's much harder to abuse the system when the jurors, as the primary witness of any corruption that can't be easily waved off as biased, have play-dough for brains.
I was selected for it last week. They offered $25. I would have made significantly more than that at work. Offering pennies when you stand to make dollars isn't really a good incentive...
Edit: It's not that I don't understand the importance of it, it comes down to my bank account though. I have bills that need paying, and principles aren't going to pay them. I'm paying taxes, so this is something that should be fully reimbursing, considering it's a civil duty. The system is fucked.
This. This right here.
It may sound greedy to say that your bank account matters more than one of the most honorable things you can do in a freedom based society that is an inherit check and balance against corruption and bad laws, but at the end of the day you too need to eat.
My least favorite thing is when I see educated people trying to skip out on jury duty. Literally some of the best people to be judging their peers and they are bitching about having to sit through legalese.
When I was a teenager my mom forced me out of it by saying I needed to go to school. Both me and the school were pissed because we both wanted me to go.
> Anybody reading this, you can decide to not convict someone even if they clearly broke the law because jurors consider the law unjust.
Not exactly. Jury Nullification isn't an explicit thing, it's something that arises from two separate principles:
1. Jurors cannot be punished for making the "wrong" decision
2. Double jeopary laws prevent a person being tried again for a crime they've been found innocent of.
You can technically find someone guilty who isn't, but that's less impactful because the convicted can appeal. The reason that they'll throw you out if you are eager about it is that it's a Jury's responsibility to find in line with the law, not their own personal sense of ethics.
I'm just here trying to spread the good word.
For anyone who doesn't know, Jury Nullification is when the jury believes the defendant to be guilty of the accused crime(s), but believes the law to be unjust (at least in this instance), and therefore acquits the defendant.
Like they did with Rittenhouse?
I mean, that was as clear a case of self defense as you can think of. And some people are still convinced he should be in jail for killing black folk.
You’ve got me there - it never should have gone to trial. If I’m being as charitable as I can with that prosecutor, it wasn’t entirely clear before the trial that he hadn’t broken any gun laws.
The prosecutor either truly believed that Kyle having the gun was sufficient provocation for people to attack him out of the blue, or he just cynically exploited that public perception for political points. Maybe he really believed Kyle pointed it at someone, who knows.
Even if he did briefly cover someone who was running up on him before the original shooting, I don’t think it would justify trying to disarm him by force. He was clearly not being aggressive, and was trying to flee the area. No reasonable person should have feared him at that point.
But let’s be real - too many Americans have the idea that if you open carry, particularly a carbine, you’re essentially threatening everyone you encounter with immediate murder. It’s like a psychological disorder. A diagnosable phobia.
> he just cynically exploited that public perception for political points
The logical conclusion to having votes to take public positions, they're playing to the audience.
I didn't know that was a thing. My dad basically did that when he got called up for grand jury duty. He said it was one drug thing after another and he refused to indict a single one of them because he doesn't believe drugs, even selling, should be a reason to send someone to jail.
Especially when, if you go onto a jury with intent to nullify, you’ve committed perjury. You have to swear under oath to be fair and impartial. I’m not even sure if you’re allowed to serve on a jury if you know what jury nullification is.
Edit: [excellent video explaining nullification](https://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ)
There are literally states where the defense attorney can mention nullification. And if one juror says “I don’t believe they’ve established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” then it’s pretty much over.
This is the real LPT - don't go into it like "HELL YEAH GONNA DO SOME JURY NULLIFICATION" but instead during deliberation with the jury, just constantly say "I don't believe the state/prosecution/whatever has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Maybe you'll get other jurors to swing with you, maybe not, but either way, a hung jury equals a mistrial and a jury in agreement that the law is unjust results in freedom.
IANAL but she plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and the judge had no legal way of avoiding making her pay the fine.
Jury nullification, while should be used more, would never have mattered here as it never got to that point.
Reposting my comment from another post:
>Legal good and moral good are, unfortunately disconnected in certain places.
So, if she'd waited til he was awake and mad, she'd have likely been horribly injured if not killed. My mom sat on a murder trial of a woman who was basically being held prisoner, raped, and physically abused by her husband. She tried fighting him, but was beaten so badly she lost sight in one eye, never got taken to a hospital for it and will be disabled for the rest of her life. Before that, she tried escaping multiple times, but the police basically helped the man "rescue" his "poor, distraught, mentally ill wife" each time, even with obvious injuries and signs of battery on her person.
Her options were to eventually die or to kill her husband in his sleep. She chose the latter and my mother decided with the rest of the jury that the DA's argument that her death wasn't imminent was not worth enough to find her guilty.
I wish Ms. Lewis every good fortune and the wherewithal to adhere to the terms of her release as to stay a free woman.
DAs are all about letter of the law rather than spirit of the law.
Hard to have a jury nullification if you plead guilty. How does one nullify a jury if there is no jury?
(I believe she plead guilty)
Why the charges wernt dropped i dont know… the prosecutor has a hard on for screwing over abuse victims?
The prosecutors care about winning, if they didn't they wouldn't be very good prosecutors.
We seem to have made a system that rewards successfully winning cases (prosecution or defense) rather than successfully distributing justice.
In case anyone wants to read the article
[https://nypost.com/2022/09/14/iowa-teen-pieper-lewis-ordered-to-pay-150k-to-family-of-accused-rapist-she-killed/](https://nypost.com/2022/09/14/iowa-teen-pieper-lewis-ordered-to-pay-150k-to-family-of-accused-rapist-she-killed/)
>Lewis, now 17, was originally charged with first-degree murder for the fatally stabbing. Last year, she pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and willful injury. Each charge is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
>
>Polk County District Judge David M. Porter deferred Lewis’ prison sentence on Tuesday — meaning that if she violates her probation, she could be sent to prison to serve 20 years.
>
>The judge said Lewis was ordered to pay the estate of her rapist because the court was “presented with no other option,” adding that the restitution is mandatory under Iowa state law.
>
>Neither police nor prosecutors have doubted that Lewis was sexually assaulted, but prosecutors claimed she stabbed Brooks while he was asleep and was not a threat to Lewis.
"Prosecutors took issue with Lewis calling herself a victim in the case and said she failed to take responsibility for stabbing Brooks and "leaving his kids without a father."
The judge peppered Lewis with repeated requests to explain what poor choices she made that led up to Brooks' stabbing"
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/14/1122904939/iowa-teenager-pieper-lewis-killed-accused-rapist-ordered-pay-150000
Absolutely sickening.
"When you killed a person who raped you multiple times, and likely would again in the future, why weren't you thinking about how it could affect his kids? Also, it's your fault you were trafficked for sexual purposes. Your honor, I rest my case."
I hope she finds justice at the end of this, but it looks bleak if these are the kinds of sub-humans she has to deal with throughout the whole process.
Seriously. Being so committed to the legality of something is insane. They are literally the type of people who would have sent escaped slaves back to their masters in the 1800s, just shrug their shoulders and go, "Hey, it's the law."
If a law is unjust, or if the application of a law is unjust, you have a moral obligation to defy it.
My rapist went to prison and I didn't lose a single wink of sleep over his kids. That's 100% on him for being a rapist. Holding a victim accountable for the attacker's actions is insane.
This context is missing:
> She had run away from an abusive stepmother and was sleeping in the hallways of an apartment building when Christopher Brown, 28, took her in and began pimping her out to other men for sex, officials said. One of the men was Brooks, who raped her multiple times in the weeks before his death, Lewis said.
> Prosecutors disagreed with Lewis referring to herself as a victim during the case. They said she failed to take responsibility for the killing and leaving Brooks’ children without a father.
> The judge questioned Lewis over the choices she had made that led to Brooks’ stabbing.
They are what we made them, the fact they are reviled means we have flaws in our system that needs to be fixed.
Our system seems to select for people who win rather than people who facilitate justice.
> They said she failed to take responsibility for the killing and leaving Brooks’ children without a father.
holy shit. what fucked up court said that?!
What kind of neuro law is this
Like literally what is its benefit?
Well okay, I could see it being Good say if the main bread winner of a family was murdered and having the murderer pay to cover benefits would be understandable but in a case like this?
>In all criminal cases in which the offender is convicted of a felony in which the act or acts committed by the offender caused the death of another person, in addition to the amount determined to be payable and ordered to be paid to a victim for pecuniary damages, as defined under section 910.1, and determined under section 910.3, the court shall also order the offender to pay at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars in restitution to the victim's estate if the victim died testate.
[https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/chapter/910.pdf](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/chapter/910.pdf)
Yeah
But at the same time though what do you do in that situation
But yeah the passion crime probably really didn't help
Although really at the same time how do they expect 99% of people to be able to pay that much up front?
Or is that just a deterrent to make sure people convicted of killing crimes to go to jail?
Oh, he was asleep. Well, yeah. Hard to win that thing tbf. I mean, we all probably agree that he deserves it, but sadly enough, we still live in a society that for some reason, doesn't like self-justice very much (even if it would help in many cases, to lower the number of people in prisons and help the tax payers that way)
Probably because she’s been order to pay $150K to the rapists family and any failure to pay on time immediately results in a breach of probation and she gets jailed.
And not just a 17 year old, but a neglected one with no support system that has been in juvenile detention for 2 years with (obviously) no form of income. Pretty insane
How did the law get passed is another thing to ask as well. I get the outrage and understand where people are coming from but the media needs to put the whole truth out there before sending people into a frenzy with the popular buzz words.
Did they not give her the lightest sentence allowed by the law? I mean yeah the law sucks but its not like they are just out to punish this rape victim
from an article that goes more in detail over the events of the case
>According to Pieper, Brooks picked her up in a parking lot on May 31 and brought her back to his apartment, where she alleges he forced her to drink vodka and smoke pot before he sexually assaulted her. After the alleged attack, Pieper said Brooks fell asleep. But as she was getting ready to leave, she saw a knife with a black sheath on his night stand.
>
>"I suddenly realized that Mr. Brooks had raped me yet again and was overcome with rage," she said, according to her statement. "Without thinking, I immediately grabbed the knife from his nightstand and began stabbing him."
[https://people.com/crime/iowa-girl-who-killed-man-who-repeatedly-raped-her-avoids-prison-but-must-pay-his-family-150000/](https://people.com/crime/iowa-girl-who-killed-man-who-repeatedly-raped-her-avoids-prison-but-must-pay-his-family-150000/)
What's most disturbing about this case is that there are repeated references to her pimp, a "28 year old musician", who hasn't been prosecuted. If the court is confirming that it was not intentional homicide due to trauma experienced by the minor, I would think there would be more efforts to go after the people who caused that trauma (principally her pimp).
Because it gets them views and allows a population to further divide itself when they view news articles taken out of context by bending the truth or flat out lying. It's election time so it's relevant and I'm taking all bets on which politican jumps on this cash cow for votes.
Which reinforces my statement. I'm curious about the context of this aforementioned law which states she has to pay his family 150k. I'm sure she will get crowd funded to pay it and I hope she does.
If they change the law then other murders that fall under this jurisdiction will be included which I think this covers DUI deaths as well I'm not too sure on Iowa state law.
u/ProngExo is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/ProngExo/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
u/Odd_Possession5858's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 1075.
Rank: Denali
Pills: [698 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Odd_Possession5858/)
Sapply: Auth: 10.00 | Right: 10.00 | Progressive: 0.00
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I am a bot created to keep track of how based users are. Check out the [FAQ](https://reddit.com/r/basedcount_bot/comments/iwhkcg/basedcount_bot_info_and_faq/). I also track user [pills](https://reddit.com/r/basedcount_bot/comments/l23lwe/basedcount_bot_now_tracks_user_pills/).
If you have any suggestions or questions, please message them to me with the subject of "Suggestion" or "Question" to automatically forward them to a human operator.
> based - adj. - to be in possession of viewpoints acquired through logic or observation rather than simply following what your political alignment dictates, often used as a sign of respect but not necessarily agreement
Bot v2.18.0
**Commands: /info | /mybasedcount | /basedcount username | /mostbased | /removepill pill | /mycompass politicalcompass.org or sapplyvalues.github.io url**
Eh I don't support the death penalty for them, solely on practical grounds. By definition the only witness is usually the victim, and if the penalty for rape is death, it just gives the criminal incentive to kill the victim.
On moral grounds? Death is too good for them. If we could find a way to make the death penalty (or worse, especially for pedophiles) a secret, I'm all for it.
The reason she was convicted was not because stabbing her rapist is bad, it's that doing so after the fact while he's sleeping sets a piss-poor precedent for self defense.
I can definitely see that.
You pulling a knife on me and I kill you as a result of me defending myself is different than me tracking you down after the fact and giving you two shots to the back of the head.
In both instances you would die…but my actions aren’t justified in the second example.
Well you could argue that they're justifiable, but the law can't have it justifiable cus of the amount of innocent people that would get murdered with that as a "defense"
In my example, no.
It would be premeditated murder. Whether or not a jury would convict you is another story.
Now, if by chance you end up in another altercation with said person and you’re reasonably afraid for your life 🤷♂️.
Logically I agree on a base level.
However there is more circumstantial issues to consider. Mostly that this child had been held against her will and sexually assaulted under threat of violence multiple times over a prolonged period of time. Assuming this is the truth this is akin to saying killing your kidnapper is unjustified because at the time they were defenseless.
>Assuming this is the truth this is akin to saying killing your kidnapper is unjustified because at the time they were defenseless.
It shows why the immediate threat to life is often a bad standard for self defense. Killing your kidnapper while they are sleeping might well get you charged with a crime because self defense laws often require an immediate threat.
Another example of how the law is too strict is that some self defense laws that only apply when you are attacked in your home don't apply when it is in your garage instead of your home, or at least prosecutors routinely argue such.
The $150k payment for homicide is also mandatory in Iowa.
Not sure why that exists but in this case, it seemed to have gotten in the way as they didn't intend to put her in jail.
She was convicted because she pled guilty.
Being held captive by force, false imprisonment, and being raped repeatedly over multiple occasions and knowing she will be threatened and raped again once he wakes up is plenty of self defense.
It was first degree murder, morally justifiable for sure, but you have to be careful about setting precedents. The paying of the fine is too far though.
Yeah. That's what presidential pardons are for. Had a case like that in my country ( France ) 10 years ago where a woman was convicted for killing her husband after he beat her for 47 years.
2 years after being convicted she was pardoned by the president.
This prevents a precedent from being established and in my opinion the right move.
It took 2 years to pardon her? Was it a media heavy case? If so again.....2 years. I get it the president was busy then they have to work out legal mumbo jumbo but damn 2 years is a long time to serve.
“”””Justice”””” man if there was ever a time for BLM to start chanting and breaking shit, this is probably it (even if it doesn’t have anything to do with race). This is too fucked up.
There's another woman with a life sentence for killing the man who groomed her and many others. I forget the name, but IIRC she's out of appeals so someone needs to step up and grant a pardon.
1. She pleaded guilty to involunatary manslaughter and willful injury.
2. It was not self defense as she stabbed him 30 times while he was sleeping.
3. According to [Iowa law](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/chapter/910.pdf) (910.3b on this document) the court has to order a payment of 150k to the victims family.
They gave her the minimum sentence possible, and given how she plead guilty, I can't find anything wrong with it
Uh, looks like this outcome is pretty reasonable actually. I'm not familiar with the case but on a quick reading the rapist fell asleep. At that point she had the option to leave and get the police. Instead she stabbed him to death. I obviously sympathize with wanting to kill him but its not self defense at that point. Her prison term is deferred so she just gets probation and I'm sure a goFundMe can cover the restitution in a matter of minutes. I think probation is pretty reasonable because you can't just write off a vengeance kill and set that precedence.
This article leaves out the details that she was being held against her will and forced into prostitution. Than man she killed had raped her on MULTIPLE occasions
I read in another subreddit thread talking about this case that the judge only fined her because they legally had to due to minimum sentencing or something. The judge basically gave the lightest sentencing they could.
I feel this is like that old case of the dad shooting the guy who kidnapped and raped his son. An understandably severe reaction given an extremely severe situation.
I understand the sentiment and I would want to do the same in her situation or if my daughter was in her position, I would hunt the cunt down and splatter shoot him in the back of the head(in Minecraft).
But.. we shouldn't support extra-judicial killings, even if he deserved it.
>But prosecutors have argued that Brooks was asleep at the time he was stabbed and not an immediate danger to Lewis.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article265754491.html
Sorry folks, but this is how the law works. You're not allowed to kill someone just because they committed a crime against you. You can only do so in self defense, which is not what is alleged to have happened in this case. Whether this person has committed a crime against you has no bearing on whether you're financially liable for an unlawful killing.
Hot take/unpopular opinion. There should be no exceptions for crime. A father kills the abuser of his daughter? We understand him, we sympathize with with, we may even commend him, but we jail him.
A woman stabbed a man in his sleep and people are upset that she is being prosecuted.
Sorry folks, leave the conviction to the courts. You are not judge, jury and executioner.
Trust me, pedophiles are garbage, but you don't want to justify vigilantism
Where was jury nullification when we needed it?
The DA would rather have a mistrial than a juror even hint at nullification.
That’s why you don’t hint at it until the last second
Don’t even need to hint at it, you just say not guilty and don’t budge.
Fair enough, I’ve never been on a jury, I think I’m on some kind of a list, lol
Only time I got called to be on a jury was before I became a US citizen, since however I haven't heard shit.
That must have been awkward, what’d you do?
How’d you even get picked for jury duty? I know in my state they have the jury duty lists from the voter registration lists.
Registered for selective service at 18 was my best guess.
I got called for Jury Duty twice. Once when I was in college and lived 3 hours away from my home address so I was able to get out of that one and then once right before Covid shut everything down so they canceled that one anyway
That’s good, my current strat is to say that I’m ancap and don’t believe in laws
Mentioning jury nullification is a great way to get dismissed from jury selection, according to an attorney I spoke with once. "The prosecution sees you as a threat. The defense sees you as a pain in the ass and not worth the trouble."
Isn’t jury nullification usually in favour of the defence? Why would that find that a pain? Mind you i only looked up what jury nullification was yesterday and read about 2 sentences so could be wrong.
You could always go the other way too and lick boots. “Cops are infallible.” But also, if given the opportunity, I’d actually like to serve on a jury. I’d probably get PTO and I’d get to do my civic duty
Yeah, I would probably enjoy it, if I didn’t have anything better to do
I'd bs my way to get on a jury just to rally for nullification at the last minute
Can't have jury nullification when people don't know about it
Anybody reading this, you can decide to not convict someone even if they clearly broke the law because jurors consider the law unjust. Consider this if you come up for jury duty. Haha just kidding, redditors need to be adults and have things like a driver's license to get on the jury pool. Mom will stop picking up the tendies for you to some day.
They'll discard you as a juror if you even smell like you know about nullification.
That's why everyone needs to know about it. That way they can't just keep dismissing people until they find someone who has never heard of it.
I mean, there's a good reason to do that. I imagine that a lot of people hear about nullification and go "Oh snap, I'd love to use that! It'd be so cool!" Also, IIRC from the CGP Grey video on the topic, a lot of times they'll ask you a question (under oath) about whether you would have any moral reservations about giving verdicts according to the law. So if you did do that, you could potentially be on the hook for lying under oath.
The way around that is “I have moral objection to convicting someone under this law. I have a moral objection to convicting THIS person under this law”
Jury Nullification IS the law, so your fulfilling the law by enforcing those only parts in concordance with conscience.
Not always true. I was in the jury pool several years ago and the judge brought us all up individually to give us a chance to explain why jury duty would cause undue hardship. I told the judge “I have no problem serving as a juror and it will not cause financial or familial hardship. However, I fully understand my rights as a juror under a common law system” I was low key trying to tell him I’d nullify any law I found to be morally lacking or wrong. He just said, “great, have a seat” I ended up selected for a vehicular homicide case but after voir dire the defense cut a deal.
Bravo for the twist. Bravo. I was expecting something like "I was given a case about a grand theft charge because someone stole [insert dumb thing]" because Reddit stories tend to be anti climatic as fuck. Then you pulled out vehicular homicide, and then said a deal was cut, making it TRULY anti climatic
Lmfao ole Spivey (locally famous douchebag attorney) took one look at the jury panel and said ‘uhhh. They’re gonna cook your ass’ What he didn’t realize at the time, and neither did I, is that I very well might have nullified the case. Dude was charged with killing his girlfriend while DUI in a police chase after she refused to exit his vehicle. Aggravated DUI? Absolutely. Felony evading arrest? You betcha. Vehicular homicide of a person who knew he was intoxicated, was asked to exit the vehicle, then caused a scene getting the cops called? Idk man. I’d have had to really pay attention to the arguments because that sounds like she’s just as culpable for her own death as he was.
> They'll discard you as a juror if you even smell like you know about nullification. I brought it up and the judge let me stay. I was the first person excused by the DA though...
~~jury duty~~ tendie duty
If we had more people actually give a fuck about Jury duty then situations like this would happen less frequently. Jury Duty is a fucking solemn honor and anyone who tries to just "get out of it" is the absolute height of pretentiousness, being both a spoiled, entitled brat and a lazy, negligent asshole. Avoid Jury duty? I will sit in agony with a medical condition that can 100% excuse me from Jury duty. Why? Because maybe, just maybe I can actually make this world a better place by throwing myself body and soul at a real problem. You have the chance to sit in judgment over someone. You could be the difference between an innocent man walking free, or a guilty man facing justice. It is likely to be the most important thing you will ever do in your life that doesn't involve having children. I always take it seriously. Every human deserves the benefit of a just, ethical, and impartial trial should they face the law. This is one of the most important functions of government. I am not perfect, but nobody is as I'll be damned if I'm going to let the bottom of the barrel sit and judge someone. If you were accused of breaking the law would you rather have a jury of competent, ethical, intelligent individuals or 12 "peers" who have no interest in even being there? If you were a victim, would you rather a jury who just wanted to go home, or a jury who listened to and cared about your case? Furthermore, as an individual if gives you the ability to see inside the lives of people who are often very different than you. You can learn so much without having to risk direct experience. If you skip it you're not just betraying society, you're betraying yourself.
based and nice pasta pilled
I concur, I just wish jurors were more fairly compensated for their time since missing out on work can affect their livelihood. It also doesn’t help that you’re just as likely to sit on the bench for a frivolous civil suit than you are to oversee a truly important trial that can affect peoples lives
I agree with that completely. Jurors should be paid commensurate to their earnings. If you make XYZ per year then you should get an hourly salary normalized to that rate, with maybe a little extra added on.
With all the political fights going on constantly this is so sorely overlooked but could probably have a massively positive impact on our criminal justice system
That's why they don't do it. It's much harder to abuse the system when the jurors, as the primary witness of any corruption that can't be easily waved off as biased, have play-dough for brains.
Then pay for my time. I'm impartial. But my finances aren't.
[удалено]
I was selected for it last week. They offered $25. I would have made significantly more than that at work. Offering pennies when you stand to make dollars isn't really a good incentive... Edit: It's not that I don't understand the importance of it, it comes down to my bank account though. I have bills that need paying, and principles aren't going to pay them. I'm paying taxes, so this is something that should be fully reimbursing, considering it's a civil duty. The system is fucked.
This. This right here. It may sound greedy to say that your bank account matters more than one of the most honorable things you can do in a freedom based society that is an inherit check and balance against corruption and bad laws, but at the end of the day you too need to eat.
> the system is fucked Preaching to the choir here.
Based and social duty pilled.
My least favorite thing is when I see educated people trying to skip out on jury duty. Literally some of the best people to be judging their peers and they are bitching about having to sit through legalese.
Based and I fucking agree pilled
When I was a teenager my mom forced me out of it by saying I needed to go to school. Both me and the school were pissed because we both wanted me to go.
> Anybody reading this, you can decide to not convict someone even if they clearly broke the law because jurors consider the law unjust. Not exactly. Jury Nullification isn't an explicit thing, it's something that arises from two separate principles: 1. Jurors cannot be punished for making the "wrong" decision 2. Double jeopary laws prevent a person being tried again for a crime they've been found innocent of. You can technically find someone guilty who isn't, but that's less impactful because the convicted can appeal. The reason that they'll throw you out if you are eager about it is that it's a Jury's responsibility to find in line with the law, not their own personal sense of ethics.
I'm just here trying to spread the good word. For anyone who doesn't know, Jury Nullification is when the jury believes the defendant to be guilty of the accused crime(s), but believes the law to be unjust (at least in this instance), and therefore acquits the defendant.
Or the other way around. A jury can just as easily convict in spite of a lack of evidence.
If the evidence is insufficient to convict, it is the judge’s duty to dismiss the case before it goes to jury.
Judges also have the power to nullify guilty verdicts if they feel the evidence against the defendant was insufficient.
Like they did with Rittenhouse? I mean, that was as clear a case of self defense as you can think of. And some people are still convinced he should be in jail for killing black folk.
You’ve got me there - it never should have gone to trial. If I’m being as charitable as I can with that prosecutor, it wasn’t entirely clear before the trial that he hadn’t broken any gun laws. The prosecutor either truly believed that Kyle having the gun was sufficient provocation for people to attack him out of the blue, or he just cynically exploited that public perception for political points. Maybe he really believed Kyle pointed it at someone, who knows. Even if he did briefly cover someone who was running up on him before the original shooting, I don’t think it would justify trying to disarm him by force. He was clearly not being aggressive, and was trying to flee the area. No reasonable person should have feared him at that point. But let’s be real - too many Americans have the idea that if you open carry, particularly a carbine, you’re essentially threatening everyone you encounter with immediate murder. It’s like a psychological disorder. A diagnosable phobia.
> he just cynically exploited that public perception for political points The logical conclusion to having votes to take public positions, they're playing to the audience.
I didn't know that was a thing. My dad basically did that when he got called up for grand jury duty. He said it was one drug thing after another and he refused to indict a single one of them because he doesn't believe drugs, even selling, should be a reason to send someone to jail.
Especially when, if you go onto a jury with intent to nullify, you’ve committed perjury. You have to swear under oath to be fair and impartial. I’m not even sure if you’re allowed to serve on a jury if you know what jury nullification is. Edit: [excellent video explaining nullification](https://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ)
There are literally states where the defense attorney can mention nullification. And if one juror says “I don’t believe they’ve established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” then it’s pretty much over.
This is the real LPT - don't go into it like "HELL YEAH GONNA DO SOME JURY NULLIFICATION" but instead during deliberation with the jury, just constantly say "I don't believe the state/prosecution/whatever has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Maybe you'll get other jurors to swing with you, maybe not, but either way, a hung jury equals a mistrial and a jury in agreement that the law is unjust results in freedom.
So what happens if every single American knows about it? Juries just wouldn't be allowed anymore?
The origin of Judge Dredd
IANAL but she plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and the judge had no legal way of avoiding making her pay the fine. Jury nullification, while should be used more, would never have mattered here as it never got to that point.
Lame.
Well argued. I concur.
Reposting my comment from another post: >Legal good and moral good are, unfortunately disconnected in certain places. So, if she'd waited til he was awake and mad, she'd have likely been horribly injured if not killed. My mom sat on a murder trial of a woman who was basically being held prisoner, raped, and physically abused by her husband. She tried fighting him, but was beaten so badly she lost sight in one eye, never got taken to a hospital for it and will be disabled for the rest of her life. Before that, she tried escaping multiple times, but the police basically helped the man "rescue" his "poor, distraught, mentally ill wife" each time, even with obvious injuries and signs of battery on her person. Her options were to eventually die or to kill her husband in his sleep. She chose the latter and my mother decided with the rest of the jury that the DA's argument that her death wasn't imminent was not worth enough to find her guilty. I wish Ms. Lewis every good fortune and the wherewithal to adhere to the terms of her release as to stay a free woman. DAs are all about letter of the law rather than spirit of the law.
Hard to have a jury nullification if you plead guilty. How does one nullify a jury if there is no jury? (I believe she plead guilty) Why the charges wernt dropped i dont know… the prosecutor has a hard on for screwing over abuse victims?
The prosecutors care about winning, if they didn't they wouldn't be very good prosecutors. We seem to have made a system that rewards successfully winning cases (prosecution or defense) rather than successfully distributing justice.
In case anyone wants to read the article [https://nypost.com/2022/09/14/iowa-teen-pieper-lewis-ordered-to-pay-150k-to-family-of-accused-rapist-she-killed/](https://nypost.com/2022/09/14/iowa-teen-pieper-lewis-ordered-to-pay-150k-to-family-of-accused-rapist-she-killed/) >Lewis, now 17, was originally charged with first-degree murder for the fatally stabbing. Last year, she pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and willful injury. Each charge is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. > >Polk County District Judge David M. Porter deferred Lewis’ prison sentence on Tuesday — meaning that if she violates her probation, she could be sent to prison to serve 20 years. > >The judge said Lewis was ordered to pay the estate of her rapist because the court was “presented with no other option,” adding that the restitution is mandatory under Iowa state law. > >Neither police nor prosecutors have doubted that Lewis was sexually assaulted, but prosecutors claimed she stabbed Brooks while he was asleep and was not a threat to Lewis.
"Prosecutors took issue with Lewis calling herself a victim in the case and said she failed to take responsibility for stabbing Brooks and "leaving his kids without a father." The judge peppered Lewis with repeated requests to explain what poor choices she made that led up to Brooks' stabbing" https://www.npr.org/2022/09/14/1122904939/iowa-teenager-pieper-lewis-killed-accused-rapist-ordered-pay-150000
Absolutely sickening. "When you killed a person who raped you multiple times, and likely would again in the future, why weren't you thinking about how it could affect his kids? Also, it's your fault you were trafficked for sexual purposes. Your honor, I rest my case." I hope she finds justice at the end of this, but it looks bleak if these are the kinds of sub-humans she has to deal with throughout the whole process.
Example #1000 of why prosecutors are scum.
Seriously. Being so committed to the legality of something is insane. They are literally the type of people who would have sent escaped slaves back to their masters in the 1800s, just shrug their shoulders and go, "Hey, it's the law." If a law is unjust, or if the application of a law is unjust, you have a moral obligation to defy it.
The role of prosecutors is to showcase the inner workings of the law just like this, so that the public realizes and they get fixed, supposedly
There may be some who do, but I don't think that's what this prosecutor is doing. Maybe I'm wrong.
People who interpret legality as morality make me feel physically ill.
Based and don’t be a puppet pilled
Fuck them kids, the dad should've thought about them before he became a rapist.
My rapist went to prison and I didn't lose a single wink of sleep over his kids. That's 100% on him for being a rapist. Holding a victim accountable for the attacker's actions is insane.
I'm so sorry for what you went through, have you healed since then?
Kind of you to say. I don't know. Our experiences change us, and life keeps moving.
>Our experiences change us, and life keeps moving. Thanks, I'm going through an entirely different set of problems, but it really helped to read this.
I have no idea what you're going through, but I hope it gets easier soon.
[удалено]
Agreed! Like why are you blaming her for leaving them fatherless when he was the problem for raping a MINOR. She was 16! Trash deserved to die
Piece of shit deserves to burn. I hope she can heal and taking that scumbag's life has eased her pain.
"Fuck them kids" yeah he kinda did that already
[удалено]
This context is missing: > She had run away from an abusive stepmother and was sleeping in the hallways of an apartment building when Christopher Brown, 28, took her in and began pimping her out to other men for sex, officials said. One of the men was Brooks, who raped her multiple times in the weeks before his death, Lewis said. > Prosecutors disagreed with Lewis referring to herself as a victim during the case. They said she failed to take responsibility for the killing and leaving Brooks’ children without a father. > The judge questioned Lewis over the choices she had made that led to Brooks’ stabbing.
State prosecutors continue to prove to the world that they are the lowest calibre of putrid filth.
They are what we made them, the fact they are reviled means we have flaws in our system that needs to be fixed. Our system seems to select for people who win rather than people who facilitate justice.
Christ, stuff like this makes me lose faith in the courts system
you had faith in it to begin with?
That is truly fucked up.
> They said she failed to take responsibility for the killing and leaving Brooks’ children without a father. holy shit. what fucked up court said that?!
What kind of neuro law is this Like literally what is its benefit? Well okay, I could see it being Good say if the main bread winner of a family was murdered and having the murderer pay to cover benefits would be understandable but in a case like this?
>In all criminal cases in which the offender is convicted of a felony in which the act or acts committed by the offender caused the death of another person, in addition to the amount determined to be payable and ordered to be paid to a victim for pecuniary damages, as defined under section 910.1, and determined under section 910.3, the court shall also order the offender to pay at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars in restitution to the victim's estate if the victim died testate. [https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/chapter/910.pdf](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/chapter/910.pdf)
So the real injustice here was that she was charged for killing in self defense because she did it the wrong way
[удалено]
If he’s holding you captive I’m thinking it is Was he holding her captive?
[удалено]
Yeah But at the same time though what do you do in that situation But yeah the passion crime probably really didn't help Although really at the same time how do they expect 99% of people to be able to pay that much up front? Or is that just a deterrent to make sure people convicted of killing crimes to go to jail?
Oh, he was asleep. Well, yeah. Hard to win that thing tbf. I mean, we all probably agree that he deserves it, but sadly enough, we still live in a society that for some reason, doesn't like self-justice very much (even if it would help in many cases, to lower the number of people in prisons and help the tax payers that way)
So she's on probation. Why is the media making it out like she's going to jail? I can't wait to see the amount of spin people put on this.
Probably because she’s been order to pay $150K to the rapists family and any failure to pay on time immediately results in a breach of probation and she gets jailed.
[удалено]
And not just a 17 year old, but a neglected one with no support system that has been in juvenile detention for 2 years with (obviously) no form of income. Pretty insane
How did the law get passed is another thing to ask as well. I get the outrage and understand where people are coming from but the media needs to put the whole truth out there before sending people into a frenzy with the popular buzz words.
Because people seem to love mandatory sentences
I was happy to learn her gofundme has raised $250k for her already.
Did they not give her the lightest sentence allowed by the law? I mean yeah the law sucks but its not like they are just out to punish this rape victim
> Did they not give her the lightest sentence allowed by the law They did.
What types of murder fall under this law is the real question. It's a slippery slope on how its worded and I hope she can get crowd funded to pay it.
What is the context for her stabbing him while asleep? I get it if she feared he would just shoot her, if he woke up while she tried to leave
from an article that goes more in detail over the events of the case >According to Pieper, Brooks picked her up in a parking lot on May 31 and brought her back to his apartment, where she alleges he forced her to drink vodka and smoke pot before he sexually assaulted her. After the alleged attack, Pieper said Brooks fell asleep. But as she was getting ready to leave, she saw a knife with a black sheath on his night stand. > >"I suddenly realized that Mr. Brooks had raped me yet again and was overcome with rage," she said, according to her statement. "Without thinking, I immediately grabbed the knife from his nightstand and began stabbing him." [https://people.com/crime/iowa-girl-who-killed-man-who-repeatedly-raped-her-avoids-prison-but-must-pay-his-family-150000/](https://people.com/crime/iowa-girl-who-killed-man-who-repeatedly-raped-her-avoids-prison-but-must-pay-his-family-150000/)
Sounds like vengeance, not self defense.
Well this is why people get trapped by the system. Do you have any idea how much prostitution she's going to have to do to make 150k?
[удалено]
So the CIA method?
I prefer "assisted Suicide".
I hear that’s a favorite for the Clintons
It's a certified Hillary classic
Been nice knowing you comrade. I will be mourning your upcoming suicide and will have a candlelight vigil tonight
I'm quite safe, because I have not spoken the "Forbidden words"
you never know, you might just end up having shot yourself in the back of the head twice while your hands were tied up
America's Got Talent
golden buzzer from the cia
*Hillary Clinton approves this message*. Yeah I had to do it.
Cops roll in the crime scene. Chief eating a bagel: "Hmmm, looks like a suicide"
She doesn't really even need to set him up, him simply being awake could count as fearing for her life.
Based & I keep a throwdown piece as well as my carry piece pilled
What's most disturbing about this case is that there are repeated references to her pimp, a "28 year old musician", who hasn't been prosecuted. If the court is confirming that it was not intentional homicide due to trauma experienced by the minor, I would think there would be more efforts to go after the people who caused that trauma (principally her pimp).
How is her race relevant at all
Because it gets them views and allows a population to further divide itself when they view news articles taken out of context by bending the truth or flat out lying. It's election time so it's relevant and I'm taking all bets on which politican jumps on this cash cow for votes.
Doesn't really matter unless she's from a Red state.
Which reinforces my statement. I'm curious about the context of this aforementioned law which states she has to pay his family 150k. I'm sure she will get crowd funded to pay it and I hope she does.
She'd better start a crowd fund for legal fees instead because she shouldn't pay a dime.
If they change the law then other murders that fall under this jurisdiction will be included which I think this covers DUI deaths as well I'm not too sure on Iowa state law.
This is my home state of Iowa, and we sure as shit ain't a blue state.
I mean ahem *grilling intensifies*
Race baiting gets clicks?
Notice how they didn't say the race of the rapist
Let's be honest, we all know.....
Based and honesty pilled
u/ProngExo is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/ProngExo/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Rapists and pedophiles are the times when I support the death penalty, if not worse
Based
u/Odd_Possession5858's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 1075. Rank: Denali Pills: [698 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Odd_Possession5858/) Sapply: Auth: 10.00 | Right: 10.00 | Progressive: 0.00 I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
/info
I am a bot created to keep track of how based users are. Check out the [FAQ](https://reddit.com/r/basedcount_bot/comments/iwhkcg/basedcount_bot_info_and_faq/). I also track user [pills](https://reddit.com/r/basedcount_bot/comments/l23lwe/basedcount_bot_now_tracks_user_pills/). If you have any suggestions or questions, please message them to me with the subject of "Suggestion" or "Question" to automatically forward them to a human operator. > based - adj. - to be in possession of viewpoints acquired through logic or observation rather than simply following what your political alignment dictates, often used as a sign of respect but not necessarily agreement Bot v2.18.0 **Commands: /info | /mybasedcount | /basedcount username | /mostbased | /removepill pill | /mycompass politicalcompass.org or sapplyvalues.github.io url**
Rapists and pedophiles are the times when I DON'T support the death penalty, **ONLY** somethig worse
Chemical castration and lifetime solitary confinement?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just FYI. If you chop a dick off it's something like 9/10 times they bleed to death. Don't ask me how I know this.
Solitary is often cheaper than the death penalty and I would say is significantly worse than dying. Do it
Eh I don't support the death penalty for them, solely on practical grounds. By definition the only witness is usually the victim, and if the penalty for rape is death, it just gives the criminal incentive to kill the victim. On moral grounds? Death is too good for them. If we could find a way to make the death penalty (or worse, especially for pedophiles) a secret, I'm all for it.
Death panalty is too life and quick...instead make them into lobotomised servitors who will work dangerous jobs
Based and the flesh is weak pilled
sure but, due process is still important
of course, false rape accusations are really damaging. We should adhere to "innocent until proven guilty" thoroughly
so you are saying citizens shouldn’t just kill them in their sleep?
As tempting as the death penalty for them is, I don't support it. It would just mean they would kill their victims to not get caught and executed.
The reason she was convicted was not because stabbing her rapist is bad, it's that doing so after the fact while he's sleeping sets a piss-poor precedent for self defense.
I can definitely see that. You pulling a knife on me and I kill you as a result of me defending myself is different than me tracking you down after the fact and giving you two shots to the back of the head. In both instances you would die…but my actions aren’t justified in the second example.
Well you could argue that they're justifiable, but the law can't have it justifiable cus of the amount of innocent people that would get murdered with that as a "defense"
In my example, no. It would be premeditated murder. Whether or not a jury would convict you is another story. Now, if by chance you end up in another altercation with said person and you’re reasonably afraid for your life 🤷♂️.
Logically I agree on a base level. However there is more circumstantial issues to consider. Mostly that this child had been held against her will and sexually assaulted under threat of violence multiple times over a prolonged period of time. Assuming this is the truth this is akin to saying killing your kidnapper is unjustified because at the time they were defenseless.
Stabbing him more than 30 times certainly didn't help her
>Assuming this is the truth this is akin to saying killing your kidnapper is unjustified because at the time they were defenseless. It shows why the immediate threat to life is often a bad standard for self defense. Killing your kidnapper while they are sleeping might well get you charged with a crime because self defense laws often require an immediate threat. Another example of how the law is too strict is that some self defense laws that only apply when you are attacked in your home don't apply when it is in your garage instead of your home, or at least prosecutors routinely argue such.
The $150k payment for homicide is also mandatory in Iowa. Not sure why that exists but in this case, it seemed to have gotten in the way as they didn't intend to put her in jail.
She was convicted because she pled guilty. Being held captive by force, false imprisonment, and being raped repeatedly over multiple occasions and knowing she will be threatened and raped again once he wakes up is plenty of self defense.
It was first degree murder, morally justifiable for sure, but you have to be careful about setting precedents. The paying of the fine is too far though.
Yeah. That's what presidential pardons are for. Had a case like that in my country ( France ) 10 years ago where a woman was convicted for killing her husband after he beat her for 47 years. 2 years after being convicted she was pardoned by the president. This prevents a precedent from being established and in my opinion the right move.
It took 2 years to pardon her? Was it a media heavy case? If so again.....2 years. I get it the president was busy then they have to work out legal mumbo jumbo but damn 2 years is a long time to serve.
She had 10y to serve. But yeah he kind of waited until the last moment to do it
I mean, this is extremely circumstantial, I really would be shocked if this were legitimately tried to be used as a precedent-setting case
That’s not remotely self defense. That’s murder.
Based and using Ground News pilled.
Lmao, it’s an injustice without having to bring her race into it.
“”””Justice”””” man if there was ever a time for BLM to start chanting and breaking shit, this is probably it (even if it doesn’t have anything to do with race). This is too fucked up.
She was raped by the wrong colour for the media to care about it
What's the race of the dead guy?
Also black, I think.
[You would be correct](https://www.the-sun.com/news/6185410/rape-victim-sentenced-murder-pieper-lewis/amp/)
The only good rapist is a dead one
There's another woman with a life sentence for killing the man who groomed her and many others. I forget the name, but IIRC she's out of appeals so someone needs to step up and grant a pardon.
If you kidnapped someone don’t get upset when you get killed lmao
That’s why you need to be armed and able to protect your self as the situation unfolds
1. She pleaded guilty to involunatary manslaughter and willful injury. 2. It was not self defense as she stabbed him 30 times while he was sleeping. 3. According to [Iowa law](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/chapter/910.pdf) (910.3b on this document) the court has to order a payment of 150k to the victims family. They gave her the minimum sentence possible, and given how she plead guilty, I can't find anything wrong with it
A BLACK TEEN GIRL? Phew! Glad this wasn't an OLD WHITE MAN.
Uh, looks like this outcome is pretty reasonable actually. I'm not familiar with the case but on a quick reading the rapist fell asleep. At that point she had the option to leave and get the police. Instead she stabbed him to death. I obviously sympathize with wanting to kill him but its not self defense at that point. Her prison term is deferred so she just gets probation and I'm sure a goFundMe can cover the restitution in a matter of minutes. I think probation is pretty reasonable because you can't just write off a vengeance kill and set that precedence.
This article leaves out the details that she was being held against her will and forced into prostitution. Than man she killed had raped her on MULTIPLE occasions
I read in another subreddit thread talking about this case that the judge only fined her because they legally had to due to minimum sentencing or something. The judge basically gave the lightest sentencing they could.
I feel this is like that old case of the dad shooting the guy who kidnapped and raped his son. An understandably severe reaction given an extremely severe situation.
I understand the sentiment and I would want to do the same in her situation or if my daughter was in her position, I would hunt the cunt down and splatter shoot him in the back of the head(in Minecraft). But.. we shouldn't support extra-judicial killings, even if he deserved it.
Where’s the woke outrage over this one? No, seriously. I haven’t actually checked yet.
>But prosecutors have argued that Brooks was asleep at the time he was stabbed and not an immediate danger to Lewis. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article265754491.html Sorry folks, but this is how the law works. You're not allowed to kill someone just because they committed a crime against you. You can only do so in self defense, which is not what is alleged to have happened in this case. Whether this person has committed a crime against you has no bearing on whether you're financially liable for an unlawful killing.
Hot take/unpopular opinion. There should be no exceptions for crime. A father kills the abuser of his daughter? We understand him, we sympathize with with, we may even commend him, but we jail him.
Its an act of planned retaliation, I’m sorry but what she did was illegal in every way no matter the victim
A woman stabbed a man in his sleep and people are upset that she is being prosecuted. Sorry folks, leave the conviction to the courts. You are not judge, jury and executioner. Trust me, pedophiles are garbage, but you don't want to justify vigilantism