Rep. McIver indicted on federal charges after incident at NJ ICE detention facility

I understand the difference and was drawing an applicable analogy. In the case of Trump and his misuse of the pardon power the difference is that former occurs prior to the formal determination of guilt while the latter is used subsequent to the determination of guilt. By the way if you're trying to draw an analogy rather Klansmen who were found guilty of crimes that they committed and as matter of record back in the 1930s Klansmen who committed crimes in which their were black victims were almost never charged with their cases not even going to juries. Apparently you have already decided the McIver is guilty and therefore a finding not guilty would be jury nullification. I saw the video and it's not really conclusive that she intentionally struck the ICE officer(s) although I guess you can always believe what you want. If the jury determines that the evidence wasn't sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that's not jury nullification. If McIver testified that she intentionally struck the ICE agent or her attorneys admitted that she intentionally struck the agent and urged a finding contrary to the evidence and the jury found her not guilty that would be jury nullification.

 

Thanks for a response, I guess.

Regarding the J6 discussion, it has been covered ad infinitum in numerous posts/threads. That said, one question: do you have personal knowledge or information about "multiple cops" who were "beaten" and/or "severely injured" during J6? If so, when are you available to make a statement?

Regarding, the third question, I'm not sure about your reply - too much or too little caffeine?

 

I guess you are entitled to your opinion of what nullification is or isn't. I think I'll stick with what the accepted legal analysis of jury nullification is. Thanks.

 

Although I don't have direct personal knowledge regarding the attacks on the cops during the failed insurrection of January 6th, there are multiple videos, still photographs as well as the testimony of the law enforcement officers who were attacked. If you read those threads, read news articles on the subject or saw the hearings on the events of J6 you should be aware of those attacks actually occurred.

 

And here is the game you are playing again on the topic. You will insinuate that everything they did was fine and then claim that you can't say more due to your job.

And to whom would I make such a statement? They have all been pardoned.

If you are unaware of the cops beaten and injured, I am happy to provide you with accounts of police being severely beaten, unless you don't think being knocked unconscious or having your eyes gouged or being repeatedly kicked in the stomach or having your head slammed against the doorway counts.

Respecting and honoring the heroes of January 6th

 

Nope, you still don't present an understanding of the differences between nullification and a pardon.

Next, I did not and have not "decide [that] McIver is guilty." Note in earlier post, I specifically wrote that she will present a defense. Video footage is pretty compelling, but she still has a defense to present. Those two thoughts are not mutually exclusive. You were the one who initiated the conversation/concept that her peers in NJ would find her not guilty based upon some allegiance to her, her cause, etc.

I appreciate that you are attempting to backtrack here while trying to maintain some dignity. However, it may be best to simply state you misspoke or sent those posts based more upon emotion than reasoning.

 

What's the legal definition? I always thought that it was a verdict contrary to the facts and/or the law usually because the jury thought that the law was unjust or that the defendant was justified in breaking the law. Implicitly the factual situation upon which the indictment or other charging document is based has to be absolutely unambiguous before a verdict can be considered jury nullification. If there are ambiguities and the jury reaches a determination contrary to the allegations that's not jury nullification; it's because the jury found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Sure. Can you provide that "accepted legal analysis" or is it more just your analysis?

 

Personal knowledge or what you've read?

 

Looked to me like she was pushing, but I haven't seen the actual indictment to read the specific charge(s). Somehow I doubt she's going to get an opportunity to record a song with the President.

 

Sworn testimony supported by video evidence.

 

These are the kind of charges that are routinely thrown out or never prosecuted when people get arrested at protests. They can tack an assault charge on you for just touching an officer. Its obviously incredibly petty. They didnt even charge the mayor guy that got arrested, and he was the one the administration and the people in the ICE facility were saying was the "problem."

 

Since jury nullification is not a recognized legal concept in the US legal system, everyone quite literally is entitled to their opinion of what it is or isn't

 

As a fellow practitioner I am confused by your posts on the topic. Are you being intentionally obscure with your thoughts to create an argument? The concept is not difficult to understand and widely accepted as to what it is, so from someone outside the current argument this seems intentional on your part.

 

LOL. What? What are you even saying? Unless someone is..... personally acquainted with multiple cops who were beaten or injured, then ..... what we saw with our own eyes, and was well-documented .... didn't actually happen?

Nah - won't be joining you in your Trumpy fake reality. Thanks for the offer though.

 

One question, do you have personal knowledge to the contrary i.e. indicating that the photos, videos and personal testimony of the victimized law enforcement officers regarding the attacks on them is inaccurate? Just asking.