OMGZWTFROFLMAO-Random-

[Connorthecreator]

hmm?  

[Kitten254]

my avi kicks asss  

[Millenium Joker]

Yes, it does! blaugh blaugh blaugh  

[Kitten254]

...connor dont u love it?  

[Millenium Joker]

Nah, he's a self-absorbed pre-pubescent p***k who cant tell a poptart from a taco.  

[Kitten254]

wow  

[Connorthecreator]

yes, it does look awesome kitten. I'm srry I didn't reply sooner, my mother has jury duty so i was looking for a way to get her out of it....  

[Kitten254]

oh  

[Millenium Joker]

Connorthecreator

yes, it does look awesome kitten. I'm srry I didn't reply sooner, my mother has jury duty so i was looking for a way to get her out of it....

Easy. Don't vote.  

[Connorthecreator]

nah, I suggested this: Mention the right of a jury to "veto." If actually selected to be on a jury, you are likely to be asked to swear to find a verdict solely on the basis of the facts presented in court. Decline to swear this on the grounds that the jury has a right to find a verdict as they see fit. This right is called "jury nullification." In short, it allows a jury to return a verdict of "innocent" when the accused is clearly guilty, because the jury disagrees with the law that was broken. You probably want to read up on this before your jury duty. This is a right held by the juror and affirmed by the Supreme Court, but one that both prosecutors and judges usually deeply loathe, if they even acknowledge its existence. You will almost certainly be excused from the jury for holding unacceptable views, but if not, you will be better prepared for the experience from your research.

Judges who says to jurors that, "you will be required to follow and apply this law regardless of whether it seems just or not", might be asked if they would exercise this rule against Harriet Tubman (1820-1913), who violated the federal Fugitive Slave Laws by participating in the Underground Railroad for escaped slaves, or against Rosa Parks (b.1913), who was arrested in 1955 for violating the segregation laws in Montgomery, Alabama, by refusing to move to the back of the bus when the bus driver told her to give up her seat to a white passenger. If a judge bites the bullet and says that, yes, he would have to instruct juries to convict these women because the law is the law, he might be told that such blind obedience was not accepted as a defense during the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg, when many Nazis claimed that they were just "following orders." A judge who participates in injustices because he is "following orders" might be similarly called to account.
The late Justice William C. Goodloe (1919-1997) of the Washington State Supreme Court, an advocate of jury nullification, suggested that the following instruction be given by judges to all juries in criminal cases: "You are instructed that this being a criminal case you are the exclusive judges of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and you have a right also to determine the law in the case. The court does not intend to express any opinion concerning the weight of the evidence, but it is the duty of the court to advise you as to the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; yet in your decision upon the merits of the case you have a right to determine for yourselves the law as well as the facts by which your verdict shall be governed."  

[Kitten254]

y is jury duty so bad  

[Connorthecreator]

your there for around 9 hours a day, could go on for months...  

[Kitten254]

ew  

[Millenium Joker]

OR, OR... roll with me on this...

You COULD just not vote.  

[Kitten254]

or live with you, happily.