Alex Jones and Infowars.com

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
Checked it out, the infowars interview - pretty solid showing. Glad it worked out for you. It would be very helpful if people knew what jury nullification was.
 

Thraxz13

Well-Known Member
Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.
A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.
In the past, it was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. In most modern Western legal systems, however, juries are often instructed to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, and the weight accorded to the evidence,[SUP][1][/SUP] to apply that evidence to the law and reach a verdict, but not to decide what the law is. Similarly, juries are routinely cautioned by courts and some attorneys to not allow sympathy for a party or other affected persons to compromise the fair and dispassionate evaluation of evidence during the guilt phase of a trial. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification. Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve the refusal of American colonial juries to convict a defendant under English law.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Juries have also refused to convict due to the perceived injustice of a law in general,[SUP][3][/SUP] or the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases.[SUP][4][/SUP] There have also been cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Other cases have revealed that some juries simply refuse to render a guilty verdict in the absence of overwhelming direct or scientific evidence to support such a judgment. With this type of jury impaneled for the trial of a case, even substantial and competently presented circumstantial evidence may be discounted or rendered inconsequential during the jury's deliberation

It is the right of the People to not only Judge the Person but to Judge the Laws as well... If you feel Laws are wrong and unjust Nullify them!
 

mrboots

Well-Known Member
As crazy as some of the stuff Alex Jones thinks is, I am happy about his views on marijuana and our government's war on drugs. Good job on that interview Thraxz.
 

hazey grapes

Well-Known Member
AJ's not crazy! he's telling it like it really is all the time from everything i've seen. he just isn't a corporate whore towing the line lying to us all the time. he really gets worked up, but someone has to. the general public just doesn't fucking get it. they can't put two and two together and see how the corporate bought teabag fucks have a freakin' meet & greet at a coffee shop, and it makes front page news, but a few THOUSAND people have enough, show up to NYC and start protesting like a mofo, and NADA in the media! it took over 2 weeks for ANY media to mention it despite protests spreading to hundreds of cities, and then, only to diffuse the situation portraying occupy people as whackos, which some are, but have you ever seen what the media DOESN'T show you at a teabagger rally?! those are some REAL crazy motherfuckers, at one point showing up to an obama even with rifles!

i haven't seen AJ say anything crazy yet, but i've only seen a couple videos so far. the FACT is there is no such thing as democracy anymore. corporations brainwash sheep through the media, and like the "election", use divide and conquer tactics to keep everyone bickering with each other instead of them despite obama breaking every promise he made and selling us out to the highest bidder, getting the league of women voters out of debates because them uppity women just asked too many questions they didn't want answered, and look up that video where ron paul deligates were ILLEGALLY a "fuck you" from the republican party refusing to hear their vote count demands or the videos with the media fudging the fact that ron paul was making a strong showing in the polls.

you'll NEVER see a legit politician that serves citizens and tells it like it is get elected. the democrats pulled the same shit with kucinich. if you dig deep enough, all kinds of truths are out there waiting for people to wake the fuck up, but most don't want to. the thought that the "patriot act" is really some big brother shit is just too scary for them.

what saddens me most, is that the bigger the truth is, the less people want to hear it. the only thing i don't like about AJ is that like so many others, they just blah blah blah about what's screwed up instead of just showing it. if someone would make a 2 hour documentary that ONLY shows one fucked up thing after another without so much opinion crap, maybe a few more would get it.

AJ has opened my eyes up to a couple things i suspected though. there are people trying to get the facts out... wikileaks... occupy... & anonymous. telling it like it is means diddly when people are so conditioned they can't listen.
 

canna_420

Well-Known Member
HAHA.

That explains alot.

AJ is not crazey he knows what he is doing and as an agenda just like them he bad mouths.

I followed his shows for 2 years and ended up nearly as crazy as you. Even donated funds to him untill i realy researched him and realised he hates Stoners.



Just because he spits the truth does not meen he is not nutts.
His films are good but himself and his show is utter garbage as everyone is his enemy
 
Top