Peaceful Civil Disobedience With A Trash Can

[rives]

Holy shit! I appreciate the links, and will start working my way through them as I get some time. I just have difficulty believing that there is much benefit in being confrontational with the opposition if we can't even get our own people to vote appropriately when legalization, or at least the closest version to it that we have ever seen, is sitting on the table and ready to go (19).

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

tolerance and understanding from LEO or Federal LEO. not likely. Citizens have to force it on the courts now as we forced their laws on our selves though years of collective apathy as a nation. A sufficiently educated nation would have not gone for the drug war. It is not that I want to be confrontational with government. they are infringing on my civil liberties and common rights born as a free man. I will not stand for it, and I will not be suckered down to their violent level. These laws were made before I was born and I had no say. I will use the first Amendment to it's maximum potential.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=222936&page=45

get on board with this million man march I have been trying to spark. It almost happened last 420 around the nation, but the goal is to get a million plus together in the capitol. At this point it would be wise to join up with occupy wall street because none of those individuals support the drug war.

I am all kinds of active https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=123804

If you are not free to do as you please, if you are not hurting anyone, and the only supposed wrong you are doing is not following an unconstitutional guideline like the CSA, and you have the risk prison, along with the horrible things associated with it, then you basically have the same risks as a black man ten minutes after the signing of the Emancipation proclamation. Slaves had families, shitty homes, and shitty food, and that's it just like 50 percent of Americans today. If they stepped out of line a little and ran off the farm to do their own thing they were punished severely. the same is true today of U.S. citizens. Debt is a new tool to ensure slavery, and fear Propaganda is the way they make you think you need your master. TV is the way they paint your with slavery a shiny attractive coat of red white and blue, and convince you it is freedom.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Jury nullification

Jury nullification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Jury nullification 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; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict.[citation needed]

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. However, in most modern Western legal systems, 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,[1] but not the application of that evidence to the law. 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.[2]

Juries have also refused to convict due to the perceived injustice of a law in general,[3] or the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases.[4] 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.[5]

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.[citation needed]

 

[mrcreosote]

I have a better idea...

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^the sharks unionized and want too much money now.