In the first image when she was bending over I thought ‘she’s wearing a GoPro forehead camera, that can’t be possible.’ But it was a light fixture in the background superimposed, seen as she stood up.
Safety rules require her to wear a fall protection harness to climb the ladder to the diving platform. You wouldn’t get me out of that harness, much less unclipped. I never had one when climbing the 370 ft caged ladder on the smokestack we built. The cage wouldn’t save you BTW. Jobs best done by young men.
There were questions about the “!No Pasaran!” blog recently.
Here’s a current link:
neo’s “NoPasaran!” link on her
Blogroll list seems to work just fine without going through InstaPundit.
You’ve noticed, I’m sure, all of the leftist judges trying to use their rulings to put roadblocks in front of President Trump’s agenda and actions, and how many leftists –when they are even arrested and charged–manage to escape any serious punishment.
There is another angle of leftist attack, and that is SOROS funded attempts to teach leftist activists how to manipulate juries, so as to derail DOJ prosecutions of Leftists. *
It seems to me that at some point Trump and the DIJ will have to go after Soros himself, and the myriad of his leftist organizations funding a whole slew of subversive organizations, groups. techniques, and movements, all trying to force our country and government in the direction that leftist Soros wants.
If you are a member of a jury in a criminal case, even if you think the defendant is guilty of the crimes charged, you are entirely free to vote for acquittal if you think that the prosecution is malicious or unfair, or that a conviction in that case would be unjust, or that the law itself is unconstitutional or simply wrong. And if you do so, there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
Judges and prosecutors know this. But they don’t want jurors to know it, which is why we occasionally see cases like this one, in which jury-information activist Mark Iannicelli was arrested and charged with “jury tampering” for setting up a small booth in front of a Denver courthouse labeled “Juror Info” and passing out leaflets. Putting up a sign and passing out leaflets sounds like free speech to me, but apparently Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey feels differently.
The last time I noticed a case like this was in 2012, where a retired chemistry professor did pretty much the same thing. Federal District Judge Kimba Wood dismissed the indictment. At the time, NYU Law professor Rachel Barkow commented, “I don’t think sensible prosecutors should have even brought this case.” Well, sensible prosecutors didn’t.
And UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote: “It seems to me that such speech is constitutionally protected, and that the indictment therefore violates the First Amendment. One can debate whether jury nullification is good or bad for the legal system, but it’s clear that it’s not a crime for jurors to refuse to convict even when the jury instructions seem to call for a guilty verdict. So Heicklen is encouraging a jury to engage in legal — even if, in the view of some, harmful — conduct.” It’s legal, but prosecutors don’t want jurors to know about it because if jurors knew they were free to acquit in the interest of justice, it would weaken prosecutors. (Prosecutors don’t even like billboards aimed at educating jurors.)
Of course, prosecutors have essentially the same power, since they’re under no obligation to bring charges against even an obviously guilty defendant. But while the power of juries to let guilty people go free in the name of justice is treated as suspect and called “jury nullification,” the power of prosecutors to do the exact same thing is called “prosecutorial discretion,” and is treated not as a bug, but as a feature in our justice system. But there’s no obvious reason why one is better than the other. Yes, prosecutors are professionals — but they’re also politicians, which means that their discretion may be employed politically. And they’re repeat players in the justice system, which makes them targets for corruption in a way that juries — laypeople who come together for a single case — aren’t.
I didn’t even start the video, but the still image alone is terrifying.
Regarding “jury nullification,” I suppose it depends on whether one supports the the legitimacy of the law that was allegedly violated. For example, if one believes that America is a fatally flawed and evil country, then every criminal prosecution, regardless of the specifics, is subject to jury nullification. I believe this is the position of the left. Of course, when a leftist controls the criminal justice mechanism itself, then nullification is not required because no criminals will be charged or if charged, will be given a bargained-for sentence tantamount to no punishment at all.
@steve: I suppose it depends on whether one supports the the legitimacy of the law that was allegedly violated.
That’s one reason, others might include prosecutorial overreach, disagreement with the appropriateness of the crime charged or the mandatory minimum sentence, or just disagreement with the way the law works in a particular case but no disagreement with it in general. For example, see below. If a jury acquits Spencer it will not be because they think laws against murder are not legitimate.
An Arkansas man accused of killing his teenage daughter’s alleged abuser won the Republican nomination for local sheriff while waiting to stand trial for murder in his rural county, where he ran on a message of seeing the failures of law enforcement.
Aaron Spencer defeated Lonoke County Sheriff John Staley in Tuesday’s primary elections, according to unofficial results posted by the Arkansas secretary of state. He would not be able to serve if he is convicted of killing Michael Fosler, 67, who at the time was out on bond after being charged with numerous sexual offenses against Spencer’s then-13-year-old daughter.
Spencer’s attorneys do not deny that he shot and killed Fosler but maintain he acted within the law to protect his child from a predator.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Short answer is NO! Long answer is H NO!
In the first image when she was bending over I thought ‘she’s wearing a GoPro forehead camera, that can’t be possible.’ But it was a light fixture in the background superimposed, seen as she stood up.
Safety rules require her to wear a fall protection harness to climb the ladder to the diving platform. You wouldn’t get me out of that harness, much less unclipped. I never had one when climbing the 370 ft caged ladder on the smokestack we built. The cage wouldn’t save you BTW. Jobs best done by young men.
There were questions about the “!No Pasaran!” blog recently.
Here’s a current link:
https://instapundit.com/781623/
neo’s “NoPasaran!” link on her
Blogroll list seems to work just fine without going through InstaPundit.
You’ve noticed, I’m sure, all of the leftist judges trying to use their rulings to put roadblocks in front of President Trump’s agenda and actions, and how many leftists –when they are even arrested and charged–manage to escape any serious punishment.
There is another angle of leftist attack, and that is SOROS funded attempts to teach leftist activists how to manipulate juries, so as to derail DOJ prosecutions of Leftists. *
It seems to me that at some point Trump and the DIJ will have to go after Soros himself, and the myriad of his leftist organizations funding a whole slew of subversive organizations, groups. techniques, and movements, all trying to force our country and government in the direction that leftist Soros wants.
* See https://redstate.com/ben-smith/2026/03/10/left-wing-activists-caught-plotting-to-rig-juries-against-trump-doj-prosecutions-n2200039
Take-down of Douglas MacGregor by Bonchie: “Tucker expert Douglas Macgregor being wrong about literally everything, a thread.”
https://x.com/bonchieredstate/status/2031159778429252031
@Snow On Pine:There is another angle of leftist attack, and that is SOROS funded attempts to teach leftist activists how to manipulate juries,
It’s jury nullification, and it’s a bedrock of liberty when WE do it, but it’s “jury manipulation” when THEY do it and of course widdershins likewise.
Notice the flip-flop at Instapundit between 2016 and 2022. Here’s Reynold’s comments from 2015:
I didn’t even start the video, but the still image alone is terrifying.
Regarding “jury nullification,” I suppose it depends on whether one supports the the legitimacy of the law that was allegedly violated. For example, if one believes that America is a fatally flawed and evil country, then every criminal prosecution, regardless of the specifics, is subject to jury nullification. I believe this is the position of the left. Of course, when a leftist controls the criminal justice mechanism itself, then nullification is not required because no criminals will be charged or if charged, will be given a bargained-for sentence tantamount to no punishment at all.
@steve: I suppose it depends on whether one supports the the legitimacy of the law that was allegedly violated.
That’s one reason, others might include prosecutorial overreach, disagreement with the appropriateness of the crime charged or the mandatory minimum sentence, or just disagreement with the way the law works in a particular case but no disagreement with it in general. For example, see below. If a jury acquits Spencer it will not be because they think laws against murder are not legitimate.