Whose responsibility is it to protect unhoused when it’s freezing outside? An Ohio pastor opened his church to the homeless and was charged by city.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    If this goes to a jury trial, everyone on that jury should fucking nullify.

    If you don’t know, jury nullification is an implicit property of jury trials. The court can’t make you show your work or tell you that your verdict is wrong, so you can give any answer you want. That means if someone is up for something you think is bullshit, like helping the homeless or enjoying marijuana in their backyard, you can just say Not Guilty. The court can’t do shit to you so long as you don’t scream “NULLIFIED FUCKERS” as you’re doing it.

    That said, everyone involved in pushing these charges along should probably be voted out of office or run out of town. They’re trying to kill people, just slowly and via exposure.

    • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      10 months ago

      They’re trying to kill people, just slowly and via exposure.

      Yes, that’s part of it. But what they really want is to scare the rest, for you and me and everyone else to see these headlines and feel what we’re feeling.

      Every single one of these headlines where big government brings down its full weight onto people that help others, everyone from this pastor to people who leave water in the desert to people who help ladies get abortions to even a single miscarriage that they know will offend sensibilities (Brittany Watts), are psychological pre-enforcement for an authoritarian government.

      Every single one screams: step out of line with society, and look what will happen to you too.

      It’s two birds with one stone. Clearing out the visible proof of their own inhumanity and raging mismanagement of this country’s wealth and power by letting the poor and unhoused freeze to death is only one part of it; they absolutely want that message to hang out there, unacknowledged in the freezing air, of what happens to people when they fall out of favor with society’s masters.

    • maness300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      DAs are fully aware of juror’s ability to exonerate defendants just because they don’t agree with the law.

      It’s unlikely something like this would go to court unless the community has some massive hate-boner for the homeless.

      All it takes is 1 person to vote not guilty and all the effort has been wasted getting a conviction.