Re: [MBZ] Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard
Hear Here! Read the Preamble... "We the People..." It does not say we the lawyers! I don't care what lawyers think about it. This article describes the rights and duties of citizens. "We the people.." The "law schools" have been corrupt for at least a hundred years. I'd like to hear Randy and Donald Snook (and any other lawyers in the group) comment on this: http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijaintr.htm -- It's extremely unlikely the judge will tell you this, because the law doesn't require it. Instead, expect the judge to tell you that you may consider "only the facts" of the case and you are not to let your conscience, your opinion of the law, or the defendant's motives affect your decision. Many people don't get fair trials. Too often, jurors actually end up apologizing to the person they've convicted - or to the community for acquitting when the evidence clearly established guilt. Something is definitely wrong when jurors feel badly about their verdict. They should never be ashamed of their decision, or explain " I wanted to vote my conscience, but the judge said we had to apply the law as it was given to us, like it or not." Most Americans are aware of their right to trial by jury, but how many know that the jury has more power than anyone else in the courtroom - and that in pursuit of a just verdict, jurors are free to judge the merits of the law itself, its use in the case at hand, or the motives of the accused. If jurors were supposed to judge "only the facts", their job could be done by a computer. It is precisely because people have opinions, wisdom, experience, and conscience that we depend on jurors, not machines, to judge court cases. In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, but judges rarely advise jurors of their rights. And judges are not supposed to dismiss prospective jurors because they admit having qualms with the law, or know about their right to judge the law and its application. But such dismissals are routine. We can only speculate on why: disrespect for the vital concept of "government of, by and for the people?" Unwillingness to part with their powers? Ignorance of jurors rights? (Yes, some judges do not even know about the rights of jurors.) Worse, many judges and prosecutors, apparently anxious to reassure the public that they stand for law and order, do their best to select jurors they know from prior experience to be "conviction prone." Then the judge (wrongly) "instructs" them that they must reach a unanimous decision, and soon, to avoid "overburdening the taxpayers." Jurors are very rarely informed they may vote according to conscience, even after swearing to "apply the law as given" - or told that it's better to "hang" the jury than to violate one's conscience in order to reach consensus. These are some of the reasons FIJA was formed. FIJA stands for Fully Informed Jury Association. We are a network of jury-rights activists and groups. Our current project is also known as FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Act or Amendment. As law, FIJA would require that trial judges resume the former practice of telling jurors about their right to judge both law and fact regarding each and every charge against a defendant. We want the judge, like everyone else in the courtroom, to tell the whole truth and nothing but. Yes, it was normal in the early days of our nation and before, in colonial times. America's founders realized that trials by juries of ordinary people, fully aware of their rights as jurors, would be essential to preservation of our freedom. As long as juries had the final say on the laws of the land, the government would remain the servant, not the master, of the people. Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, put it like this: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Yes. Only decades had passed since the freedom of the press was established in the colonies when a jury decided John Peter Zenger was "not guilty" of seditious libel. He was charged with this crime for printing true, but damaging, news stories about the Royal Governor of New York Colony. "Truth is no defense", the court told the jury! But the jury decided to reject bad law, and acquitted. Why? Because defense attorney Andrew Hamilton informed the jury of its rights: he told the story of William Penn's trial - of the courageous London jury which refused to find him guilty of preaching what was then an illegal religion (Quakerism). His jurors stood by their verdict even though they were held without food, water, or t
Re: [MBZ] Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard
I'd like to hear Randy and Donald Snook (and any other lawyers in the group) comment on this: http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijaintr.htm -- It's extremely unlikely the judge will tell you this, because the law doesn't require it. Instead, expect the judge to tell you that you may consider "only the facts" of the case and you are not to let your conscience, your opinion of the law, or the defendant's motives affect your decision. Many people don't get fair trials. Too often, jurors actually end up apologizing to the person they've convicted - or to the community for acquitting when the evidence clearly established guilt. Something is definitely wrong when jurors feel badly about their verdict. They should never be ashamed of their decision, or explain " I wanted to vote my conscience, but the judge said we had to apply the law as it was given to us, like it or not." Most Americans are aware of their right to trial by jury, but how many know that the jury has more power than anyone else in the courtroom - and that in pursuit of a just verdict, jurors are free to judge the merits of the law itself, its use in the case at hand, or the motives of the accused. If jurors were supposed to judge "only the facts", their job could be done by a computer. It is precisely because people have opinions, wisdom, experience, and conscience that we depend on jurors, not machines, to judge court cases. In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, but judges rarely advise jurors of their rights. And judges are not supposed to dismiss prospective jurors because they admit having qualms with the law, or know about their right to judge the law and its application. But such dismissals are routine. We can only speculate on why: disrespect for the vital concept of "government of, by and for the people?" Unwillingness to part with their powers? Ignorance of jurors rights? (Yes, some judges do not even know about the rights of jurors.) Worse, many judges and prosecutors, apparently anxious to reassure the public that they stand for law and order, do their best to select jurors they know from prior experience to be "conviction prone." Then the judge (wrongly) "instructs" them that they must reach a unanimous decision, and soon, to avoid "overburdening the taxpayers." Jurors are very rarely informed they may vote according to conscience, even after swearing to "apply the law as given" - or told that it's better to "hang" the jury than to violate one's conscience in order to reach consensus. These are some of the reasons FIJA was formed. FIJA stands for Fully Informed Jury Association. We are a network of jury-rights activists and groups. Our current project is also known as FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Act or Amendment. As law, FIJA would require that trial judges resume the former practice of telling jurors about their right to judge both law and fact regarding each and every charge against a defendant. We want the judge, like everyone else in the courtroom, to tell the whole truth and nothing but. Yes, it was normal in the early days of our nation and before, in colonial times. America's founders realized that trials by juries of ordinary people, fully aware of their rights as jurors, would be essential to preservation of our freedom. As long as juries had the final say on the laws of the land, the government would remain the servant, not the master, of the people. Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, put it like this: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Yes. Only decades had passed since the freedom of the press was established in the colonies when a jury decided John Peter Zenger was "not guilty" of seditious libel. He was charged with this crime for printing true, but damaging, news stories about the Royal Governor of New York Colony. "Truth is no defense", the court told the jury! But the jury decided to reject bad law, and acquitted. Why? Because defense attorney Andrew Hamilton informed the jury of its rights: he told the story of William Penn's trial - of the courageous London jury which refused to find him guilty of preaching what was then an illegal religion (Quakerism). His jurors stood by their verdict even though they were held without food, water, or toilet facilities for four days. They were then fined and imprisoned for acquitting Penn - until England's highest court acknowledged their right to reject both law and fact, and to find a verdict according to conscience. It was exercise of that right in the Penn trial which even
Re: [MBZ] Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard
I want a drone capable of lifting a 156 pound payload. On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Rich Thomas via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > Tater gun stuffed with a shrimp throw net, you catch it you keep it. > > I just got a 1600 mW solid state laser from China that runs off 12V (I > think, I haven't really looked at it yet) to put on a little burning > machine, I got to thinking that mounting that sucker on a quadcopter with > some targeting software and FPV goggles would be just the thing when them > crackas show up wanting their machine back. "Say hello to my leetle > fren" "CAUTION: Do Not Look at Laser with Remaining Eye" > > Or even better than the spud gun but then the device would be disabled if > the brains got burned through. > > --R > > > > > On 7/30/15 9:52 AM, Curly McLain via Mercedes wrote: > >> I see a market for gun-like tool which shoots a net or somesuch to bring >>> down a drone. Keep the drone until anyone claiming to be the owner can >>> prove they are the owner in a court of law. After enough publicity, jail >>> time & fines for those breaking federal laws, and just the pure hassle of >>> getting your drone back, drone incidents like this will be reduced. >>> >>> - >>> Max >>> Charleston SC >>> >> >> Yes. A spider man web slinger. I've also thought this to be the perfect >> solution. >> >> ___ >> http://www.okiebenz.com >> >> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ >> >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com >> >> >> > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard
Tater gun stuffed with a shrimp throw net, you catch it you keep it. I just got a 1600 mW solid state laser from China that runs off 12V (I think, I haven't really looked at it yet) to put on a little burning machine, I got to thinking that mounting that sucker on a quadcopter with some targeting software and FPV goggles would be just the thing when them crackas show up wanting their machine back. "Say hello to my leetle fren" "CAUTION: Do Not Look at Laser with Remaining Eye" Or even better than the spud gun but then the device would be disabled if the brains got burned through. --R On 7/30/15 9:52 AM, Curly McLain via Mercedes wrote: I see a market for gun-like tool which shoots a net or somesuch to bring down a drone. Keep the drone until anyone claiming to be the owner can prove they are the owner in a court of law. After enough publicity, jail time & fines for those breaking federal laws, and just the pure hassle of getting your drone back, drone incidents like this will be reduced. - Max Charleston SC Yes. A spider man web slinger. I've also thought this to be the perfect solution. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard
At short range this is a pretty good solution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDcwas2pPFk -Curt From: Curly McLain via Mercedes To: Mercedes Discussion List Cc: Curly McLain <126die...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard >I see a market for gun-like tool which shoots a net or somesuch to bring >down a drone. Keep the drone until anyone claiming to be the owner can >prove they are the owner in a court of law. After enough publicity, jail >time & fines for those breaking federal laws, and just the pure hassle of >getting your drone back, drone incidents like this will be reduced. > >- >Max >Charleston SC Yes. A spider man web slinger. I've also thought this to be the perfect solution. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard
I see a market for gun-like tool which shoots a net or somesuch to bring down a drone. Keep the drone until anyone claiming to be the owner can prove they are the owner in a court of law. After enough publicity, jail time & fines for those breaking federal laws, and just the pure hassle of getting your drone back, drone incidents like this will be reduced. - Max Charleston SC Yes. A spider man web slinger. I've also thought this to be the perfect solution. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard
I see a market for gun-like tool which shoots a net or somesuch to bring down a drone. Keep the drone until anyone claiming to be the owner can prove they are the owner in a court of law. After enough publicity, jail time & fines for those breaking federal laws, and just the pure hassle of getting your drone back, drone incidents like this will be reduced. - Max Charleston SC On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Greg Fiorentino via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > According to what I've read, there is a city prohibition, but he was > charged > under a different state law. Interesting to see how this plays out. > > Greg > > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard
According to what I've read, there is a city prohibition, but he was charged under a different state law. Interesting to see how this plays out. Greg -Original Message- From: Mercedes [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of Curt Raymond via Mercedes Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 2:04 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Cc: Curt Raymond Subject: [MBZ] Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/kentucky-man-shoots-down-drone-ho vering-over-his-backyard/ Being that its Kentucky I'm surprised they arrested him. Maybe theres a law against discharging a firearm within city limits? -Curt ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard
Pretty funny i think. A harbinger of things to come? On Jul 29, 2015 5:03 PM, "Curt Raymond via Mercedes" wrote: > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/kentucky-man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-over-his-backyard/ > > Being that its Kentucky I'm surprised they arrested him. Maybe theres a > law against discharging a firearm within city limits? > -Curt > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
