Yes I think that’s the intent. The first is jury nullification. The second is a call to violence. Two very different things, even though crossing the line from one to the other is super easy on a public forum. I just don’t think the post by the admins phrased that well, that’s all.
Yes it can come off as encouraging crime. So what is the outcome now? Jury nullification ok or not ok? You cannot enforce a rule based on conditional future outcomes. If one wants to eliminate the chance of potentially encouraging future crimes, one needs to ban any and all forms of jury nullification. Was this the decision made? I am unclear on this.
Doesn’t the very concept of jury nullification only apply to cases where a crime has already been committed and then a jury is called upon to reach a verdict on said crime? This honestly reads as mental gymnastics. Or perhaps it could be worded better. Do you mean to say that jury nullification will be fine going forward, no matter what the crime, but you still must forbid calls to violence against named or otherwise identifiable individuals or specific groups or people and/or the glorification of violence in general? This would be better wording I think, though still hard to distinguish and enforce consistently. I find the concept of “jury nullification for future crimes” hard to grasp.
Couldn’t have said this better. Memes and all. Kudos.
Don’t we all love a strawman