Wash. jury acquits man of stealing 99-cent hot dog

[Anti Federalist]

Jury Nullification FTW.

Once again, makes it very clear about not talking to cops.

They are looking to bust everybody.



Wash. jury acquits man of stealing 99-cent hot dog

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/27/ap/strange/main20057771.shtml

(AP) CHENEY, Wash. (AP) — A man has been cleared of a theft charge after a bemused jury in Washington state found him not guilty of stealing a 99-cent hot dog.

John Richardson got the sausage from the self-serve counter of a Cheney, Wash., grocery store in December. He ate it while he shopped but forgot to include it when he paid for his groceries.

Store managers confronted Richardson and called police.

It took jurors about five minutes to reach their verdict in the February trial. Juror Patrick Reeves tells The Spokesman-Review someone would "have to be an idiot" not to realize Richardson simply forgot to pay.

Prosecutor Julie McKay didn't buy that. She says Richardson refused a deal to pay a $200 civil penalty and have the charge dropped.

Store officials declined to comment.

 

[nate895]

I don't think this is an example of jury nullification. The jury came to a verdict based on the facts of the case, that being that the defendant simply forgot to pay. Jury nullification would be where a jury decides that the law they are accused of breaking is unjust in some manner. So, the jury would have had to have found "not guilty" based on the fact that petty theft laws are unjust. That was not the jury's verdict.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Or that the man was going to starve to death if he didnt get to eat the hot dog and his right for life trumped the property owner's rights of the hot dog.

i agree.. this is not an example of jury nullification

 

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think this is an example of jury nullification. The jury came to a verdict based on the facts of the case, that being that the defendant simply forgot to pay. Jury nullification would be where a jury decides that the law they are accused of breaking is unjust in some manner. So, the jury would have had to have found "not guilty" based on the fact that petty theft laws are unjust. That was not the jury's verdict.

Splitting hairs.

Did the store call the police and report a theft of product? Yes.

Did the man pay for the hot dog? No.

Is that "shoplifting" under the law? Yes.

Was the man guilty, by his own admission, of taking a product from the store and not paying for it? Yes.

Prima facie guilt established? Yes.

Jury refuses to convict, is that jury nullification? Yes.

Jury nullification applies not only to nullification of bad or unjust law, but also legitimate law, misapplied capriciously or vindictively, as was the case here.

 

[Kylie]

Same difference.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Same difference.

What is?

Elaborate plz.

 

[Dr.3D]

The store should have just asked the man to pay for the hot dog. I can't for the life of me, understand how a 99 cent hot dog should warrant the expense of a jury trial. This case should have never made it to court in the first place. I believe those running the store should lose their jobs for working so hard to cause this man so much trouble.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Prosecutor Julie McKay didn't buy that. She says Richardson refused a deal to pay a $200 civil penalty and have the charge dropped.

Where was the part where he had a chance to pay the damn 99 cents?

 

[Anti Federalist]

The store should have just asked the man to pay for the hot dog. I can't for the life of me, understand how a 99 cent hot dog should warrant the expense of a jury trial. This case should have never made it to court in the first place. I believe those running the store should lose their jobs for working so hard to cause this man so much trouble.

That's my point and why I called it jury nullification.

Technically, according to the law, the man was guilty.

But it did go all the way to trial, and if not for a jury with a lick of sense to "nullify" legitimate law, grossly misapplied, this poor bastard might have gone to jail for couple of years.

 

[nate895]

Technically, according to the law, the man was guilty.

No, he wasn't. He made a mistake and the store made a bigger beef out of it than there should have been. Everything the jury did was within the confines of existing legal precedent. There was no innovation of renegade aspect of it. The jury simply found that the defendants claim to have forgotten to pay was correct, which according to existing law, should acquit anyone in a petty theft case like this. There was no questioning of the law in this case.

Perhaps there was an abuse factor, but that still isn't jury nullification. Jury nullification is where the jury decides that they don't think whatever crime the person is accused is actually a crime. For instance, during prohibition many juries did not like the law against alcohol, so they refused to convict on that basis alone. That is actual jury nullification. This jury never questioned the crime of petty theft, or even necessarily its application to food at a grocery store, they just found that the circumstances of the case made it so the man did not actually commit petty theft.

 

[Incrimsonias]

Or that the man was going to starve to death if he didnt get to eat the hot dog and his right for life trumped the property owner's rights of the hot dog.

i agree.. this is not an example of jury nullification

Your right to life is that you have the right not to have your life taken from you.

Your right to property is that you have the right not to have your property taken from you.

These are not positive rights --

 

[cindy25]

jury nullification should be an issue for 2012.

 

[nate895]

Your right to life is that you have the right not to have your life taken from you.

Your right to property is that you have the right not to have your property taken from you.

These are not positive rights --

So, if you're literally dying of thirst, and you venture onto someone's property where there is water, you should have to ask permission before you drink? What if they say no?

Once again, we see why I'm a staunch small government conservative (Theonomy being ideal) and not a libertarian.

 

[South Park Fan]

So, if you're literally dying of thirst, and you venture onto someone's property where there is water, you should have to ask permission before you drink? What if they say no?

Once again, we see why I'm a staunch small government conservative (Theonomy being ideal) and not a libertarian.

Even as a libertarian, I don't see natural rights as trumping proportionality. While in a literal sense the man stealing a 99-cent hot dog and the hypothetical man drinking water are both commiting theft, there is no justification in either case for launching a legal battle that would excede expected reparations. All the former man would owe the store for the hot dog would be 99 cents plus negligible interest, and there would be a variety of ways to get the desired reparations. In the latter case, no legal system is going to prevent a man dying of thirst from drinking water, but if the water belonged to someone else he should pay the minimal cost of the water at some point in the future. Again, it would not be in the best interest of either party for the owner of the water to launch a costly legal battle to recover the slim cost of the consumed water.

 

[lx43]

The store should have just asked the man to pay for the hot dog. I can't for the life of me, understand how a 99 cent hot dog should warrant the expense of a jury trial. This case should have never made it to court in the first place. I believe those running the store should lose their jobs for working so hard to cause this man so much trouble.

Thats insane the local govt would even waste resources on a 99cent hot dog; even if the man did steal it. Just ask the guy to pay the store.

 

[Agorism]

This is an example of nullification.

Part of nullification is determining when the law applies and when it does not. When things are trivial or accidental you can use nullification.

 

[manny229]

It should have been guilty by reason of insanity.... obviously only an insane man would eat a .99 cent hot dog from a convenience store.

/s

 

[eproxy100]

Mike Mitrosky -

WTF? So how about I live like a bum next to a grocery store and go in and steal something to eat everyday cuz otherwise I'd starve to death if I don't.

That's nothing short of socialism.

 

[nate895]

Even as a libertarian, I don't see natural rights as trumping proportionality. While in a literal sense the man stealing a 99-cent hot dog and the hypothetical man drinking water are both commiting theft, there is no justification in either case for launching a legal battle that would excede expected reparations. All the former man would owe the store for the hot dog would be 99 cents plus negligible interest, and there would be a variety of ways to get the desired reparations. In the latter case, no legal system is going to prevent a man dying of thirst from drinking water, but if the water belonged to someone else he should pay the minimal cost of the water at some point in the future. Again, it would not be in the best interest of either party for the owner of the water to launch a costly legal battle to recover the slim cost of the consumed water.

As you make fairly clear, you're advice is merely pragmatic. I never argued that a libertarian system would make it practical to prosecute the mass theft of ham sandwiches perpetuated by petty theft masterminds everyday. I simply said that libertarian principles allow such an absurdity. I happen to think in actual extreme circumstances, there is a moral obligation to provide, and the government (or any other entity) cannot enforce laws to the contrary. The person who needs water or a bite to eat has the right to seek that sustenance at no cost if need be. Although, as a human being himself, he has the moral obligation to pay if he can to help provide for others in such dire straits.

I should note that this only applies to actual people you actually see. It does not apply to massive government programs. If someone comes up and is going to die if he doesn't get a sip from your canteen, you have the obligation to give it to him (unless you'll die yourself). That doesn't mean that the government has the right to take a portion of your income for a massive water bottle distribution program in the middle of the Sahara desert.

 

[South Park Fan]

Mike Mitrosky -

WTF? So how about I live like a bum next to a grocery store and go in and steal something to eat everyday cuz otherwise I'd starve to death if I don't.

That's nothing short of socialism.

Were I the grocery store, I would wait until the costs accumulated by said bum exceeded expected court costs, and then file a civil suit.