moonbattery logo

Dec 09 2016

Legal Website Editor Calls for Jury Nullification to Let Off Any Criminal Who Victimizes White Men

The Black Lives Matter lunacy continues to escalate, pounding away at the rule of law. Now we have an editor at a legal website calling on black jurors to automatically acquit any criminal who victimizes whites or insitutions associated with whites:

On Above The Law, African-American editor Elie Mystal called for “jury nullification” by blacks when on juries in trials that focus on white victims.

There is legal precedent. Remember O.J.? He brutally murdered two people, left proof that he did it all over the place, and walked free on the grounds that he is black while his victims Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were white. Being oppressed has its benefits.

Mystal was given a law degree by Harvard University. But they could not give him a sense of justice or decency. He barks that whenever the victim is a white male, juries should acquit no matter the crime.

“Black people lucky enough to get on a jury could use that power to acquit any person charged with a crime against white men and white male institutions. It’s not about the race of the defendant, but if the alleged victim is a white guy, or his bank, or his position, or his authority: we could acquit. Assault? Acquit. Burglary? Acquit. Insider trading? Acquit.

“Murder? What the hell do you think is happening to black people out here? What the hell do you think we’re complaining about when your cops shoot us or choke us? Acquit.”

To the irresponsible demagogues who hold such powerful sway among blacks and liberals, there is no moral difference between a police officer having to resort to lethal force against a criminal lowlife in order to save his own life on one hand, and a criminal lowlife murdering an innocent person on the other. All that matters is the race of those involved. Equality before the law is for racist crackers.

If this catches on, America will have to choose between excluding blacks from juries, abandoning the constitutional right to a jury trial, or accepting that a crime is not a crime if it is committed against whites.

Whites would be below the law.

On a tip from Rob E.

50 Responses to “Legal Website Editor Calls for Jury Nullification to Let Off Any Criminal Who Victimizes White Men”

  1. grayjohn says:

    Someone needs to have his black ass beaten into a coma by a cracker.

  2. JackisBack says:

    No problem. We should return the favor. Blacks and Muslims, same mold.

  3. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Just keep agitating for a race war.

    How do you think that will turn out????

  4. IOpian says:

    Sounds like a reverse version of the old Democratic South where whites were automatically acquitted of crimes against blacks. Flip the skin color around and it is still overt racism.

  5. THOUGHTCRIMINAL2084 says:

    “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere -MLK” has changed to “KILL WHITEY.

  6. 762x51 says:

    Yep, play time is gettin closer every day. It’s on autopilot now, there is no earthly force powerful enough to turn us from this path.

  7. ThisObamaNation says:

    Everyone how reads this article should contact the American Bar Association and report this “lawyers” unethical behavior and ask that he be disbarred. They are easy to contact via their website.

  8. ThisObamaNation says:

    No, he needs to be reported to the American Bar Association.
    People who advocate an acquittal for murder based solely on a persons race have no business practicing law. Convictions should be based on evidence and objective facts, NOT on the color of ones’ skin. He is racist, and he is wrong.

  9. 762x51 says:

    “If this catches on, America will have to choose between excluding blacks from juries, abandoning the constitutional right to a jury trial, or accepting that a crime is not a crime if it is committed against whites.” You overlooked the most obvious and most likely choice, settling things the old fashioned way. Things are about to uglier than fibtard in a bathrobe.

    Should they actually follow this plan, it will only lead to the rise of vigilantism which will cycle in ever escalating spirals until we reach their endgame, civil war, some call it race war, whatever.

    Now that they have lost power, Progressives desperation will cause them to become ever more brazen in the calls for rebellion, violence, and “street justice”. Even today, many of you will not admit this is happening, but here it is, documented. There is also no shortage of leftist militants willing to take up arms against you, contrary to what many here believe.

  10. TED says:

    Oooooooo Yah, wouldn’t the criminals LOVE that!! I say we go the other way and make ALL offenses a black is even accused of a DEATH PENALTY OFFENSE!! Talk about curing the problem of overcrowded prisons AND nearly eliminating the crime rate in America!!!

  11. TrojanMan says:

    “Mystal was given a law degree by Harvard University” Well Barry has/had one from there too so what does that really mean?

  12. Tchhht!!! says:

    I know you’re devastated that your candidate didn’t win the Presidential election so here is a nice photo of her with my compliments so that you may cherish her forever…

  13. Gus Armstrong says:

    Sounds more like a call for a race war.

  14. TED says:

    BINGO! Gatta keep them busy so they don’t notice the screwing the LEFT is giving them!! LOLOLOLOLOL!

  15. TED says: FUNNY HOW THAT WORKS????!!!!

  16. TED says:

    …and you’ll be whining! Share with all of your liberal friends.

  17. grayjohn says:

    But can’t we do both? Mine first, then yours?

  18. ThisObamaNation says:

    It means if you have enough money and you are a minority can buy one.

  19. jeffsmessydesk says:

    Kind of what the main stream press does every day?

  20. Nan says:

    The ABA is a trade association and doesn’t license attorneys. That’s a function of the individual states. Not all law school graduates a) become a member of their state bar or b) retain their license when they’re doing other sorts of work.

  21. Eddie_Valiant says:

    When they start “patrolling their own communities”(0:44) that’s when they get picked up and tossed in jail.

    We don’t need more division, especially by these apes.

  22. Bodhisattva says:

    There is legal precedent. Remember O.J.? He brutally murdered two people, left proof that he did it all over the place, and walked free on the grounds that he is black while his victims Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were white.

    I have to call partial shenanigans on you. You’re right in the fact that exactly what you say helped, but the key factor in acquittal was the OBVIOUS FACT that the police, wanting to ensure a slam-dunk case, engaged in some deliberate evidence creation. It was proven in court that AT LEAST the bloody sock was planted by police:

    1) The first thing the police did was went through the place with a video camera. When the video was eventually reviewed, there were no socks where the bloody sock was found.

    2) The blood pattern on the sock was conclusive in proving that the sock was not worn at the time the blood got on it. Someone deliberately applied blood to the sock when it was laid flat so the opposite sides were in direct contact.

    There were other questionable pieces of evidence as well.

    Now before you go all commando on me, I do not agree that the fact that the police clearly fabricated and planted that, and probably other, evidence was grounds for acquittal. However that, along with what you said, apparently was good enough for the jury. I think there were other things too – there was sympathy for OJ, who many people thought was a great role model, even though he apparently wasn’t even before this. There were people who built a pretty good case that Goldman had a drug delivery service on the side and that Nicole left her sunglasses there to give him an excuse to leave so he could bring her some drugs. So the claim that it COULD have been an ambush by someone wanting Goldman’s drugs and Nicole’s money was plausible enough to plant a seed of reasonable doubt with the jury. I don’t know what else.

  23. Cuck Slayer says:

    Hey cucks, how’s it hangin? Oh sorry, I forgot, you chopped your dick and balls off at the age of two.

  24. John Adams says:

    This fat fuks head would be a site to see when a .223 made it explode like a melon…LOL

  25. Bodhisattva says:

    And they say Pence is the bigoted racist, go figure.

  26. Guy Fawkes says:

    Jury nullification is every American’s right.
    But no judge will tell jurors about jury nullification.
    If you are subject to call to serve on a jury you need to know this right.
    It can be used for justice as well as injustice.

    To learn more visit site below…right column.
    Just my opinion.
    Guy Fawkes

  27. I would like to beat this idiot senseless, but I see someone got to him first.

  28. 762x51 says:

    Hey look everyone, it’s Tschiiittt!!! for brains. Thought I smelled something.

    Thanks for the picture of your wife, chickenTschiiitttt!!!.

  29. 762x51 says:

    It’s a participation law degree. Get someone to pay some money for you, show up, say the right anti-American things, smoke some weed with the right Marxist professors, and get your degree. Studying and tests are for suckers and white people.

  30. 762x51 says:

    BS. In what used to be the American justice system, the jury is the finder of facts. FACTS!! Get it? Not opinions of the individual jurors.

    Jury nullification denies justice to either one party or the other, there is no ‘right’ to jury nullification.

  31. 762x51 says:

    It’s not insensitive, it’s inaccurate. Progressive is the correct term for that which is incorrectly referred to as ‘liberal’ today. When ever anyone calls them liberals they are playing into their game by adopting the language the Progressives want them to use.

  32. TED says:

    Exactly, that’s why I don’t like to use it, to avoid arguments I just call them LEFT.

  33. Guy Fawkes says:

    You are 100% wrong.
    First of all, google jury nullification and you’ll find it is a right you have.
    Second, let me give you a couple of examples. And these have actually happened.
    Suppose a person knows how to cure a serious illness with alternative medicine. Let’s say cancer. There are dozens of cancer cures….go to and check them out. And that is not some fly by night website. Seriously, check it out.
    So, lets say you, cured yourself of cancer using one of the cures you found on that site and you told everyone you knew about it. Even helped them in curing themselves. . And what happens? The FDA and the AMA gets involved and you find yourself on trial for practicing medicine without a license.
    According to you, because of “facts” you should go to jail. Right?
    No you shouldn’t. You saved people’s lives. Maybe 100 people’s lives. You did not charge a dime for your recommendations or services. FDA and the AMA have been suppressing can cures since the the 1930s and sending honest citizens the FDA calls “quacks” to jail for doing exactly what I just described.
    The jury, regardless of facts, has a right to vote not guilty. The judge will not, and can not, ask individual members of the jury why they voted not guilty.
    Let’s take another case.
    A poor family lives down the street from you. Maybe way down the street. Maybe on the other side of town. I mean really poor. Out of work. No money for food. The kids are starving. I mean for real. What does the father do? He steals food to feed his hungry kids. He doesn’t steal drugs, booze, money, or a car. He steals food because he has no other way to feed his starving kids. And he get’s caught.
    As a jury member are you going to vote “guilty” because of “facts” or are you going to vote “not guilty” because you are a compassionate human being?
    Another case was just in the news. A man was tried for killing a man who beat, raped and killed his little daughter. The rapist and killer was released on a technicality.
    The rapist deserved to die. And the jury could have said “not guilty” regardless of facts. But they didn’t. The jury didn’t know about jury nullification.
    Now, put yourself in this father’s place. And think real hard about calling jury nullification BS.
    Nationwide there are thousands of laws on the books that are unjust.
    And that is what jury nullification is for.
    You need to find out what jury nullification is for before you say it’s BS.
    Jury nullification serves the interest of justice when someone is on trial for breaking an unjust law.
    There is a “right” to jury nullification. All you have to do is a little research before you shout “BS!”
    Just my opinion.

  34. 762x51 says:

    “Jury nullification is a finding by a trial jury in contradiction to the jury’s belief about the facts of the case.”

    “In a jury trial, a jury is the trier of fact. The jury finds the facts and applies them to the relevant statute or law it is instructed by the judge to use in order to reach its verdict.”

    As I said, it is not possible to both be the trier of fact and ignore those facts and still have a justice system. Any jury that ignores the facts has implemented anarchy, not justice.

    It is not a ‘right’ it is injustice, period.

    You are 100% wrong.

  35. 762x51 says:

    But then how do you address the ‘R’ flavor Progressives? People like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, fibtard, jerklesTwerp, et al?

    All leftists are Progressives, but not all Progressives are leftists. To ignore that reality is to leave a vast swath of the enemy undefined.

  36. Guy Fawkes says:

    You are quoting the establishment line because you know you are wrong.
    I know the legal definitions you quoted.
    What you don’t know is that a jury can vote anyway the jury wants to vote regardless of what the judge tells them and there is NOTHING the judge can do about it. The judge can not, by law, question a jury member why they voted guilty or not guilty.
    I also note you didn’t not mention one word about the examples I mentioned. Why? Because you know in the case of the rapist and murderer, which was in the paper less than a month ago, justice wasnot served when the rapist was released .
    And, you also know justice was not served when the father was found guilty.
    Since you seem incapable of using google I did it for you.
    Read the following links and learn something and stop be a member of the flock of sheep…..

    As a parting thought….you ever hear of the O.J. Simpson trial? That was a case of jury nullification…are you going to tell me justice was served in that case?

  37. PilloryHillary says:

    Don’t waste your time with 762×51. He thinks he know everything but is wrong about most everything and is incapable of civil discourse.

  38. Lorna says:

    Aww…did the big mean man trigger you yet again. You must attempt to control your emotions better. He was only trying to amuse you and make your day a little brighter. Remember that auntie Lorna’s lap and hanky are always available to help sooth you tears. Love you xoxo!

  39. Guy Fawkes says:

    Yeah, I can see that. I’m through with him.
    Some people are comfortable in being ignorant and have no idea what to do or say when confronted by the truth except to espouse the party line.

  40. 762x51 says:

    A-holes like you aren’t worthy of civil discourse. But you are free to document where I was wrong on this thread.

  41. 762x51 says:

    And some just want to push their BS without regard to FACTS or reality, imbecile.

  42. 762x51 says:

    LMFAO!! OJ Simpson is your example? Yes that was jury nullification and NO, justice was not served in that case.

    I am quoting legal precedent, and how the system is intended to work to provide justice. Your anarchist ideas are as unfounded as they are idiotic. The FACTS are what they are. whether you or some anarchist retard on a jury likes them or not. I understand your game, to destroy the system, as stupid a goal as there is when you have nothing with which to replace it.

    A judge can absolutely throw out a verdict, it happens infrequently, but it does happen. Since you seem incapable of accepting FACTS or reality but are intent on pushing an idiotic ideology, I’ll just leave it here. You are wrong, there is no question of it. You don’t like, I don’t care.

  43. 762x51 says:

    Drinking the douche backwash again I see.

    By “big mean man” I assume you mean the cowardly, washed up old has been or never was that is chickenTschiiittt!!. He didn’t “trigger me”, progtard. I was just thanking him for the picture he sent of his wife. She looks much better after her surgery to repair the damage from all those years of abuse he has given her.

  44. Guy Fawkes says:

    It seems you have a fairly bad reputation on Disqus.
    Seems you think you know everything and in fact know nothing.
    You’re on ignore.
    I won’t call you stupid because that would be attacking you personally.
    But you certainly are ignorant.
    You’re on ignore.

  45. Tchhht!!! says:

    Self professed war hero, legal expert, and computer genius 762×51 attempts to murder some progressives and gets a headache for his troubles…

  46. TED says:

    RINO’s covers most of those…

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy