PDA

View Full Version : Judas bastards..



drfeelgood86
03-02-12, 12:34 PM
well its safe to say im gutted! my girlfriends parents and her sister and gran all came round our house and delivered a pretty harsh ultimatum "get rid of the plant, or we WILL inform the police" reasons behind this is, they think it will harm our kids! firstly, it was only a few days ago that my mother inlaw watered the fuckin thing when i was up the hospital! im so bloody angry with them.. i know i shouldnt of let ANYONE know i was growing, but i always thought her family was very relaxed about this kinda thing, her dad even smoked weed with me at one point.. so i dunno what to do??

Icon
03-02-12, 12:36 PM
Tell them to fuck off
Just say You grass me you never get to see your grand child again
I know GPs have access rights but id be making it damn near impossible
No one puts me in that situation and gets away with it either way

Master Poet
03-02-12, 12:36 PM
Time to get rid of the girlfriend and family me thinks.

urban grower
03-02-12, 12:37 PM
hey dfg sorry to here about ur problem can u not move it to another part of house[ie loft]
and just say u got rid of it...

Anonymiss
03-02-12, 12:39 PM
What does your girlfriend think about all this?

Notorious WD
03-02-12, 12:40 PM
Personally I'd stop growing indoors and just grow guerilla. Remember this is a plant we smoke and your kids are far more important than your vice.

You could always ask a close mate to grow with you. Your stuff, his place 50/50 split.

Good luck with whatever route you choose to take.

B.A.BARACUS
03-02-12, 12:41 PM
1 plant ffs, that's a bit ott m8

drfeelgood86
03-02-12, 12:41 PM
my girlfriend is 100% on my side, she threw them out the house.. they also said its encourages my stepson whos 12, to get involved with drugs... i a little worried tho cos after my lass has thrown them fuckers to the curb, they may grass.. maybes im worrying, but they did say the plant goes or the police get called.. i dont even know anyone round my area to foster the plant!

420Boss
03-02-12, 12:47 PM
Thats awful man, I would def tell them I was getting rid of it (if I was or not) go over it with your girl and make a decision.I would also inform the GPs that giving you orders in your own home about your family biz isnt going to fly, they may have you against a wall now but next time I guess they shouldnt be welcome at your house cuz they may find something else they dont like. Tell them they should stay away for theyre own protection from seeing anything they disagree with. I hope things work out for you man, good luck with whatever you decide.

carpetburn
03-02-12, 12:50 PM
i would ignore all calls/contact from them(hid behind the settee a few times lol)and if thay call round and catch you on the hop,put your coats on and go out for a walk,they,ll soon get the message:stoned-smilie:

joey
03-02-12, 12:53 PM
i wouldn't worry to much about 1 plant, just make sure its out of harms way and if the police do come around i wouldn't of thought you get any thing more than a slap on the wrist ,

as they say you can choose you friends but not your family, just refuse to let them back in your house and say you have gotten rid of the plant , and tell them if they phone the police and don't find any thing they will get done for wasting police time ''''perverting the cause of public justice ''' which can carry a sentence of life imprisonment , call there bluff ,

hope you can sort this out asap as i wouldnt think the stress of this around your g,f and new born child would be good , but i am sure all will be fine ,


all the best

j

drfeelgood86
03-02-12, 12:53 PM
cheers 420boss! i dont know what to do for the best mate, my heads up my arse big time.. bottom line is i dont want the police raiding my house cos i havee small baby and toddler here... they know nothing gets smoked inside my house or around my kids.. even normal tabs are smoked outside! now they know they aint gettin back in the house, my girlfriends thinks one of them will make the call to the police out of spite

VMAX
03-02-12, 12:54 PM
my mother inlaw tried that, the roses love her,lol.

na really, do they not think you going to jail would have a worse affect on the kid? i know you wont for a few plants but do they?

Budmore
03-02-12, 12:54 PM
Ah missises parents poking their noses into your business & home

id tell them its none of their business what we (you & misses) get upto in your own home & tell them if we get raided then we will make it dam near impossible for you to see your grankids due to the fact that you cant trust & dont like them interfering..

Should`nt have told them mate.

Notorious WD
03-02-12, 12:58 PM
For 1 plant I'd say a caution max, fuck it, carry on and crop then pack down and shoe family grow is no more. Then restart growing when coast is clear again.

drfeelgood86
03-02-12, 01:02 PM
yeah i think they actually think ill go to jail for one plant! and i know her gran hates me simply becasue i dont have a "real" job.. i just fuck about in a band.. it was impossible to keep it from her mother cos she comes and visits when im out nd starts cleaning the entire house, we both thought she would keep it shut.. obviously we were wrong! i might have to get really pissed and bin my first ever plant!! this first grow as been soo much more to me than a smoke too! i was learning stuff and now them fuckers have done this!!

techiebabe
03-02-12, 01:13 PM
well its safe to say im gutted! my girlfriends parents and her sister and gran all came round our house and delivered a pretty harsh ultimatum "get rid of the plant, or we WILL inform the police" reasons behind this is, they think it will harm our kids! firstly, it was only a few days ago that my mother inlaw watered the fuckin thing when i was up the hospital! im so bloody angry with them.. i know i shouldnt of let ANYONE know i was growing, but i always thought her family was very relaxed about this kinda thing, her dad even smoked weed with me at one point.. so i dunno what to do??

time to jog them the fuck on darlin, u need to get yrself a stoner g/f who grows her own !!!!!

if its any consolation, my bro (of currently 100 plant grow) takes the moral high ground over my 4 plants, and my mother also takes the moral high ground re said plants (even though said 100 plant grow is in HER garage) !!!!!!

wankers.....dont bloody need 'em!!!! (soz, talkin but my lot)

but if yr g/f fam are gonna gang up on u in group numbers, either she tells them to fuck off and mind their own, u tell the lot of 'em to fuck off !!

ps 1 plant is NOT gonna get u a custodial....theres another thread this morn where someone commented that the police arrived to their 1 plant, laughed and left !!!!

techiebabe
03-02-12, 01:16 PM
I know GPs have access rights but id be making it damn near impossible


actually they only have minimal rights in a welfare situation only :) (so threaten away, they cant do shit about it!!)

techiebabe
03-02-12, 01:17 PM
oh and u wont get yr kids taken off u either for 1 plant, only if theyve genuine concern issues about their welfare (ie neglect, emotional/physical abuse)

the_grey_area
03-02-12, 01:20 PM
i'd tell them to race off, no one tells me what to do in my own house tell them when they pay ur bills and rent they may have a bit of say until then fuck off

Denzil
03-02-12, 01:24 PM
my gf's mum is a bit the same, not happy about it being there but the missus' dad is always round wanting to see the progress with the plants. I'm always fixing up a batch of brownies for him and the gf's sisters, even her grandma and uncle want them now and again. So basically most the family are fine with it cept for her. Well the grandma and uncle don't know the goods are from me.

I'm thinking of going next door over the weekend and having a word with the shit cunt and telling her to mind her own cunting business. She is always asking me if I'm looking forward to smoking all day when we all go to jamaica yet she ain't ok with me having a grow on. She's a judas as well.

You tell her family to let you finish this grow then it'll all be over. Once you have cropped, tell her family to fuck off and that they'll never see your kid again. Not a nice thing to say but if they're willing to shop to the police and potentially mess up your future. Then in my opinion, you're doing no worse by telling them that.

I didn't talk to half of my family for nearly 2 years after myt aunt flushed a few ozs of my first indoor crop down the toilet whilst I was abroad. before I even got chance to smoke it as it was drying when she discovered it. I still see the occasional red mist when I think about it. I spent from march-august growing it as well

techiebabe
03-02-12, 01:34 PM
my gf's mum is a bit the same, not happy about it being there but the missus' dad is always round wanting to see the progress with the plants. I'm always fixing up a batch of brownies for him and the gf's sisters, even her grandma and uncle want them now and again. So basically most the family are fine with it cept for her. Well the grandma and uncle don't know the goods are from me.

I'm thinking of going next door over the weekend and having a word with the shit cunt and telling her to mind her own cunting business. She is always asking me if I'm looking forward to smoking all day when we all go to jamaica yet she ain't ok with me having a grow on. She's a judas as well.

You tell her family to let you finish this grow then it'll all be over. Once you have cropped, tell her family to fuck off and that they'll never see your kid again. Not a nice thing to say but if they're willing to shop to the police and potentially mess up your future. Then in my opinion, you're doing no worse by telling them that.

I didn't talk to half of my family for nearly 2 years after myt aunt flushed a few ozs of my first indoor crop down the toilet whilst I was abroad. before I even got chance to smoke it as it was drying when she discovered it. I still see the occasional red mist when I think about it. I spent from march-august growing it as well

sound like a bunch of typical hypocritical god-botherers....

mrscott
03-02-12, 01:45 PM
Move the plant out.
Tell the family to fuck off. Let them call police.
Police arrive - no plants.
They look like cunts.
Bring plant back after the visit.


Hope you sort it out - shitty times eh?!

Icon
03-02-12, 01:50 PM
Eh up Fly it was you i was recalling when i said we'ed seen it before

Dr Feelgood
Its a real shame they have darkened such a precious time for you I wouldnt take any threat of grassing you up lightly
I would be plotting my revenge but take your time and make the right decision for you
If its destroying the plant then so be it. closely followed by there lives.
If it were me Id grow some seedlings split the males and females id gurilla grow the females then get the males and leave them in there back yard then grass them up

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 02:02 PM
Time and time again I see it here...

Once the golden rule gets broken.. trouble follows.

I'm sorry you're getting hassle, doc. Your situation sucks ass when you can't even trust your own family. :(

drfeelgood86
03-02-12, 02:03 PM
cheers guys! aye mrscott, very shit times mate! its that dreaded feelin of, if and when will the plod turn up.. all the way thru ive kept my paranioa of gettin raided under wraps and now i just think fuck! i aint bothered about the plod havin a rant and cautioning me etc im just gutted that my plant and growing experience is now under threat by non other than my so called family.. xmas gone they all got pissed and were being overly nice "fake" even havin a laugh at me having a sly smoke outdoors..

just feel like my new hobby is going nowhere anymore.. just added a 12/12 seedling to the grow just yesterday aswell, and i was planning on 4plant hps/tent grow after that.. if i cant get thru this one plant cfl grow what hope do i have!!??!

dunno how id be coping if my gf sided with them! she smokes when she wasnt pregnant/kids were gettin watched for the night. not a propa stoner but she does it to socialise with me and have a laugh when the time is right! shes a diamond!

Greeneyes5
03-02-12, 02:17 PM
Time and time again I see it here...

Once the golden rule gets broken.. trouble follows.

I'm sorry you're getting hassle, doc. Your situation sucks ass when you can't even trust your own family. :(

There u go again...cracking up at work right now "sucks ass" lmfao!!! Not heard that sayin in a while :D keep em coming....:p


.....Sent from my brain using the force

Strider
03-02-12, 02:42 PM
"Plants gone, happy now? btw, never darken my door again, you're not welcome in my home" jobs a good'n

umbongo
03-02-12, 02:57 PM
Are you not in a position to murder everyone involved? Its certainly worth considering. I know that if I was on the jury I'd defo give you a not guilty, I mean its only a plant and they did threaten you with the Police ffs!

I'd probably use Napalm.

Anonymiss
03-02-12, 03:02 PM
I know that if I was on the jury I'd defo give you a not guilty, I mean its only a plant and they did threaten you with the Police ffs!

Interesting point, and I don't know what I'd do.

I don't think that growing is 'wrong' but it is illegal, and the role of the jury is not to decide whether the law is right or wrong, but whether the law had been broken.

If the evidence presented by the prosecution was incontrovertible, such as photos of the grow and the plants, etc., , then returning a not-guilty verdict might be problematic.

umbongo
03-02-12, 03:07 PM
Anonymiss

are you on glue?

He's just slaughtered his inlaws, the plant would be the least of his worries! I'd still give him the not guilty for the murders!

Anonymiss
03-02-12, 03:11 PM
Anonymiss

are you on glue?

He's just slaughtered his inlaws, the plant would be the least of his worries! I'd still give him the not guilty for the murders!

Ah. I see.

But still, the same applies. It would depend in the evidence. Even if I did think that commiting murder was somehow justified (which I don't, in any circumstance), it wouldn't change the fact that it's illegal.

whitetop
03-02-12, 03:12 PM
sounds like my problem few years back

the think you need to understand your inlaws allways want to control you allways mate they know if you do get rid of them they have you were they want you,
tell them to fuck off and they are not aloud to see the kids or wife again till they act there age, if you have something on them you can threaten them with that,

i did the same with mine and im still growing and with my kids and wife due to they cannot control me like the other.

one plant will be a smack on the hand or a fine nothing big

Strider
03-02-12, 03:22 PM
hell i got caught red handed with 10 toty ones and they turned a totally blind eye....not that i'd go relying on that mind you :P

tbh i don't see the point in genuine revenge or threatening them back, would just end up driving a wedge between you and your missus, don't drop to their level, just make it clear you have no desire to have people who threaten you like that around you, YOUR family or your home

teutonic
03-02-12, 03:31 PM
ok my young friend.

1. You cannot destroy your family setup. Ties are to close - i can tell by your posts. Get rid of the plant. It aint worth your family and kids dude no matter how nice it is.
2. Bide your time, grow again when all is cool
3. Consider a guerilla or alternative location.
4. tell no one next time. no one. 'cept us idiots here, you can share all with us

good luck

Grandad
03-02-12, 03:36 PM
mother-in-law watering your plants...i said i was shocked the other day.......tbh i'm not shocked now.
fuckers....hardlines mucker and say fuck all next time.

whitetop
03-02-12, 03:37 PM
hell i got caught red handed with 10 toty ones and they turned a totally blind eye....not that i'd go relying on that mind you :P

tbh i don't see the point in genuine revenge or threatening them back, would just end up driving a wedge between you and your missus, don't drop to their level, just make it clear you have no desire to have people who threaten you like that around you, YOUR family or your home



sorry but try reading his post yes threatening is not nice yet they are doing it to him,his wife is 100% behind him stating she see's the treat there doing, so doing it back onto them will shut them up with out any problems after unless there people like today thinking they don't give a shit what happens and think they can push anyone around.

unless you been in this same way like i have don't think you will come back with any real advice.

drfeelgood86
03-02-12, 03:47 PM
she even told me the otherday that im doing well at growing it.. total bitch, man!

anyways.. cheers t.t mate, think i needed some brutal guidelines! that bud on their now wont even be worth cuttin of and drying will it??? i have my mrs word that they will not get into our house or see our children.. sounds like a cunts trick, bringing the kids into this shit, but i dont wnt my kids learning from backstabbing, lying, devious, judas bastards!! so i guess ill drink lots of corona and dispose of my first ever femle plant tonight!!

Strider
03-02-12, 03:48 PM
sorry but try reading his post yes threatening is not nice yet they are doing it to him,his wife is 100% behind him stating she see's the treat there doing, so doing it back onto them will shut them up with out any problems after unless there people like today thinking they don't give a shit what happens and think they can push anyone around.

unless you been in this same way like i have don't think you will come back with any real advice.

I read the post just fine, and please don't presume as to what i may or may not have done in the past and what i can or can't give advice on, i stand by what i said, 'doing it back to them to shut them up' has an ever so common habit of merely escalating into a tit for tat feud, regardless for what caused it, so he can tell the inlaws to fuck off and stay out his business, and grow all he wants, or he can get into a 'i'll grass you in to the police!' fight with them, ending god knows when and in god knows what, if that's bad advice then i reckon i'm on the wrong planet

teutonic
03-02-12, 03:54 PM
...that bud on their now wont even be worth cuttin of and drying will it??? ..

Thats what i would do. dry it and smoke it.

Also .. by the sound of it, once you can look them in the eye and assure them its gone, because you want to keep the family together, give it 3 months, or 12 weeks, and then have another go ... secretly

lil rasta
03-02-12, 03:54 PM
As your miss's is on your side move it to the loft and tell the family its gone all sorted

drfeelgood86
03-02-12, 03:58 PM
As your miss's is on your side move it to the loft and tell the family its gone all sorted

i dunno how id get all the electrics up their mate.. and since them inlaw fucks will never see the inside of my house again, i doubt they will take our word for it..

BIGCH33S3
03-02-12, 04:05 PM
Personally I'd get the property brochures out for the next time they come round so that they see them. When they ask if your moving tell them yeah cause people won't stay the fuck out our business. That will make them think twice. Feel bad for ya though bro.

drfeelgood86
03-02-12, 04:15 PM
Personally I'd get the property brochures out for the next time they come round so that they see them. When they ask if your moving tell them yeah cause people won't stay the fuck out our business. That will make them think twice. Feel bad for ya though bro.

cheers man,we have to move anyways to a bigger house, and now they have done this, we can move were we wanted in the first place, without giving 2 shits what they think about it!

the missus made a point to me just now.. she is more than ok for me to continue growing this plant, but she doesnt want me worrying about if and when the plod are gonna come thru the door.. its hard for me to make my decison about what the hell to do,cos i feel like im giving in to them and cowering to their demands.. pride, man!! its a fucker to us men!!

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 04:30 PM
I don't think that growing is 'wrong' but it is illegal, and the role of the jury is not to decide whether the law is right or wrong, but whether the law had been broken..I do not belive that's the whole truth. I believe that the jury are empowered to rule that the law is not fair or applicable in a specifc case and that a defendant may go free on reasonable grounds that the application of the law in their case would be unfair or violate their human rights, for example, amongst many other factors.

As I understand it.. it's commonly believed that the jury have to do what the judge directs them to, but that this is in fact not the actual case, and even if I've misunderstood that, and I'm wrong, and they must do what the judge tells them to, in the practical application of their vote - in reality - they can find a person innocent for any reason they like. They don't have to give any reasons for their vote which then get checked later on AFAIA.

techiebabe
03-02-12, 04:38 PM
I do not belive that's the whole truth. I believe that the jury are empowered to rule that the law is not fair or applicable in a specifc case and that a defendant may go free on reasonable grounds that the application of the law in their case would be unfair or violate their human rights, for example, amongst many other factors.

incorrect, the jury do NOT, EVER, decide on a rule of law, the JUDGE defines the law to them, which they then apply the facts and evidence


As I understand it.. it's commonly believed that the jury have to do what the judge directs them to, but that this is in fact not the actual case, and even if I've misunderstood that, and I'm wrong, and they must do what the judge tells them to, in the practical application of their vote - in reality - they can find a person innocent for any reason they like. They don't have to give any reasons for their vote which then get checked later on AFAIA.

No !! a jury can ONLY find a person innocent, IF they are convinced by the FACTS and EVIDENCE and believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendent is innocent. Burden on proof on prosecution.

techiebabe
03-02-12, 04:39 PM
except in the case of self-defence, when the burden on proof switches to the defendent. its called "adverse burden of proof"......

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 04:40 PM
Ok.. so what if they vote that the defendant is innocent because they don't agree with the law, and claim that they don't believe in the credibility of the evidence? I've seen people set free by a jury when the defendant ADMITTED guilt.

techiebabe
03-02-12, 04:41 PM
cheers man,we have to move anyways to a bigger house, and now they have done this, we can move were we wanted in the first place, without giving 2 shits what they think about it!

the missus made a point to me just now.. she is more than ok for me to continue growing this plant, but she doesnt want me worrying about if and when the plod are gonna come thru the door.. its hard for me to make my decison about what the hell to do,cos i feel like im giving in to them and cowering to their demands.. pride, man!! its a fucker to us men!!

They knock first anyway, usually only once, and give a 10 second window for u to answer before they batter the door down :)

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 04:42 PM
10 seconds? That's generous for the police. :D

mp3player
03-02-12, 04:47 PM
You don't negotiate wi terorrists (or judas family)..
good luck m8

:)

Anonymiss
03-02-12, 04:49 PM
I believe that the jury are empowered to rule that the law is not fair or applicable in a specifc case and that a defendant may go free on reasonable grounds that the application of the law in their case would be unfair or violate their human rights, for example, amongst many other factors.
I belive that's wrong.

I don't think they can decide what the law should be, only whether it's been broken.

I would have thought that the whether a law is applicable or not (or which specific law is applicable) is decided by the CPS (in criminal cases) before the case comes to court.


ETA: Just seen Techiebabe's post... Same thing, I think.

ETA2: But perhaps the 'unfair' or 'human rights' issues, if raised, might be used as grounds for an appeal.

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 05:21 PM
^^ >> From earlier to tb..


Ok.. so what if they vote that the defendant is innocent because they don't agree with the law, and claim that they don't believe in the credibility of the evidence? I've seen people set free by a jury when the defendant ADMITTED guilt.

Anonymiss
03-02-12, 06:36 PM
Ok.. so what if they vote that the defendant is innocent because they don't agree with the law, and claim that they don't believe in the credibility of the evidence?
There's no accounting for that, I agree, and I guess it would be technically possible. But that's not how the law itself works regarding who decides about the law (if you see what I mean), and that's what we're talking about.

It could even be argued, perhaps, that any jury who did what you suggest would be guilty of 'perverting the course of justice' or even 'conspiring to pervert the course of justice', or something. They would, after all, be lying, and that's contempt of court for a start.

I also think it's extremely unlikely that you'll find twelve people, all picked at random, who would agree to do that.


I've seen people set free by a jury when the defendant ADMITTED guilt.
I've never heard of that. Got any sources/references?

TheCandyManCan
03-02-12, 06:40 PM
Go put it in their house and call the police lol

TC-UP
03-02-12, 06:53 PM
You would need quite a few of the jury but couldn't nullification be applied

TC-UP

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 07:03 PM
There's no accounting for that, I agree, and I guess it would be technically possible. But that's not how the law itself works regarding who decides about the law (if you see what I mean), and that's what we're talking about. Right.. in that case the jury are pointless in my opinion and are just window-dressing. You're not being judged by a court de jour at all, then. You're just being told whether or not your guilty by them. But, the judge tells them what [they must] to deliberate IF certain conditions are met.. so he/she's really the one who makes the call and most sheeple jurour will just follow his lead.


It could even be argued, perhaps, that any jury who did what you suggest would be guilty of 'perverting the course of justice' or even 'conspiring to pervert the course of justice', or something. They would, after all, be lying, and that's contempt of court for a start.
That would be totally impossible to prove without an admission.


I also think it's extremely unlikely that you'll find twelve people, all picked at random, who would agree to do that.
Who said anything about agreeing to do it? That implies a conspiracy and that's not something I mentioned. I'm talking about 12 people who all, as free-thinking individuals, decide that the law is unjust and say "not guilty".


I've never heard of that. Got any sources/references?[
Nope. Just personal experiences of being in court with my ex dealer when he was busted innit, and a domestic battery case involving my mother. A few years back and quite a few years back.

TIKTOK
03-02-12, 07:08 PM
I would get rid of the plant (just in case) then declare war on the grassing bastards. I know it's easier said than done but I wouldn't tolerate some uneducated fuckers telling me what I can and cant do in the privacy of my own home. Tell the mother in law she's in on it, which she is cos watering the plant for you is cultivating it whether she likes it or not. Then give it a few weeks and start again but tell them fuck all ever again

TheCandyManCan
03-02-12, 07:50 PM
Have you ever tried cutting the brake pipes on their car and telling them you want a race?

Joking mate (Don't try this at home) haha


If you say you have got rid of it how would they know that you haven't? I do not condone lying!!!

Anonymiss
03-02-12, 08:21 PM
Right.. in that case the jury are pointless in my opinion and are just window-dressing.
How so? I'd know that I'd like to have a jury, please, rather than just one person deciding on a case.

Would you prefer that the judge or magistrate was the sole arbiter of guilt?


You're not being judged by a court de jour at all, then. You're just being told whether or not your guilty by them.
Yep. That's their only job.


But, the judge tells them what [they must] to deliberate IF certain conditions are met.. so he/she's really the one who makes the call and most sheeple jurour will just follow his lead.
This only happens in a few cases. It's certainly not the norm for the judge to instruct the jury on what verdict they should return.


That [conspiracy amongst the jury] would be totally impossible to prove without an admission.
Yep.


Who said anything about agreeing to do it? That implies a conspiracy and that's not something I mentioned. I'm talking about 12 people who all, as free-thinking individuals, decide that the law is unjust and say "not guilty".
Again, this is possible. But I think it's extremely unlikely to happen in practice. If it does, then it's lucky for the defendant, eh?


The thing is, none of this is actually relevant to the original point of "who is it that decides what the law is?" It definitely isn't the jury.



Nope. Just personal experiences of being in court with my ex dealer when he was busted innit, and a domestic battery case involving my mother. A few years back and quite a few years back.
Was that the jury returning a 'not guilty', or the judge imposing no sentence/discharge?

A jury would seem superfluous in a case where the defendant had admitted their guilt, and the trial would usually stop at that point (I think).

dopefiend1
03-02-12, 08:48 PM
do not kill that plant ... and tell your shitty fam that there threatening behaviour is not on, if they want to start all that bollox to stay the fook away from you and yours.

feel for you man...i would have the sniper rifle out by now.

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 08:48 PM
How so? I'd know that I'd like to have a jury, please, rather than just one person deciding on a case.

Would you prefer that the judge or magistrate was the sole arbiter of guilt?



You're not being judged by a court de jour at all, then. You're just being told whether or not your guilty by them.


Yep. That's their only job.^^ That's a contradiction. Which is it?




This only happens in a few cases. It's certainly not the norm for the judge to instruct the jury on what verdict they should return.
Oh well. I guess only a few kids will be abused in my local area tonight. Guess it's ok then since right/wrong/fairness is a numbers game now? Don't think so.




Again, this is possible. But I think it's extremely unlikely to happen in practice. If it does, then it's lucky for the defendant, eh?
Meh. Probability argument. Not interested in those. Could easily go either way in reality. And often does. It goes the other way, too. A jury finds perfectly innocent people guilty ALL the time. I'm just speaking about the exact reverse of that.


The thing is, none of this is actually relevant to the original point of "who is it that decides what the law is?" It definitely isn't the jury.
I know. However the jury should be allowed to rule the law inapplicable. Otherwise there nothing more than a glorified voicepiece for the judge.



Was that the jury returning a 'not guilty', or the judge imposing no sentence/discharge?
Not guilty both cases.


A jury would seem superfluous in a case where the defendant had admitted their guilt, and the trial would usually stop at that point (I think). They would also appear superfluous for all those innocent people who've been wrongly convicted withouit evidence. Especially in the states. Still happens a lot though.

Anonymiss
03-02-12, 09:19 PM
^^ That's a contradiction. Which is it?

Misunderstanding? 'Their' meant 'the jury'...


You're not being judged by a court de jour at all, then. You're just being told whether or not your guilty by them.
Yep. That's the jury's only job.

Better?

Or, if you meant "You're just being told whether or not your guilty by the judge" then I would disagree and say that in the majority of cases the jury decide.

I've already acknowledged that there are a few exceptions where the judge does direct the jury to return a specific verdict, but those are rare.


Oh well. I guess only a few kids will be abused in my local area tonight. Guess it's ok then since right/wrong/fairness is a numbers game now? Don't think so.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, sorry.

This isn't about 'fairness' or 'right' and 'wrong' in any moral sense. It's about who gets to decide what the law actually is. And it still isn't the jury.


Meh. Probability argument. Not interested in those. Could easily go either way in reality. And often does. It goes the other way, too. A jury finds perfectly innocent people guilty ALL the time. I'm just speaking about the exact reverse of that.

I'd like to see some evidence of 'A jury find[ing] perfectly innocent people guilty ALL the time".

It does happen, I agree, but certainly I don't think it happens 'all the time'.


However the jury should be allowed to rule the law inapplicable.

Maybe they "should", but the fact is they "can't".

And might that be a dangerous precedent to set? Imagine a 'bought' or intimidated jury deciding that a murder charge didn't apply.

Obviously, I do accept that bribery and intimidation may actually happen at times, but even in those cases the outcome (if the corruption was successful) is much more likely to be 'not guilty' than 'inapplicable'. The jury simply don't get that as one of their options.


Otherwise there nothing more than a glorified voicepiece for the judge.

You keep saying things like this, but it's not the case at all.

A judge may direct a jury to consider or reject certain pieces of evidence, or some statements that have been made, but they don't decide on a jury's verdict (in the vast majority of cases).


Not guilty both cases.
Weird. But hey, I guess you got lucky, eh?


They would also appear superfluous for all those innocent people who've been wrongly convicted withouit evidence. Especially in the states. Still happens a lot though.

I'm not claiming that there are no miscarriages of justice, regardless of who decides on guilt.

But this isn't about that. It's about who gets to decide what the law is. And it still isn't the jury.


I'm kind of done. Bring up as many examples as you like but the fact is, the jury are not the arbiters of what is or is not law, nor whether a law is 'just' or 'fair'. They are there purely to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused, based on the evidence presented by the prosectution and defence. They cannot return a verdict of "that law is unfair and should be changed." I'm also pretty sure that they can't say "that law doesn't apply here", but I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can show me the legislation that says they can.

And FWIW, my own anecdotal experience of jury service is that the judge does what I've described above; Advise on points of law, and whether any of the evidence should be rejected on legal grounds. But that's it. The rest was down to us a jurors.

chillyerboots
03-02-12, 10:02 PM
well ... i did read the beginning of the thread but may have missed the rest on account of it being friday night and shit...

but... i say let them threaten you, cos at the end of the day, it is their daughter who lives with you, the ma in law who "helped" you, and their grandchildren and daughter who will suffer most if they carry out their threat! it's emotional blackmail bud... play them at their own game, as long as no kids are hurt then carry the fuck on!

techiebabe
03-02-12, 10:19 PM
Ok.. so what if they vote that the defendant is innocent because they don't agree with the law, and claim that they don't believe in the credibility of the evidence? I've seen people set free by a jury when the defendant ADMITTED guilt.

not possible....then they would be committing perjury, and its a v.v.v.remote chance if it even exists that all 12 members would concur on this point

jurors are still members of the state who have to abide by all valid laws, regardless of whether they dislike or disagree

techiebabe
03-02-12, 10:21 PM
we're all bound by law

part of Prof A.V. Dicey's Rule of Law, "a man can do anything he wishes, as long as its not prohibited by law"

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 10:25 PM
I'm kind of done.
Ok.. I shalln't bother replying to your post then if you don't have the patience to hear my views in return. You're right.. I'm wrong.. you're superior. There ya go. Hope that helps.

:)

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 10:28 PM
not possible....then they would be committing perjury, Ah, but that doesn't make it impossible. It can and still does happen.


and its a v.v.v.remote chance if it even exists that all 12 members would concur on this point
As I said to anon.. I don't play the numbers game on these issues because stranger things have happened. :)


jurors are still members of the state who have to abide by all valid laws, regardless of whether they dislike or disagree
They don't have to. We don't have to. We're both law breakers. We have a choice.



An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. - Martin Luther da Kiiiing. ;)

techiebabe
03-02-12, 10:35 PM
However the jury should be allowed to rule the law inapplicable. Otherwise there nothing more than a glorified voicepiece for the judge.


thats why we have judicial review, the jury have no choice on the law, and neither should they, they are NOT legal experts

Anonymiss
03-02-12, 10:36 PM
Ok.. I shalln't bother replying to your post then if you don't have the patience to hear my views in return. You're right.. I'm wrong.. you're superior. There ya go. Hope that helps.

:)

Hey, I never said that. But I do feel that we're going round in circles and getting nowhere.

This is about whether a jury can decide whether a law is just, applicable, or fair, or whether someone can be found not guilty or discharged by a jury because they think that the charge shouldn't apply.

Unless you know something that everyone else doesn't, they can't. That's fact, I'm afraid.

Your examples don't actually address that point; they raise hypothetical situations of "what if a jury did such and such?" I agree that in some cases these things might happen, but they are rare and they do not change what the law actually is.


And to be clear, none of this is personal. It's about the argument, not the arguer. Always.

techiebabe
03-02-12, 10:39 PM
jurors are bound by law, they are simply members of the public

if a judge finds an incompatibility of law its HIS job to take that matter to hand, the jury still have to decide on facts and evidence with the applicable law

besides, thats what we have an Appeals system for (if the judge/jury got it wrong, but only on a point of law or fresh, previously unexhibited, and relevant evidence.

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 10:39 PM
I disagree. I think they should have a say in the law and it's applicability. Do you remember Derek Bently?

Had a jury (or judge) been able to overturn the law that said sentence HAD to be carried out before the appeal, then he would not have been hung for a crime he didn't commit.

I wonder.. if you ladies would change your mind about this if it was your necks going to the gallows for something you didn't do? OR if you were one of the Birmingham 6 or Guilford 4?


What say ye wench? :)

Anonymiss
03-02-12, 10:40 PM
I disagree. I think they should have a say in the law and it's applicability.

I never said they shouldn't, just that they don't.

That's quite a difference.

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 10:41 PM
Unless you know something that everyone else doesn't, they can't. That's fact, I'm afraid. No.. as I stated earlier I BELIEVED it to be as I thought it was.

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 10:42 PM
I never said they shouldn't, just that they don't.

That's quite a difference.
Um.. I wasnt replying to you there.. :)

Anonymiss
03-02-12, 10:49 PM
Um.. I wasnt replying to you there.. :)

My mistake, then. I thought that the mention of "you ladies" meant it was addressed to both of us.



No.. as I stated earlier I BELIEVED it to be as I thought it was.

And now?

Tabbatha
03-02-12, 11:05 PM
My mistake, then. I thought that the mention of "you ladies" meant it was addressed to both of us.

Yeah but that was for this part silly:


I wonder.. if you ladies would change your mind about this if it was your necks going to the gallows for something you didn't do? OR if you were one of the Birmingham 6 or Guilford 4?
But.. if you think the jury should have that power.. what's your thoughts on the question?



And now? If I changed my mind on something everytime someone on the net told me I was wrong I'd never have anything straight in my head. It's on my list to go back and check on as I'm pretty sure there's a tube vid on it somewhere that says that the jury DO have that power, but almost nobody knows about it. Or maybe I'm confusing the states with the uk?

If they don't have that power, though, I still think they should.

Anonymiss
03-02-12, 11:23 PM
But.. if you think the jury should have that power.. what's your thoughts on the question?
I don't think they should have that power. If they did, it would lead to even more of a lottery when it comes to the application of the law, and that would be unjust and unfair.

Regardless of whether I think that a particular law is 'right' or 'wrong', I think that it should be applied fairly and equitably to all.

And if a law is wrong or unjust, it should be changed for everyone, not just the lucky few who happen to get a jury who think that way.


I'm pretty sure there's a tube vid on it somewhere that says that the jury DO have that power, but almost nobody knows about it.

With respect, a Youtube video isn't really a valid source or reference. The statutes, or perhaps a case showing precedent, are probably the only valid sources here.

Tabbatha
04-02-12, 10:26 AM
I don't think they should have that power. If they did, it would lead to even more of a lottery when it comes to the application of the law, and that would be unjust and unfair. I disagree. The judge is one person and far more unreliable and subject to curruption than 12.


Regardless of whether I think that a particular law is 'right' or 'wrong', I think that it should be applied fairly and equitably to all.
I don't. I think some laws are wrong and should be abolished. I do not support a system or a state that imprisons people for treating their own diseases. If you do, then I say that your ideology is based in fascism.


And if a law is wrong or unjust, it should be changed for everyone, not just the lucky few who happen to get a jury who think that way.
Exactly. And the more that a jury says that the law is wrong, the quicker it'll be changed.



With respect, a Youtube video isn't really a valid source or reference. The statutes, or perhaps a case showing precedent, are probably the only valid sources here. With respect, that's rubbish. A youtube video is as valid a source as anything if the information within it is correct. You've also assumed that it was the ONLY reference. I never said that.

drfeelgood86
04-02-12, 11:00 AM
well ive decided that i cant destroy my first ever plant, and im gonna continue to grow, and when we move im gonna do it with hps/tent/carbon filter/4plant op! cant let people destroy something i ove to do!

anyways im gonna post some pics of my buds in my plant thread. (see sig) can anyone give me a rough idea on how long is left please?? just we want to view a few new houses, but dont want to be moving a plant this far into flower..

Hooter
04-02-12, 11:02 AM
you could always try to educate her instead maybe????

Anonymiss
04-02-12, 02:24 PM
I disagree. The judge is one person and far more unreliable and subject to curruption than 12.
The judge doesn't decide whether to prosecute, that's down to the CPS (in criminal cases), or the plantiff (in civil cases). Although, it may be that in civil cases the courts may decide that there is no charge to answer, but I don't know that for sure.

The judge's job is to see that the law is applied fairly and accurately. And, of course, to impose sentence if a guilty verdict is returned. They do not decide on the justness or fairness of the law.


I think some laws are wrong and should be abolished.
So do I. But you've hit the nail on the head there: they should be abolished. They should not be applied in some cases but not in others.


I do not support a system or a state that imprisons people for treating their own diseases. If you do, then I say that your ideology is based in fascism.[quote]
Where have I ever said that I support anything that resembles what you describe?

[quote]Exactly. And the more that a jury says that the law is wrong, the quicker it'll be changed.
Here's a hypothetical example for why I think it's wrong for a jury to decide whether a law is applicable or just or fair:

A person is accused of a racially- or religiously-motivated murder.

The evidence is rock-solid (video, police catch them in the act, something like that), and the person is in fact guilty.

The jury, or at least the majority of the jury, is composed of people who think that racially- or religiously-motivated murder is acceptable and return a verdict of 'not applicable'.


Now, I know that's an unlikely and possibly extreme example, but as has been pointed out, "stranger things have happened."

Do you really want that sort of thing going on? I know that I don't.


With respect, that's rubbish. A youtube video is as valid a source as anything if the information within it is correct. You've also assumed that it was the ONLY reference. I never said that.
If the video quotes its sources, and is accurate then it will be valid. But its validity hinges on its sources, not on the video itself.

Tabbatha
04-02-12, 02:32 PM
The judge doesn't decide whether to prosecute, that's down to the CPS (in criminal cases), or the plantiff (in civil cases). Although, it may be that in civil cases the courts may decide that there is no charge to answer, but I don't know that for sure.

The judge's job is to see that the law is applied fairly and accurately. And, of course, to impose sentence if a guilty verdict is returned. They do not decide on the justness or fairness of the law. Ok then. Have it your way. The current legal system is flawless. And how can you say that judges cannot decide on the law.. when it is their job to interpet it and apply it to each individual case?



So do I. But you've hit the nail on the head there: they should be abolished. They should not be applied in some cases but not in others. Why aren't they abolished then considering most jurors couldn't give a fuck about cannabis? << That's a rhetorical question.



Where have I ever said that I support anything that resembles what you describe? In every post where you support the current system.



Here's a hypothetical example for why I think it's wrong for a jury to decide whether a law is applicable or just or fair:

A person is accused of a racially- or religiously-motivated murder.

The evidence is rock-solid (video, police catch them in the act, something like that), and the person is in fact guilty.

The jury, or at least the majority of the jury, is composed of people who think that racially- or religiously-motivated murder is acceptable and return a verdict of 'not applicable'.


Now, I know that's an unlikely and possibly extreme example, but as has been pointed out, "stranger things have happened."

Do you really want that sort of thing going on? I know that I don't. Hypothetical arguments to support a real-world scenario? Hmmm.




If the video quotes its sources, and is accurate then it will be valid. But its validity hinges on its sources, not on the video itself.
Changing the goalposts. You said the video
"was not a valid source of reference". Now you're saying it IS a valid source if the source material is correct.. and with a nice big "BUT" at the end.

Anonymiss
04-02-12, 02:51 PM
Ok then. Have it your way. The current legal system is flawless.
Where have I ever said that?

The system is definitely not flawless, but it's a damn sight better than anything we've had for hundreds of years.


And how can you say that judges cannot decide on the law.. when it is their job to interpet it and apply it to each individual case?
Judges advise and decide on the application of the law, not what the law actually is.


Why aren't they abolished then considering most jurors couldn't give a fuck about cannabis? << That's a rhetorical question.
I'll still answer it.

What makes you so sure that "most jurors couldn't give a fuck about cannabis"? I'd be willing to bet that a significant number of Daily Mail reader-types are or have been jurors. Do you think they "couldn't give a fuck about cannabis"?

And let's keep the bigger picture in mind. This isn't just about the law on cannabis. It's about the law in general, the application of law, and who makes law.


In every post where you support the current system.
The only thing I have 'supported' is juries not being able to decide on the applicability of a law to a particular case. And I still support that view.


Hypothetical arguments to support a real-world scenario? Hmmm.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I wonder.. if you ladies would change your mind about this if it was your necks going to the gallows for something you didn't do? OR if you were one of the Birmingham 6 or Guilford 4?

But what do you think of the hypothetical example I provided? Do you think that sort of thing would be good?


Changing the goalposts. You said the video . Now you're saying it IS a valid source if the source material is correct.. and with a nice big "BUT" at the end.
Semantics. The video isn't the 'valid reference' or 'proof'. The statute or legislation they refer to is.

Tabbatha
04-02-12, 03:05 PM
I am no longer debating with you on this forum, anon. Lots of youngsters here may think the sun shines out of your arse but I'm not buying the way that you debate and I fundamentally oppose most of what you stand for. My final straw has just snapped.

Call this a parthian shot or an admission of defeat if you like.. but I've spent enough of my time debating with someone who goes around in circles in their head and incrementally changes the context of a debate over time. It's a waste of my energy.

You win.



Bye.

urbanwolf
04-02-12, 05:30 PM
fuck em,, if they want to see their g kids they wont say fuck all..........as for the mother cleanin "not in my house m8" do it yourself then no risk

Budmore
04-02-12, 05:38 PM
Dr feelgood m8 hope you problems get sorted "tell the old bag to do one" :)

Anonymiss
04-02-12, 05:53 PM
I am no longer debating with you on this forum, anon. Lots of youngsters here may think the sun shines out of your arse but I'm not buying the way that you debate and I fundamentally oppose most of what you stand for. My final straw has just snapped.

Call this a parthian shot or an admission of defeat if you like.. but I've spent enough of my time debating with someone who goes around in circles in their head and incrementally changes the context of a debate over time. It's a waste of my energy.

You win.

Bye.
Shame, but fair enough.

I'm not out to 'win' anything, and there's nothing wrong with holding different opinions. You have yours, I have mine. We have to agree to disagree, I guess.

There was really only one question of fact in the whole thing: whether juries get to decide whether a particular law applies in a particular case.

I do agree about the going round in circles thing. I think I even pointed out that we were doing that a page or so back.

And as said, it's not personal, it's about the debate, not the debater. I do not think any differently of you as a result of this.

I do wonder what you think "I stand for" though. Just in case it's not clear: I believe in a fair and open society, where everyone is treated equally regardless of race, colour, opinion, wealth, social standing, or anything else. Where everyone is equal before the law, where the law is applied equally to everyone, and where justice is delivered without favour or prejudice rather than being subject to the whim of a particular group of twelve people. Sorry if that wasn't clear and if you thought I meant something else instead.

See ya!

teutonic
04-02-12, 06:19 PM
well ive decided that i cant destroy my first ever plant, and im gonna continue to grow, and when we move im gonna do it with hps/tent/carbon filter/4plant op! cant let people destroy something i ove to do!

anyways im gonna post some pics of my buds in my plant thread. (see sig) can anyone give me a rough idea on how long is left please?? just we want to view a few new houses, but dont want to be moving a plant this far into flower..

yer a braver man than me doc :) good luck bro ... lets go see the plant ..

drfeelgood86
04-02-12, 06:25 PM
yer a braver man than me doc :) good luck bro ... lets go see the plant ..

cheers TT mate! they sent my missus a txt saying thy didnt relise it was almost finished its life cycle.. so i think their gonna leave me be.. still aint gettin in our house tho lol!

Tabbatha
04-02-12, 06:38 PM
cheers TT mate! they sent my missus a txt saying thy didnt relise it was almost finished its life cycle.. so i think their gonna leave me be.. still aint gettin in our house tho lol! That's the spirit :)

techiebabe
04-02-12, 06:51 PM
The judge doesn't decide whether to prosecute, that's down to the CPS (in criminal cases), or the plantiff (in civil cases). Although, it may be that in civil cases the courts may decide that there is no charge to answer, but I don't know that for sure.

There are no "charges" in a district court, and the only custodial sentence given is for contempt of court. The Complainant prev. "Plaintiff" brings about a court action, the district court (civil applies ONLY) judge decides over all cases that are not criminal, except slander/libel/large wills/probate in the High Court.

Mag's/Crown deal with criminal ONLY
District Court deals with civil matters ONLY (financial remedy in most cases)(family law/divorce)(wills and probate)

Tabbatha
04-02-12, 06:53 PM
There are no "charges" in a district court, and the only custodial sentence given is for contempt of court. The Complainant prev. "Plaintiff" brings about a court action, the district court (civil applies ONLY) judge decides over all cases that are not criminal, except slander/libel/large wills/probate in the High Court.

Mag's/Crown deal with criminal ONLY
District Court deals with civil matters ONLY (financial remedy in most cases)(family law/divorce)(wills and probate)

Remind me never to get into a legal battle with you. ;)

techiebabe
04-02-12, 07:00 PM
Ok then. Have it your way. The current legal system is flawless. And how can you say that judges cannot decide on the law.. when it is their job to interpet it and apply it to each individual case?[?QUOTE]

Its not flawless, and they know and appreciate this. However its not their job to change it, that's Parliament's, its a judges job to interpret and apply the law - yr right Tabz

[QUOTE]Why aren't they abolished then considering most jurors couldn't give a fuck about cannabis? << That's a rhetorical question.

Agan, down to Parliament.....


Hypothetical arguments to support a real-world scenario? Hmmm.

It was an scenario that under our current legal system would not happen, the point of jury selection is to get a complete cross-section of the public, which is why exemptions were lifted for certain professionals preventing them from being on a jury (clergy, armed forces), and its unlikely a random selection process would select 12 people with the same point of view, particularly on such a sensitive subject, and even if they did the cannot disregard/ignore evidence factual or hard :)

Being a law student im loving the legal debate :)

Tabbatha
04-02-12, 07:01 PM
^^ Too technical for me at this drunkartd stage of the eveing,... so I'll come back to that in the morn.. :D

teutonic
04-02-12, 07:31 PM
cheers TT mate! they sent my missus a txt saying thy didnt relise it was almost finished its life cycle.. so i think their gonna leave me be.. still aint gettin in our house tho lol!

i wonder what caused the sudden paranoia to begin with.

The media has done a fine job of swaying the trend of a chuckle and an understanding 'likes his waccy baccy' attitude of 20 years ago to putting the toker on a par with the heroin addict these days. I reckon a bit of that para attitude got to them mate

glenn
04-02-12, 08:15 PM
You ain't gettin time for one plant , I had 4 in flower 4 vegging ready to follow . Got a dispensable caution , they took every thing though lol. Another point is your mother in law watered it !!!! Tell her she now will be arrested because you 50/50 with her lol . So just remind her that if the door goes through hers will too .