Comment: keep it vague so you can later back away from it?

(See in situ)

keep it vague so you can later back away from it?

You posted something which I thought, correctly or not, implied you were saying you and your son both experienced jury nullification. This is after all a jury nullification thread.

I then both pointed out the implausibility of that, and asked you to say if I was misinterpreting you. Here we are, several hours and several more posts later, and you now are finally saying that isn't what you intended to say.

Your behavior can be explained a couple of different ways.

1. You really were trying to say that, but didn't realize how outlandish it would sound to anyone who had actually been around a jury. You then didn't figure that out until a few hours later, and now are trying to back away from saying that.

2. You and your son really didn't have that experience, but did participate in a jury pool and maybe even a jury sometime, but there was no nullification experienced. You were trying to be vague about it, because your whole "fake law guru" internet shtick requires you to have others that believe you actually have some modicum of knowledge or experience. Not so much as one them "gosh-durned lowyurs" by gawd but you cant sell them anything if they're not thinking you have that. Then basically it plays out the same as in number 1.

3. You weren't trying to say that at all, but were too busy breaking the terms of use of this website by engaging in ad hominem attacks, to ccorrect the mis conception, even though you were asked to do it.

4. It really did happen, and that is what you meant, but because I am a mean, dastardly bullying agent of the state (or whatever your gibberish phrase today is) I forced you to submit to my strength of will and to deny the truth of your immense jury nullification experience. You then left on your unicorn.

Which one is it?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein