[WikiEN-l] Viral swarming teenage vanity spam

Tue Jul 11 02:59:06 UTC 2006

With apologies, since I last indicated I wouldn't continue a digression 
that had moved off-topic, I didn't expect such charges to be made about 
me and feel that I should respond publicly. This, however, will 
definitely be my last post in this particular discussion regardless, and 
if anyone wants to get personal in response I'll ignore it.

Philip Welch wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>>> Jury nullification also reduced the effectiveness of the American
>>> prohibition of alcohol. Similarly, juries in African-American
>>> communities have apparently been known to acquit black defendants of
>>> certain crimes (particularly drug crimes) in response to perceived
>>> racism on the part of the police.
>>
>> When I pointed out the real meaning of jury nullification I certainly
>> had no intention of starting a racially charged digression. While the
>> possibility of disparate enforcement of the law along racial lines is
>> certainly a serious issue, I've never heard that African-American  
>> juries
>> regularly acquit criminals on the basis of race.
>
> I had no such intention either, I was simply repeating something I  
> had read previously. I certainly did not mean to imply that "African- 
> American juries regularly acquit criminals on the basis of race",  
> because it is not the race of the defendant per se, but rather the  
> defendant's perceived status as a victim of racism, that is the basis  
> of such acquittals. Or at least so I have been led to believe.

However you care to phrase it, I was expressing skepticism about the 
reality of the claimed phenomenon. Think of it as a [citation needed], 
if you like. You say you read it somewhere, but don't say where. Feel 
free to enlighten me off-list if you can.

>> Otherwise, to find actual examples of racial jury nullification I  think
>> you have to look at the *white* juries...this explains why
>> some of jury nullification's most ardent advocates are found in the
>> political fringe where white racists, survivalist militia groups, and
>> radical "constitutionalists" meet.
>>
>> That's all I'll have to say about this, since the discussion no longer
>> directly relates to Wikipedia.
>
> There's nothing better than to call jury nullification advocates  
> racist and then wash your hands of the entire affair. (I was trying  
> to be neutral in my presentation of what I had heard, but what the  
> hell--if I'm on a jury, I'm not putting someone in prison for getting  
> caught with some weed on them, no matter what the law says.  
> Apparently this means I'm a racist.)

No, it doesn't mean you're racist, nor did I say any such thing. What it 
actually means is that if you honestly answer questions that are 
appropriately asked, and if the judge and attorneys are at all 
competent, you'll be disqualified from serving on any jury for a 
marijuana possession case.

You seem proud of your neutral presentation, with some justification, 
since it wasn't immediately apparent to me that you advocate jury 
nullification. So I wasn't calling you a racist, and I didn't say that 
all jury nullification advocates are racist, either. Some are as I have 
said, and I make no apologies for pointing out some of the concept's 
most undesirable applications. Consider it a caution about the 
associations it carries, if you want to continue extolling its virtues.

> Ironically, you're responding to  a message in which I cited jury 
> nullification as an antidote to  police racism. I have to commend you 
> on a masterful job of trolling,  Michael Snow. You skillfully combined 
> the race card, pretending to be  the good guy, and a 
> passive-aggressive tone to subtly take this  discussion beyond the 
> edge of reason, all with the utmost civility.  I'm actually rather 
> impressed.

As I said, it wasn't clear that you were advocating jury nullification 
as an "antidote" to anything. In fact, by qualifying the racism as 
"perceived", you could just as easily have been questioning whether 
there was any racism, challenging the legitimacy of jury nullification 
and, more to the point, the conduct of African-American juries 
supposedly engaging in it. It wasn't me that brought up race, but since 
it was brought up I thought it needed to be pointed out that the 
analysis has other racial contexts as well. So I don't feel that I've 
done anything to "take this discussion beyond the edge of reason", but 
if that's where it's gone, hopefully this can bring it back.

--Michael Snow