753
Stephen Miller melts down as ‘leftist’ jury acquits man who towed ICE truck away
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
753 points (98.8% liked)
politics
26808 readers
2325 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pee Wee Himmler better get used to lots and lots of jury nullification. It's probably why this little asshat is trying to get away with disappearing people with no trial - he hates and despises We, The People.
Jury nullification is the real reasons juries exist. Pass all the corrupt laws and appoint all the corrupt justices you want. As long as we still have trial by jury we have a check on power from the citizens.
This is why I hate people who say they hate being on a jury.
You have the most direct access to affect your society in a jury box than you do at the ballot box.
I live in Texas. Jurors are paid $20/day with no reimbursement for expenses, and employers aren't required to pay employees on jury duty (though mine does).
So yeah - people hate it.
Also while I would like to be a jury it can be brutal. I had a friend that did grand jury once for 6 months. They were being constantly shown murder scene photos and other graphic imagery. I'd imagine that would bother some people
...they charge more for parking than we're paid in bexar county...
My state does it. My employer didn't. And the courthouse was a long way away.
Except in most places you have to suffer financial hardship in order to exercise this ability
Juries exist to determine facts, and check the work of the prosecutor to make sure they proved the case to the standards required by law. They are an essential part of the legal process, and the possibility of nullification is an interesting byproduct.
This case was not nullification. He was charged with theft for towing a car, which is not theft anywhere, and is standard practice for tow truck operators. The vehicle was returned less than 20 minutes later.
Not guilty was a reasonable conclusion, not a case of a jury nullifying an otherwise solid case.
Cotizen juries absolutely exist for jury nullification. Otherwise it would be better to have professionals who are experts in the law making the rulings like judges do in most civil cases.
I was in a jury recently, and they were clear in the instructions that we were to make decisions on the basis of the law as it is, not one what we think it should be. Some of the questions during jury selected were specifically tailored to identifying those who might consider nullification.
Juries still exist in civil cases. They are there to make findings of fact, just like a criminal case. Bench trials are those without a material dispute of the facts.
Nullification is a side effect, a consequence of the process. Nullification is not the primary reason for a jury.
They tell you to only consider the law as written, but that doesn't make nullification illegal or improper. They just don't like it.
Their duty as civil servants is to uphold the law as written. Challenging laws as unjust is the duty of the citizenry.
...
did you read what I wrote?
I don't think the person you're replying to is disagreeing with you, they're just pointing out that in this case, the jury didn't have to nullify an existing law for the tow truck driver to be found not guilty.
a judge can issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) if they determine that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict based on the evidence.
So while it is rare the judge can still fuck everyone involved in the case no matter what the jury says.
freedom
In a criminal case, a judge can only overturn a guilty verdict.
Upon checking into that it looks like you're right.
thank you both for bringing this up. I never knew that. That's good to know.
"Pee Wee Himmler" is great lol