What is an anti-Mormon?

[_Shulem]

Diplomatic immunity exempts someone from certain laws but it doesn't mean that breaking those laws was a legal act.

When a law is broken, a law is broken. It's an illegal act, period. Whether one is convicted or punished for an illegal act is another story.

Joseph Smith broke the law. He committed an illegal act regardless of what anyone may say.

[_Niadna]

You are confusing two different concepts: whether the act was legal and whether the jury convicted the defendants. We can tell whether the act was legal by looking at the act and the relevant statutes. The jury gets to decide whether to convict. The judge would state the relevant law in the jury instructions, but I don't believe we have those.

I don't think so. http://www.famous-trials.com/zenger/99-nullification

This is an article explaining jury nullification pretty clearly. A Jury has the right (though it is discouraged) to judge both the accused, and the law the accused allegedly broke. Voting to acquit someone who had been proven to have broken it is a message...in THIS case, it was legal for the accused to do what was done.

In the case of Joseph Smith' murder, the jurors gave the very clear message; while murder in general may not be legal, murdering Joseph Smith, in the opinions of the jurors, was. Jury nullification.

The same thing happened when the men who destroyed the Nauvoo press were acquitted: by acquitting them, they declared the specific act legal. They had judged against the law, declaring that it did not apply in the cases under deliberation.

Whether WE agree with the jury's opinion or not, our opinion doesn't count, not in the legal system. We can be outraged at the miscarriage of justice we see because of it, we may disagree, we may argue...but what we think doesn't count in the legal system.

[_Shulem]

Niadna, you're beaten. Enough!

[_grindael]

Refusing to engage in your shenanigans is not being a bully, it is the opposite. All you need, is above. Simply read it. If you refuse to do so, well, that is on you.

[_Niadna]

Refusing to engage in your shenanigans is not being a bully, it is the opposite. All you need, is above. Simply read it. If you refuse to do so, well, that is on you.

It's not a refusal. I HAVE read all the posts. I answered them, didn't I?

I don't know what you are referring to and it's not unreasonable for me to ask you to clarify/be specific.

[_grindael]

Jury's acquit for many different reasons, not because they agree that what the defendants do is legal. They may acquit for lack of evidence, etc.

So your argument is silly. Just as this entire exercise is silly. The silliness on your part just keeps piling up.

But keep beating a dead horse. It's what disingenuous Apologists do.

[_Fence Sitter]

You are confusing two different concepts: whether the act was legal and whether the jury convicted the defendants. We can tell whether the act was legal by looking at the act and the relevant statutes. The jury gets to decide whether to convict. The judge would state the relevant law in the jury instructions, but I don't believe we have those.

I don't think so. http://www.famous-trials.com/zenger/99-nullification

This is an article explaining jury nullification pretty clearly. A Jury has the right (though it is discouraged) to judge both the accused, and the law the accused allegedly broke. Voting to acquit someone who had been proven to have broken it is a message...in THIS case, it was legal for the accused to do what was done.

In the case of Joseph Smith' murder, the jurors gave the very clear message; while murder in general may not be legal, murdering Joseph Smith, in the opinions of the jurors, was. Jury nullification.

The same thing happened when the men who destroyed the Nauvoo press were acquitted: by acquitting them, they declared the specific act legal. They had judged against the law, declaring that it did not apply in the cases under deliberation.

Whether WE agree with the jury's opinion or not, our opinion doesn't count, not in the legal system. We can be outraged at the miscarriage of justice we see because of it, we may disagree, we may argue...but what we think doesn't count in the legal system.

Well at this point isn't this just a minor unimportant difference in semantics? Okay, so everyone can accept the fact a jury has ruled in both of those cases. That does not mean the acts committed in both cases were any more or less wrong does it? For example, I find the verdict reached in the Joseph Smith murderers trial much more problematic that the verdict for the Nauvoo Press incident. The fact that both juries nullified what were clearly illegal acts, in no way affects the true nature of both those acts. So to argue that court system found them innocent really does not matter when one considers the morality of such acts.

[_grindael]

It's not a refusal. I HAVE read all the posts. I answered them, didn't I?

I don't know what you are referring to and it's not unreasonable for me to ask you to clarify/be specific.

You obviously haven't read them, because you are asking for something for which the answer is right there in black and white. This is simply another silly game by you for which I'm not going to participate. So, keep beating the same dead horse and asking the same silly questions and making the same inane observations and I will give you the same answer.

You already have the answer.

[_Shulem]

But keep beating a dead horse. It's what disingenuous Apologists do.

One cannot declare Joseph Smith's wanton acts against the Constitution as legal anymore than one can declare the translations of Facsimile No. 3 correct.

[_Lemmie]

It's not a refusal. I HAVE read all the posts. I answered them, didn't I?

I don't know what you are referring to and it's not unreasonable for me to ask you to clarify/be specific.

You obviously haven't read them, because you are asking for something for which the answer is right there in black and white. This is simply another silly game by you for which I'm not going to participate. So, keep beating the same dead horse and asking the same silly questions and making the same inane observations and I will give you the same answer.

You already have the answer.

Good call, grindael. There are plenty of facts to deal with in this thread.

And speaking of facts, re: your long post about conditions at the time, WOW. I know a little but your post really brought the conditions and environment of both sides of the conflict to life.

Especially this part, it really showed how over-wrought the situation had become:

Taking their cue from the Mormons themselves, the citizens of Carroll County used the same argument against the “Saints”. The Mormons of course, felt justified when they forced the dissenters from their homes, but feigned outrage when the Missourians used the same tactic on them. In both cases it was unconstitutional and illegal. But that didn’t stop either side from doing so, the Mormons with the dissenters and “unfriendlies” in Daviess County, and the “old settlers” with the Mormons.