Yeah seriously if you ever can be on a jury it's basically your civic duty (just realized civic is a palindrome holy fuck) to lie your ass off, play the straight-faced centrist-minded lib-pilled American and get on that jury. Now obviously if the person is a fucking murderer, rapist, etc. and there's convincing evidence then, you know. But if it's something like theft by a non-white collar person or feeding the fucking homeless or punching a cop during an unjustified arrest. Just sit there, nod, and vote not guilty for however long it takes to break the other poor bastards or get a mistrial. Just never ever utter the words jury nullification or express that you are non guilty because the law and punishments are unjust. Just say anything else. "Not enough evidence for me. Sorry." Only takes one person per twelve on the jury for the criminal trial to get gummed up.

I wonder what a centrist type would even say to get favorable status from prosecution and defense in this case. It feels almost too binary between "liquify the homeless" and "we should give them homes and fix the broader societal issues that cause homelessness." I guess a centrist would be like "I just don't want to see it myself" so ok with people feeding them and also ok with cops sweeping tents and forcefully removing the people to jail or just somewhere else. I guess the stance of "I don't like that homelessness exists, and I understand why people feel sympathy and want to help, but laws exist for a reason and should be enforced." That feels pretty much perfectly lib-coded enough. They love acknowledging horrific things and then immediately shoving the shield of "but the law" in front of any moral action they might otherwise do.

The first rule of jury nullification is you don't talk about jury nullification

The second rule of jury nullification is... you don't fucking talk about it