And if you're on the jury, you never say the words "jury nullification". It technically isn't allowed, and you can be removed from the jury.

But if you just think there's reasonable doubt, then nothing can be done.

A far more detailed tutorial:

https://beyondcourts.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Jury-Nullification-Toolkit-English_0.pdf

If you want to participate in jury nullification, it's imperative that you do your research and know how to conduct yourself. It's not as simple as just making sure you never say "jury nullification" within hearing range of the court room. And doing your due diligence isn't as simple as reading some surface-level web pages about how jury nullification works.

The first thing you need to know is that this is exceedingly difficult. If you get summoned, don't get summarily dismissed, get through voir dire and onto the jury -- here there are already three distinct stages, and passing each of them is its own small miracle. That's before you even get to the part where you convince the rest of the jury to go along with it, which you have to do without saying the words. You also have to appear to be earnestly engaged in doing your duty as a juror properly. Obstinance is cause for dismissal and contempt, so just sitting there and saying "not guilty" for no reason and refusing to explain yourself or change your position may not go as well as you might think. You have to actually play the game, go along with the process, and bring up reasonable and compelling questions and concerns about the state's burden of proof.

Regarding voir dire: Here's one area where you'll need to have done in-depth research. If you haven't even googled things like "detecting deception during voir dire" or "how to identify a stealth juror" -- if you haven't read all the material you can get your hands on that gives advice to attorneys about the nuances of juror vetting and selection -- then you haven't spent enough time knowing your enemy, and you will fail. If you haven't heard of a "stealth juror" before, you are out of your depth and you will fail. If it hasn't occurred to you that the attorneys might look you up online (they will) to see if you've posted anything that conflicts with what you tell them in court, then you have probably already failed before you even started.

You will basically need to be in deep cover with regard to your knowledge of and inclination toward jury nullification. It's not even as easy as just pretending you've never heard of it. That can end up being too much of a good thing, too hard to believe, depending. In a similar way, they don't necessarily want to hear that you're some kind of totally impartial person with no opinions about anything, no biases. Everyone has those; what they want is people who can set them aside to do the job they've been given. It's surely not an easy balance to strike, seeming like you're someone who will be a good juror, while making sure you also give the appearance of being a realistic and believable person, and avoiding a host of little reasons why they might decide to use one of their peremptory strikes on you (if you don't know what that is, you haven't done enough research and will fail).

You'll also need the same obsessive depth of familiarity with the entire process, voir dire to verdict, that someone would have if they actually were some kind of deep cover clandestine agent sent to infiltrate a jury. You will need to accomplish this without ever talking to anyone about your interest in this subject. You have to be either very dedicated or very lucky.

Dude is fucked. They'll find the WASPiest, pearl-clutchiest jury they can and will martyr this guy. Innocence or guilt be damned.

a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes

A group such as healthcare CEOs, and the wealthy in general?

Not that I think he did it. But terrorism doesn't have to be directed at the public at large.

I dont feel terror or endangered by CEO killing vigilantes (as long as they have good aim and dont cause collateral damage). I'm sure the rest of the general public also feels safer without these CEO psycopaths walking around.

Corporations are people here and they see this as terrorism because their managers do.

Whether a jury will sign off on the Citizens United view of the public as corporate citizens depends on how willing avg jurists are to rationalize the fiction.

Yep, brought the beer and everything. Was a great time, easy move, hows the new place?

For once, I don't think that particular charge is entirely inconsistent with the dictionary definition.

He's accused of killing a member of the public in the hope of frightening everyone else in that person's position into taking some kind of action.

I think the law says something about killing for a "political purpose", with the goal of changing some kind of public policy or behaviour. That's not an unreasonable interpretation of what happened, I think.

Unfortunately that means they get to use the laws which were written to deal with mass murder and bombing public spaces, which I don't think is particularly appropriate but doesn't seem out of line with the law

On the grounds that he caused terror for the only people that actually matter, the ruling class.

We care more about capitalism than anything else and he threatened the rich...

Like, not saying I agree with it, but the answer for why they're labeling it terrorism is really obvious

Hey, hey, get in line, hussy. I've been standing here all day.

There is a huge crowd there right now!

He outright murdered a man, nothing to protest.

You should think about something better when it comes to this.

A societal issues of haves and have nots comes to blows and you are saying what? “He’s pretty”

That’s something you can keep to yourself. Makes you look better.

Isn't he?

Here you go:

Shut the fuck up, Tim Noel.