...In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts." Note the use of the words 'case' and 'court' which you are obviously attempting to avoid. <sigh> As I have already told you, jury decisions are not binding on subsequent ...

...> come to its own decision on the facts presented to it, and is not ...by what a previous jury, on another set of facts, decided.  Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of...told "10 juries before you convicted on similar facts".  The law comes from the judges, not from... when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts." Note the use of the words 'case' ...

... is required to come to its own decision on the facts presented to it, and is not bound in any way by what a previous jury, on another set of facts, decided.  Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of how the ... a jury won't get told "10 juries before you convicted on similar facts".  The law comes from the judges, not from juries. ...

... jury is required to come to its own decision on the facts presented to it, and is not bound in any way by what a previous jury, on another set of facts, decided.  Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of how the ... a jury won't get told "10 juries before you convicted on similar facts".  The law comes from the judges, not from juries. Add...

... jury is required to come to its own decision on the facts presented to it, and is not bound in any way by what a previous jury, on another set of facts, decided. Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of how the ...a jury won't get told "10 juries before you convicted on similar facts".  The law comes from the judges, not from juries. ...

... Each jury is required to come to its own decision on the facts presented to it, and is not bound in any way by what a previous jury, on another set of facts, decided. Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of how the legal... jury won't get told "10 juries before you convicted on similar facts". The law comes from the judges, not from juries. Add...

... jury is required to come to its own decision on the facts presented to it, and is not bound in any way by what a previous jury, on another set of facts, decided.  Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of how the ... not set legal precedences? A jury is bound to only consider the facts presented to them. The only way they can consider previous cases is ...

...Each jury is required to come to its own decision on the facts presented to it, and is not bound in any way by what a previous jury, on another set of facts, decided.  Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of how the ... a jury won't get told "10 juries before you convicted on similar facts". The law comes from the judges, not from juries. Add that ...

... A jury verdict doesn't create a precedent.  Each jury is required to come to its own decision on the facts presented to it, and is not bound in any way by what a previous jury, on another set of facts, decided.  Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of how the legal system works. Pot kettle. You are surely not ...

... harm in order to try prevent a greater amount of harm, like breaking down a door to put out a fire, That's of obvious and immediate benefit. superglueing doorlocks, painting names on chimneys, paintstripping gasguzzlers or letting their tyres down etc? How do any of those actions prevent a significantly greater harm? In fact they will only cause damage, not prevent it.