There is no good reason for any to engage any discussion point-by-point. There are core points and peripheral points. And there's no reason to think they are equally worth thinking about.

Regarding jury nullification, I've worked in places where it occurred frequently. For what seemed to the population like good and sufficient reasons, the citizenry intensely distrusted the local police force. The net effect that I observed was that it was practically impossible to get a jury conviction for "petty" offenses like domestic violence and driving under the influence (DUI). You may think this is an improvement (or at least an incentive for the police to make improvements), but I'm not convinced.

With full awareness of the dangers of generalizing from one example, here is one of the worst cases:

At trial, defendant's wife testified that he was very drunk at the house (and she was only other person there), the family car was at the house, then the defendant and the car were not at the house. A short time later, a police officer found the car at some location a short driving distance from the home. The engine was warm and the defendant was laying near the vehicle. While performing field sobriety exercises (walk & turn, one-leg-stand, etc), the defendant fell down multiple times. The field sobriety exercises were recorded by the patrol vehicle's dash camera.

You'd think this would be enough to show that the defendant was too drunk to drive, and did drive the vehicle. Not guilty verdict. One of the jurors told the prosecutor (not me) that it wasn't clear that the defendant was too drunk to drive.

Then, due to the structure of this forum, you don't get to see that I'd already taken your advice. I fail to see how that benefits you or I. Rather, it seems this site is a less interesting place for that result.

It benefits the site in that it makes it impossible to write top-level posts for someone unwilling or incapable of adhering to the locally accepted norms of discourse. That means the system did its job just fine.

Who here assumes the comment was directed towards them? Probably either insecure people, or people who downvoted my comments and thus jettisoned the functionality of my account here.

I apologize to the insecure people. The other people deserve my parting insult.

No one has to assume that the comment was directed at them to have reasons to downvote you. You don't have to be the victim to oppose the perpetrator of violence. You, of all people, should understand that.

It's pretty disheartening how, after receiving advice not to insult people, you completely dismiss it and proceed to divide the LessWrong users into the insecure, whom you condescendingly pat on the head and others who are not worthy of basic politeness.

Your emotions are there for a reason. If you react negatively to the insinuation that you're not behaving properly or are in some way sub-optimal, examine the criticism for merit. I've often done that, and found myself to be wanting in many areas. In some of those areas I've improved myself. The criticisms were legitimate. I'll certainly try to become a better writer.

My emotions are there because evolution shaped them to push me towards actions that would increase my inclusive genetic fitness if I lived in the ancestral environment. Blindly following them is not helpful toward achieving my higher-level goals. Your willingness to (proudly and boldly) push my emotional buttons marks you as either ignorant of evolutionary psychology or outright malicious. All of that applies to you, too. Your emotions aren't there to help you in your fight against injustice; they actually sabotage that fight. You speak proudly of refusing to bow down to conformist riffraff and that knowledgable people already take you seriously. You also say, later:

Others may only take me seriously when they wind up on a truck bound for a barbed-wire surrounded encampment.

When that happens, you have already lost. Weren't those passive fools, the unenlightened rabble, the conformist sheep, now on their way to destruction, also amongst the people you were trying to protect? And by failing to reach out to them in a way that would allow them to appreciate your superior insight, haven't you doomed them?

The way you're acting right now, it seems like you're more concerned with being able to say 'I told you so' when the worst case scenario occurs rather than actually preventing it.

Sure. Most people also drool, masturbate, and watch television from time to time. That said, if I interpret "drooling, television-watching wanker" as a neutral description that probably does apply to any given person, I am doing a remarkable job of failing to attend to connotations.

Politics is the mind killer, if you can't see how that is more important than convincing people of your current political beliefs, then you have a problem.