I figured thats where you were going.
Yes, injury loss or harm is necessary. No, it does not have to be against a specific person or entity. It can be injury loss or harm to the common good. A great example is littering. The notion of injury to the common good dates all the way back to english common law (which is where we get the idea of corpus delecti)
but it is also just scare mongering as they don't want people to know that we can nullify legislation, which is perfectly valid when said legislation conflicts with the law.
Legislation is the law. And no, even if by some miracle you try jury nullification and win, you don't change the law, or "nullify" the legislation. In fact, such a ruling probably wouldnt even be admissible in a different trial. Its not like youve set a precedent.
Jury nullification is a slang term. Juries can't nullify or even interpret legislation. They are deciders of fact, not law. Its not a valid legal defense that "they" are trying to hide from you.
Legislation is the will of a group of men and women calling themselves a legislature. It is not law. This is the core difference between what is legal and what is lawful.
As for nullification, if a people has no right to judge not only the facts, but the validity of the purported law that is being applied, then the people are enslaved.
For it to be otherwise, the people would be at the absolute mercy of any legislation created, no matter how insane or criminal. Legislators could pass laws to do anything they want with no recourse for the people.