He has the right to be judged by a jury of his peers, and it appears as if his peers agree with his actions.
“As this man’s peers, you must be the judge of his actions.”
“Ok”
“Wait, not like that”
Yup. The article mentions that the prosecutors have a problem, but the U.S. people certainly don’t.
“Friedman Agnifilo would ask potential jurors where they reside in Manhattan and where they get their news sources from to determine their political leanings,” Kerwick said.
I mean, he is from a wealthy family, but there’s still not going to be many working class people in Manhattan.
I think people are expecting too much from the jury.
It’s going to be a bunch of insanely wealthy people who will 100% want to remind everyone the rich are untouchable
Median household income in Manhattan is about 100k. It’s not all insanely wealthy people.
I make $11k per year.
$100k IS insanely wealthy.
Dear God man, get ANY other job
I’ve had multiple injuries at work (and a few from sports) so am unable to do my former labor-type jobs. I’m also over 65 so retraining is out of the question.
Worked minimum wage positions most of my life so have no savings and currently live in a rooming house.
There’s lots of us out here scraping the bottom of the barrel just to survive.
That really sucks, and I’m genuinely sorry you’ve had to deal with all that. $100K USD can be eaten up very quickly depending on your city’s cost of living though. I’d imagine someone making $100k USD in Manhattan would be barely scraping by as well
100K in Manhattan is nothing. My father was a principal earning $150K and still could barely get by in the city.
When apartments run total 40K annually, 100K is just a step above poverty wages.
11k is like $5.5/h, assuming you’re working full time. It’s well below minimum wage.
As stated in the comment you responded to I am no longer working because of injuries and age.
You have it backwards. 100k in Manhattan is not wealthy, let alone insanely wealthy. 11k is insanely impoverished, even if you live in the middle of nowhere.
I was living with about 10k CAD/y for a few years when I was single and I was mostly fine.
Granted, this was in the 2010s. And of course I wasn’t in Manhattan, as you can guess by the currency.
Now, I’m making about 70k CAD with a family (sole provider) and I’m just staying afloat.
In Manhattan, it’s enough to get by. It’s a working-class salary there.
That’s well below the poverty line wages. That’s dirt poor in almost any part of the country let alone Manhattan, one of the most expensive cities in the U.S.
Frezik was talking about the $100K, not the $11K.
Not really. Poverty line in New York City for two adults/two children is $43,890.
Edit: also keep in mind that New Yorkers often don’t need a car. That’s a huge yearly spending reduction.
He thinks you mean 11K/year, and you think he means 100k/year. Just trying to help out… :)
Yeah, as the other person pointed out, I was pointing to the 11K per year comment. Maybe a typo?
NYC or Manhattan?
In the US? That’s less than the legal minimum wage
Not if you don’t/can’t work full time.
Doing what?
Not in NYC, that leaves you with hundreds of dollars a month after rent if you’re lucky.
I made 70-90k in Boston and had nothing left for savings if I dared to eat out once a week.
Not if you live in Manhattan. Housing alone there is stupidly expensive.
Except both sides have the same number of rejections they can apply.
agree with
I’d accept ‘excuse’ his actions. I’m firmly of the belief that pain caused the shooter to lose grip of the “hey don’t kill people” to where “yeah maybe just this scumbag” seemed okay. And while we wanna kill evil people, vigilante justice is less about them and more about us. And I don’t like that us that is willing to kill people outside of the Justice system we built and maintain.
I’m okay with supporting Luigi (if it was him ;-) ) get through this break with reality that was engineered by shitbag HMOs, accepting that a person died (terrible as he was, still a person who could have been rehabilitated), accepting that it was an insanity of a kind, and getting Luigi any help he needs, medical or mental, to get back up to a productive and fulfilling life.
As in, let’s not ruin Luigi completely, as already one fixable human is dead so lets not kill another.
And I don’t like that us that is willing to kill people outside of the Justice system we built and maintain.
I think this is the disconnect. I don’t believe I have any (even 1/330 million) input into what the justice system is. When the Supreme Court is being openly bribed and stacked through legislative malfeasance, and as a result are taking away rights that a majority of the country supports, and yet nothing happens in response, it’s not our system. The very fact that there was a massive manhunt for this particular killer while others get ignored and he now has a federal murder charge because he was on a cell phone or planned it in another state or some bullshit is demonstration that this isn’t a system built to pursue justice equally. Neither the justice system nor the health system that provoked this reaction is based on codifying the broad cultural consent about “how things should work”.
Maybe he’s guilty of manslaughter in my book. Murder? I don’t see it.
Manslaughter is when you didn’t mean to kill the person. You might be thinking of justifiable homicide?
He didn’t mean to kill him, he just wanted to put a few rounds in the guy
careful, lw mods don’t like that
It was clarified that talking about Jury Nullification in the context of future crime is a no-no because it’s a no-no in the country lw is based. But in the context of already committed crime it’s fine.
So “Go ahead and commit the crime and we’ll do jury nullification!” Is bad, but “Crime was committed, but we sympathize with the motive/person/whatever so let’s do jury nullification !” Is OK
The whole thing sounded to me like a smokescreen for, “We fucked up, and we shouldn’t have banned talking about it in the first place. We talked about it and banning it was a bad decision that we briefly doubled down on.”
Credit to them for reversing themselves, I guess. That said, coming up with contrived explanations for why you never made a mistake in the first place, because you’re always right, is one of the telltale signs of being full of shit. You can just tell people the main explanation. They’ll actually respect you more, not less, if you don’t engineer your reasonings to maintain this Wizard of Oz veneer.
The whole thing sounded to me like a smokescreen for, “We fucked up, and we shouldn’t have banned talking about it in the first place. We talked about it and banning it was a bad decision that we briefly doubled down on.”
I mean… Yeah.
You’re not allowed to talk about smokescreens before the act of fucking up.
If discussing commiting a future crime on your hardware it can be seized as evidence I imagine. If people discuss an already committed crime I suppose they know the discussion isnt evidence as the person believed to be the angel is already in custody.
Lemmy world should have lost all credibility after they hard commited to the bias bot against the majorities wishes, but even on the fediverse people just don’t want to move instances. Im starting to think centralization is far from the only issue with social medias today, probably still the biggest, but by a lot smaller margins than I used to think.
I think they did, to be honest. I’ve abandoned most of the LW communities and I think I’m not the only one. There’s enough inertia in the system that I’m sure they will still be a big instance, but the reputational impacts of things like that are often permanent.
To me, the big thing about the bias bot wasn’t the enforcing of the bias bot, it was the lying. If they had come out and said, “The bot is useful for moderation, we’re keeping it even if people don’t like it,” I don’t think it would have been any kind of big deal. What causes people to have this really unhappy reaction is telling them, “People love the bot! The minority who doesn’t like it is just mounting a pressure campaign” or “You just don’t understand the issues involved like we do” or “We’re fighting misinformation!” or “The admins are making me keep the bot” “No we’re not, the moderators want to keep the bot” or deflecting into this conversation about the cost of accessing the MBFC API or whatever other totally weird irrelevant issue.
The [email protected] moderators were the ones who asked their users, got the answer that people didn’t like the bot, and took it away. It doesn’t have to be complicated. That’s why I’m still subscribed to [email protected] when I’ve abandoned the other LW news communities, and I’ve noticed that my Lemmy browsing experience has been remarkably free of weird bad-moderation bullshit ever since. There are no friendly conversations between jordanlund and UniversalMonk. I haven’t had articles I’ve posted get removed for totally frivolous reasons. There are no bots that every user hates and every moderator insists has to be there. It’s just news! Good stuff.
Tinfoil hat time, I think MBFC bot was the smokescreen for a GroundNews sponsor/ad.
The bot started up at the same time GN started a massive ad campaign sponsoring a lot of YouTubers (~7 months ago). MBFC was the bias checker and GN was the hot new “good” source included in every single post. I bet Rooki or someone was getting checks.
Lemmy world should have lost all credibility after they hard commited to the bias bot against the majorities wishes
Hard agree!
but even on the fediverse people just don’t want to move instances
Soft disagree. I took a long time to do it, but I moved from .world because of the whole “being the r/politics of Lemmy” thing.
You won’t find a more wretched hive of scum and Neoliberalism than the .world admins and mods anywhere outside of the aforementioned subreddit and the DNC itself.
Lost it for me when they didn’t say no to threads
Honestly not too happy about that one either.
That is absolutely not what happened, but play your own drum I guess.
The world admins have a long history of this kind of shit.
A great example was when they updated the TOS to remove specific call outs for (if memory serves) transphobic hate being against TOS and instead replacing it with very generic text. The response being that they didn’t need that text because the generic call outs covered it.
Nobody with two brain cells was fooled and everyone knew it was about getting ahead of angry chuds who might be mean to the admins. But enough people were mysteriously banned for horrible shit (with their whole post histories being wiped) and everyone else who cared left for different instances.
I’m not going to fault admins for not wanting to get calls from the FBI. I will fault them for abandoning our friends because they don’t want angry emails. But, either way, the constant need to build up weird narratives and assume everyone else is really THAT stupid is just tiresome.
or when they banned piracy at db0, citing legal threats that didn’t happen, which was before defederating exploding heads, a nazi instance
Nobody with two brain cells was fooled
That’s the thing. For some reason, people will come up with this logic that’s designed to fool a 4-year-old, and then just assume that all the adults who are reading it will be totally taken in by it. I don’t know why. Maybe they don’t want to throw some individual who ran out in front with a bad decision under the bus. Or, maybe it’s just painful to say out loud, “I think we were wrong now that we’ve had a chance to look at it more.”
I’m not going to fault admins for not wanting to get calls from the FBI.
Yeah, but that’s why you need legal advice. They’re sort of pretending that they’re qualified to make determinations about what is and isn’t a legal problem, which isn’t always a good idea to do all on your own once you’ve grown beyond a certain size. Pretending that you’re making these decisions from a position of knowledge and authority just compounds the problem.
The reality is that legality doesn’t matter a lot unless you have enough lawyers on staff to fight various government agencies. That is WHY most creators and communities use established services like youtube or reddit because it offloads that hassle to a company that actually has the lawyers to figure out what is and isn’t a risk.
Whereas a lemmy instance is a few people who have no idea what they are doing.
The best metaphor I have heard to explain this is: A group of weirdos start singing prayers while you are boarding a plane. The flight attendant tells you that you need to sing along or you will be kicked off the plane. You say that is nonsense. They say they are going to have you escorted off the plane if you continue to be disruptive.
You KNOW you are within your legal rights to not do that bullshit. But you don’t have a lawyer with you. Best case scenario? You get off the plane, you get an apology handy from a CSR, and you get to get on a different plane in 12 hours. But now you have missed your connecting flight and 1-2 days of your trip. So you are wasting personal days or pissing off your boss and missing an important client meeting and blah blah blah. And… the browner you are, the less likely you are to see that CSR after the cops escort you off a plane.
So… you just sing along because it is easier. Even if you know it is bullshit, you know it is “close enough” that your life will become a living hell.
Which is why I have no issue with a site policy of “We don’t want that smoke. Please don’t make jokes about the guy who killed a piece of shit CEO until we know we won’t get investigated by law enforcement”. But I DO have issues with making up weird narratives to justify it.
Prayer day in kenshi
Almost like censorship is pretty much always bad! Who’d have thunk it!?
What country is lemmy.world based in? Because having a law about talking about jury nullification in the context of a future crime sound so incredibly stupid and specific that I need to know the precedent that led to it.
No, it was not clarified, they vaguely mentioned they were not based in “free speech” US but it’s pretty clear that it was their own policy since they changed it (they do say they were asking mods to ban all mentions of jury nullification).
If their opinion was actually based on law, they would not change their policy. They would probably also have added it to their TOS before hand.
I’m not sure what kind of professional legal input they can afford. It’s big by fedi standards but the Patreon raises about 10k/year. Not exactly lawyer money.
I suspect that it’s a lot of guess work and maybe some help with drafting and filing here and there. I’ve never asked.
Weird, jury nullification is super legal and super cool
It’s super legal, but it’s not always super cool:
American Dad basically did an episode on this where Roger is on trial and is so personable that Stan is the only reason jury nullification didn’t happen.
Lw mods aren’t nearly as awful as Reddit ones - most removed comments are either personal attacks or open calls for violence. Even calls for civil disobedience are usually allowed unless they’re clearly direct threats.
I got a comment removed because they said insinuating Isralies shouldn’t be allowed somewhere was racism. It was fine to do that with Russians during their active war, but Isreal is special and its racist when you hold them accountable the way we hold Russia accountable. And thats when I was specifically refering to the Israeli football hooligans who literally trashed the country they were guests in. So I dont buy that they aren’t as bad. They just don’t control the whole fediverse.
i guess ruud thinks he owns lemmy because he won timing lottery and snatched a lot of post-reddit userbase
I don’t think it’s Ruud, I think it’s a little clique of the Lemmy people who stepped forward to take it on day-to-day. Ruud doesn’t seem active on Lemmy.
Even calls for civil disobedience are usually allowed
how merciful of them
I thought they put the terrorist charge on him precisely to avoid requiring a jury as part of all the
rightsprivileges we surrendered post 9/11 in the name of… Pffff… National security.National security being hilarious considering the CEOs are still walking the streets free, murdering citizens for profit having never not being actively sucked off by legislators that passed the patriot act and similar legislation.
The murderous Shareholders are already inside the house. They own the house. You can barely afford to rent it from them.
I don’t think that’s why they charged him with terrorism. The reason that some terrorism trials are (were?) done in secret in the past I believe is because most of the evidence that would have been presented would have been classified. I don’t think there is any classified evidence related to Luigi’s trial.
I think it’s more likely that they added the terrorism charge just as an enhancement to potentially add time to his sentence or more opportunities for him to be convicted of something. However, someone posted an insightful comment here a couple of days ago, pointing out that in order to prove terrorism they will have to discuss his motivations at length, which will only make him more sympathetic to most jurors.
It also lets the defense examine “would a killer target the United healthcare CEO specifically because they were personally evil vs a statement against the system?” That’s also helpful for a defense angling for a nullification mistrial.
Technical question: isn’t nullification an innocent verdict, not a mistrial?
It is, but you need the whole jury to vote that way which i find particularly unlikely. One person voting for nullification, which is more likely, is a mistrial.
I am not a lawyer.
Nullification is when the jury hands in a verdict of “not guilty”, even though there’s a preponderance of evidence that the law was indeed broken by the defendant. They basically ignore the Judge’s instructions to weigh the evidence and do something else instead. This would trigger an appeal by the prosecution on the basis of mistrial, since the optics on that situation look like something procedural is way off.
I’m not well-versed in these matters, but I am intrigued by what would happen if this went to appeal. If it went all the way to SCOTUS, or even some appeals court with a crooked judge, that might not go so well for the defendant.
You don’t get to appeal a not guilty verdict right or wrong its done forever. A mistrial only happens before a verdict is reached so either side could be looking for justification for one if they believe that they stand to lose the case but the judge has to find there is cause.
Well that certainly gives nullification teeth. Interesting. Thank you.
I haven’t seen anything about this, your saying a terrorism charge doesn’t have a jury at all?
When this happens, it means the laws that enable these people are no longer acceptable to the people. That’s a dangerous place to be.
It’s only dangerous if you’re a mass murderer. Don’t want to get gunned down on the sidewalk and have people celebrate your death? Don’t be a mass murderer.
So, not guilty?
If it works for qualified immunity it works for Luigi.
Was Luigi ever trained that he was specifically not allowed to shoot a CEO in the back? If not, qualified immunity
Every time I hear the words “qualified immunity” I think about this:
I was first trained in acute psychiatry years ago to never ever in forever restrain people face down. Me and my highschool diploma were sitting in a side room in a state hospital for I shit you not a two. week. crash course in inpatient psychiatry after which they dumped me out on the unit to work with criminally insane men for two years. And in my four hour restraint class they hammered into us to never restrain people face down.
I remember seeing two men fighting and I just figured I’d grab one and somebody else would grab the other and we’d pull and I remember looking over my guy’s shoulder and seeing the other guy gnawing on his face and then there’s a hole in my memory (likely about 60 seconds; it happens with adrenaline) and the next thing I remember I guess we had all fallen and I was laying on top of the guy I grabbed and I shit you not the very first thought in my head was “oh shit, he’s face down I need to get off him” and I slid to the side and just kept a hand hovering over his shoulders in case he tried to pop up and… idk, bite my face off or something. I didn’t even know who it was until he looked back at me. But they had hammered that one thing into my head that hard that I didn’t know what the fuck this guy was gonna do and the first thought in my head was still to get off him.
So when I saw all these news stories and all this footage of the cops holding people facedown until they asphyxiate I started asking around. I don’t work with cops in the sense that they’re my coworkers but I do run into them a lot dropping off involuntary holds. So I started asking about how they’re trained to restrain people and if they have any training on how to protect people’s airways. And it turns out they do, actually. Everybody I asked pretty universally told me they’re trained to get the cuffs on then immediately turn them on their side. It’s not super advanced, in fact it’s super basic. Basic in the sense that you could’ve taught it to a highschool graduate in under two weeks.
So it’s funny you mention not being trained for something because actually yeah they are trained to not do things that kill people and yet-
Sympathy and empathy are definitely a problem in an openly corrupt, heartless justice system that only serves the elite.
Jury nullification
“Jury nullification is a fundamental aspect of the American jury system, allowing jurors to acquit defendants despite overwhelming evidence of guilt if they deem the law unjust or immoral. This concept has its roots in colonial America and has been exercised throughout U.S. history, often in response to unjust laws or societal norms.”
For those not on the know.
Werent the admins banning posts about jury nullification for some bullshit “glorifying violence” reason or something?
.world did for a little bit but i think they ended up deciding that it can be referenced for an already done crime, whereas if it is said in context before someone commits a crime then it would be considered inciting violence or whatever.
So it’s ok in this context of Luigi, the alleged killer.
Oh, so like when it goes the other way and the public decides someone is guilty long before they go to trial and prosecutors go after him anyway.
Big deal. The jury will decide one way or another and I will be very surprised that the highest charges will stick if they get normal people on the bench.
The fact that this guy had a manhunt out for him when people are murdered every day and nearly no resources are used at all to go after them is astounding. Just shows the law is there for the rich, not the rest of us.
There was another school shooting this week, i think that’s the 80th this year and people don’t seem to care. Why would anyone care about some parasite millionaire when innocent kids are gunned down everyday and that’s just the way it is.
327th this year, according to https://k12ssdb.org/all-shootings
80, 327 same thing; at the end of the day these kids aren’t creating any jobs or producing any value for the share holders. So are they really even people?
Wow, this is stunning data. People just lost their minds in the pandemic.
Wow haven’t even heard of this shooting. Where did it happen? It’s not in the news here at all.
Jury Nullfication is the People’s Presidential Pardon
Just don’t mention jury nullification in front of a judge or prosecutor. They hate that.
I know.
Definitely mention it, just not at your own trial or after you’ve been selected for jury duty
Never mention it. They will often ask questions about how you think a juror should or can act. If you answer them in a way that shows you might know about nullification, you are out. If you then later admit you know about it, they will point to those questions and know you lied about them. Safest answer is to just never, ever use the term, ideally you should go through the motions in deliberation of putting the the rules together, like you are just realizing it’s a possibility then and there.
Yeah, I’m saying that we should mention it as non jurors. Its our responsibility to tell them. Here on Lemmy and every way we can. Let jurors know that they have the ability to do justice, even if the law is wrong
Yep. Some parts of the law have evolved so far afield from their original context that they conflict with other legal basics. You never know when a conversation like this one might be personally applicable. No one expects or plans to die, or to be called on for jury duty. Its a surprise.
That’s the jury working exactly they way it should
Right, not sure what they’re complaining about.
They’re just going to keep going through jury pools until they can find enough bootlickers, which seems to be the antithesis of the “jury of your peers” system.
His peers find his actions justifiable. The rich can get over it.
Jurors have to be approved by both the defense and the prosecution. They will not get a 100% bootlicker jury
On this particular case they will find a way. A little nudge here, a few background checks moved to the top of the queue there. I think the way it works is that lawyers have only so many chances to reject a jury candidate and then they run out of rejections. Thats what I saw on TV anyway.
No. Again, either the prosecutor or the defense can reject any juror
I agree, but isnt it true that either side only gets the opportunity to reject so many candidates before they lose the option to reject? They cant just keep on rejecting forever right?
There is no rule, only a judge that may get annoyed
I think we’re each half right, theres some nuance. I finally goiogled it like I should have from the start. Heres a law office talking about it in New York:
There’s a McDonald’s worker able to be jury. Oh wait, he didn’t get the reward money as his claim got denied for bullshit reasons, just like insurance… Never mind.
Is there a source for this? Last time I heard about it, it turned out to be just a ”possibly, maybe, it could be denied”, but nothing was decided yet.
So, the reports say “might not get it” Like this report but in almost all cases reward money isn’t paid. In this case I’d think he has somewhat of a chance to get it due to public pressure, now that it’s in the media. But in most cases it is denied because of bullshit reasons. “Thanks to your tip we were able to catch the guy, but through other sources we would have found him as well, so, no” or “multiple agencies offered reward money, so they both say the other one should pay up, so none pay up” or “you didn’t follow the right procedures to get the money” or any other bullshit reason to deny payout. Often you’d have to prove you were the sole reason the person got caught, while you don’t have access to restricted case files so good luck with that.
It basically works like the health insurance system in the US. They will do anything they can to reject your claim while you will have to fight to get what you should.
Fun fact: radio stations do the same. They offer amazing prices, get loads of people to listen ‘to find the hidden clue’, have them call an expensive phone number. They pick a winner, have them on the air over the phone, everyone hears how happy they are by winning, so people will try to compete next time again. But they never get a price. Because, no one will hear they didn’t get any. Or at least, this used to be so, now with social media it’s harder to hide these shady tactics.
Not just radio stations by the way, This was recently.
This is the best answer ive seen thus far. Ive just being saying all sources reporting he isn’t being paid are sourcing their info from a game of telephone origination from articles speculating he might not be paid. This is much better written though thanks!
Got no doubts about what you stated (also a huge wtf to that basketball charity fuckup) but I’m still convinced the snitch will get her money just as Lugi will be convicted for terrorism, although the commenter above, in his epic joury-comment wrote that the double-conviction wasn’t allowed under the state law. If it isn’t FBI or the police who pays her then it will be the some other CEOs. Maybe on a charity event.
No one cares whether the snitch will get their money. All eyes will be on the court case. And she it comes to money, everything will be done to deny a payout. It’s how big corps and the government work. Whenever there’s a desk approving a payout, there will be a desk above it questioning it and putting it on hold, finding ways to drown it in paperwork. Spending money means someone will be held responsible for losing funds, which means someone will have a bad rep concerning their career so no one wants to work towards a payout. Capitalism thrives around reducing spendings and increasing profits. That’s a major flaw of capitalism. Investing in the future, the general public or the greater good are not part of the equation.
he called the wrong number to report it. u have to call a special crimenow number
Hahahaha, the corporate shill got shafted. Rip bozo, maybe you learned something.
“yeah, thank you for the golden tip, we caught the guy thanks to you. But you snitched, and we do not endorse that (with all the whistle lowers lately) so we’re not going to reward your behavior by paying you to show people it’s better to keep your mouth shut… Or we will shut it for you (again, like with all the whistle blowers). Snitches get stitches!”
deleted by creator
I understand that she can only get the money if he gets convicted. They’ll probably still find some other excuse not to pay her, but still - I argue that’s a pretty big bias that should disqualify her from jurying.
Billionaries and CEOs don’t bother to show up to jury duty
Imagine they show for this though…
If I was the only working class juror, I would try my hardest to get the CEO jurors sequestered with me.
Can we really call ceo’s our peers?
Nope. I’d be deliberately wasting their time and money until we’re a hung jury. They aren’t capable of a good faith discussion.
Can you imagine their horror as they watch stocks slip and make an alarming $12.50/hr like a “commoner”? Gasp! Even worse have to sleep in a 3star hotel.
And so much for a “jury of our peers” if they are padded with billionaires.
Juror 1: It wasn’t him. I know it in my heart…because I’ve had congenital heart disease my whole life, so I’m acutely aware of how my heart is feeling at all times. Like when my insurance company raised my premiums, I felt that in my heart. I feel this verdict in my heart, too.
Juror 2: At first, I thought it was him, but then I didn’t. Something about it made me change my mind. He just looks like a highly principled person. The media owes this man an apology.
Juror 3: This reminds me of the time I went to the ER with a severe migraine, and the insurance company denied payment for the visit because there was no proof that I had a migraine and said it could have been anxiety, which wasn’t covered in my plan. Maybe this wasn’t murder. Maybe this was assault. I guess we’ll never know now.
Juror 4: The prosecution made a good case, but the defense made one very good point: the victim has a long history of gaslighting vulnerable people. It made it hard to trust them.
Juror 5: I think it was a cover up. Maybe the “victim” killed himself and wanted to make it look like a murder so his family would get the insurance money. They seemed to know a lot about insurance loopholes and tactics.
Juror 6: I feel for the victim, but I think that considering the charges, they need a second opinion…Oh, the law states that someone can’t be tried for the same crime twice? If they think that is unjust, they could work with government to come up with a better system then. Though it is going to be a tough battle to repeal the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution since they will need approval from 38 states, but maybe they have the public’s sympathy.
Juror 7: I’m glad this trial is over. I need to get to the home to take care of my wife with cancer. The insurance company keeps giving me trouble, and she’s too weak to fight it.
Juror 8: Did you know that the defendant hadn’t even met the victim once. Who targets a random stranger for no reason at all? The prosecution wasn’t able to make a case defining the motive of the defendant.
Juror 9: In my experience, you have to be careful with insurance companies. You can never trust them. The prosecution was working for an insurance company, so it was hard to believe anything they presented.
Juror 10: As a family practice doctor, I have to deal with insurance companies that lie about denials all the time, so I can tell when they are lying, and I think they were lying in the trial.
Juror 11: NOT GUILTY. The defendant seemed to be defending others from death or serious bodily injury, which is legal according to New York Penal Law 35.15.
Juror 12: The defense made a good point. The victim had told his doctor that he smoked a cigarette once in college, and I heard that smoking cigarettes can lead to poor health. Maybe the victim would have survived if he hadn’t smoked before. We have to consider that.
Maybe this is somewhat similar to a woman killing her rapist, after police refuse to investigate? There are probably examples of leniency in such cases.
When a person or entity is responsible for the untimely deaths of literally thousands of American citizens, the question should be whether or not this was a justifiable homicide. Is a police officer put on trial for shooting and killing a gunman mowing down children at a school? Why is this case different?
is a police officer put on trial for killing a baby?
It would ultimately depend on the context but sure. “Innocent” Germans were put on trial post WW2 for enabling the system that resulted in the murder of millions of people, how is this any different?
I think you’re misinterpreting the comment. Police officers in the US are regularly not put on trial even for egregious killings. They’re getting trial more often after the BLM protests, but they’re still usually getting found not guilty because we’re inundated with copaganda.
True. Worth noting as bad as police are most countries outside of America actually have civilian oversight of the police. You can argue the effectiveness of it but it’s lightyears ahead of the lack of training and corruption that America faces.
If they went with justifiable homicide they could have gotten an easy conviction. Instead they went with terrorism and Murder 1, both of which there is too much sympathy for.
justifiable homicide
Is that a thing in court??
No, but they sometimes undercharge as manslaughter, negligent discharge of a firearm, or assault.
deleted by creator
I’m not disagreeing with your sentiment but legally speaking that’s a completely different situation. The main difference is the immediacy and nature of anticipated harm.
Again, not challenging your take on it, just highlighting that the law doesn’t see it that way.
It was immediate; that CEO was killing people every day.
Again, I appreciate the sentiment but that’s not really what ‘immediate’ means in this context.
If I was a juror I wouldn’t buy that for a second. That CEO was actively killing people.
Again, not disagreeing with the sentiment, but legally he WASN’T actively killing people. Nobody was in any immediate danger. That means physically and temporally immediate. That means the defences and laws that are relevant are entirely different. That’s just how it works and how the law is set up.
Sure but the law includes interpretation by jurors too, and in reality he was an immediate threat. I’m not going to put a man in prison because of a definition that’s clearly wrong.
The jurors have discretion, yes, but that doesn’t kick in at the jury vetting stage. Again, I get the sentiment, but that’s just the way it works.
