He could just get elected president
It sure would be great to have something to cheer for.
What the fuck. How did journalism get this utterly fucked?
Experts point to a phenomenon called jury nullification, which occurs when a jury votes to acquit a defendant even though they may believe they committed a crime.
No, there is no “may”! It is jury nullification only when the jury believes the defendant committed a crime. There is no “may” about it.
Fucking so afraid to actually write something they will insert this uncertain language everywhere to the point it doesn’t even make sense.
What is the point in reading your article, when even you don’t seem to believe what you are writing is correct?!
Yeah, the “may” totally changes it. If the jury thinks the defendant is not guilty, then it’s just a not guilty verdict, not jury nullification. For it to be jury nullification, the jury has to think the defendant is guilty.
“Phenomenon called Jury Nullification.”
Disgusting langauge, it makes it sound like a newfangled perversion of the justice system instead of an actual right that people have.
Here’s the thing: this is an Indian article and they specifically don’t have jury trials or nullification as a right.
nullification as a right
Neither does US recognize it as a right. No matter whether you believe jury nullification is a perversion of justice or irreplaceable bulwark against tyranny, it’s origin can’t be disputed. Jury nullification is not a right that was ever recognized explicitly, but an unintended side-effect of other rights (right to jury trial and jury verdicts being final).
He should just get nominated to become presisent. Every penalty, accisation and conviction will go away - just like magic.
Only if he runs for the GOP
Every major decision in this country seems to end up going the way the wealthy want.
They definitely want this to have maximum punishment to deter copycats.
This will never happen. You won’t find a jury in the country that will unanimously give a not guilty verdict. Best case is a hung jury twice in a row leading to a mistrial. Worst case they find one of the loopholes that lets the judge decide or they unanimously declare him guilty.
They don’t worry about all the school shootings because their kids go to private school which is a big reason why nothing is done (24 private school shootings vs 392 public school shootings for the past 25 years or so.) The working class families are the victims, so nobody in power really cares beyond lip service.
deleted by creator
Hey. That 24 vs 392 number, what’s the percentages? Like how many private schools VS public are we talking about?
Cause that number without context seems extremely misleading. Not trying to start shit. I just don’t know where you got those numbers or where I’d get the totals to compare.
Indeed, numbers on their own are meaningless. Based on this graph, private schools make up 10% of the enrollments. Public schools are 83% and charter schools make up the remaining 7%.
I have no idea where the charter schools are counted when it comes to school shootings though. If they are counted as public we get
Private: 24/10 = 2.4 shootings per percent of enrollment Public: 392/(83+7) = 4.36 shootings per percent of enrollmentand if they are counted as private we get
Private: 24/(10+7) = 1.41 shootings per percent of enrollment Public: 392/83 = 4.72 shootings per percent of enrollmentSo either way the public schools have more shootings by almost a factor 2 at least.
Cheers. Not as extreme as the bare numbers hint at, still a big difference.
I wonder why that is? Surely rich children have access to guns, (more than average access?) so is it the security at the school? Or is it mental health care? It is that being rich doesn’t make you as miserable and desperate as a kid? Hmmm.
Imagine if they had held a trial for the people who cut off the heads of the royalty and the court in France.
Technically, yes, it’s murder. But it was the only way out for the vast population to earn their feeedom from their oppressors. Because this is a response and legitimate defence against the institutionalized violence that the population had been facing.
They weave and dodge all accountability, demonstrating how untouchable they are by anything other than outright violence.
Boy, this, “Jury Nullification,” thing sure sounds like it would give everyday Americans a dangerous amount of power of our judicial system! I hope the media writes a lot more articles about it so that more people are aware of this terrible, terrible thing that they should never, ever do.
I know if I ever got on the jury I would go for innocent.
No! You mustn’t! It’s your duty as a juror to uphold the law! Even if you don’t agree with it an there are no enforceable penalties for voting with your conscience instead of the law!
Which is very likely why you would never get on jury for a case like this.
Just saying, that is how it works in the real world
This is why we need to ensure everyone knows about jury nullifcation so it can no longer be a reason for keeping someone off a jury.
That’s OK, you’re still using up the prosecutor’s ammo during jury selection.
I was on one about 7 years ago with a guy who didn’t believe in prison. He was never going to vote guilty. Where I was you only needed 10 out of 12, which is very rare. And since then they changed to needing 12 out of 12, so quiet jury notification has already started…
Seems highly unlikely but we’ll see.
If Kyle Rittenhouse can walk free, so can Luigi. FREE LUIGI!
Defense of others. He acted to prevent the deaths of millions at the hands of a monster.
He stopped a mass murderer
He says that most of us despise insurance companies and have had bad experiences with them, but that doesn’t mean we think people should be going around killing insurance executives in the street.
Don’t be so sure.
This take seems in stark contrast to the overwhelming support he got from all sides of politics in the US.
Plenty of people feel his actions were justified.
I remain genuinely surprised nobody tried anything at the inauguration.
I think people are dissuaded by a few factors.
The first is obviously it’s very difficult.
The second is you’re almost certainly going to be caught. All the resources in the country will be spent finding you.
Also, and I think this is potentially the most important, is the result isn’t worth it. It’s not a “cut off the head of the snake” situation. Trump isn’t the end of this. Hell, Vance might be even worse. If Trump is murdered he becomes a martyr. That’s not what you want to happen.
It’s not going to improve anything, so why throw your life away attempting to do something nearly impossible?
I think the only option for killing Trump that has a good outcome is someone in his cabinet or in a senior position in the military does it to stop him from doing something. Anything else probably strengthens his base.
Oh, I was thinking less about Trump specifically and more about Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg all in the same place at one time. Also, Cook and Pichai though I think those two are less generally loathed.
Thats because the people who actually go around killing people are mostly on his side.
And whomever killed the CEO, or people like them, clearly planned it out well enough to succeed. They would take one look at the inauguration and realize that’s an impossible task.
A President has lots of security. You can’t just jump him on the street and sneak away.
There’s an entire industrial complex for preventing it.
Theoretically low level officers would make better targets as it would drastically increase security costs to try and protect them.
The moment it went indoors any chance went to 0%
Inside the Capitol? Would not have been feasible.
Yeah that place is impenetrable.
Violence is only acceptable against the poors.
We need to release him so he can work on Elon next.
Removed by mod
Every time someone posits “outcome might not be terrible” hypotheticals about the US “justice” system, I turn into Hawkeye, and not the Alan Alda one…
What’s up with these news sources from India? They keep turning up in my Google News feed and they’re often obvious bullshit
Pakistan: “First time?”
There’s always somebody winning at SEO and gaming the algorithm, and there are few tactics more effective than “Exciting and Wrong”
I mean I’m pretty sure the evidence for his arrest was flimsy as fuck. As long as he has a competent lawyer (which he should have) he should be able to get the judge to throw out the case. I think.
Edit: Turns out I’m wrong, see this.
I mean I’m pretty sure the evidence for his arrest was flimsy as fuck.
What makes you say that?
I mean he was arrested based on low-quality security camera pictures that barely, if at all, looked like him. And the evidence seemed too obvious unless he intended to be arrested. The officers who arrested him also said something like “I saw him and just knew it was him”, which does not inspire confidence. There’s a not insignificant chance the evidence they did “find” on him was planted.
By those standards, most convictions are based on evidence that’s “flimsy as fuck”.
They really are.
It’s kind of scary.I mean most convictions (I’d hope) are based on evidence that makes sense. I guess what I’m saying is: If we discount the possibility of intentional martyrdom, then it doesn’t make sense that someone would walk around with that much incriminating evidence right after committing a crime that would get the whole nation hot on their tail. Not saying he definitively didn’t do it, but I won’t discount the possibility of the contents of his bag being planted.
it doesn’t make sense that someone would walk around with that much incriminating evidence right after committing a crime
You vastly overestimate the intelligence of most people.
And they’re underestimating the laziness of investigators and prosecutors.
What if that is true though? What if it’s even virtually guaranteed to be true, given the effort and time required to reasonably prove something like that combined with the limited resources given (and which we can afford to give) to the justice system to do so, and the sheer number of crimes to deal with?
Honestly, the more I hear about the number of cases of people being convicted falsely, or where it’s hard to tell if they truly were guilty, due to evidence being poor, or misconstrued, or based on faulty foresic science or known unreliable sources like eyewitness testimony, the more I worry that if called to serve on a jury I’d be effectively unable to do so, because I have come to doubt if the justice system is even capable of proving something beyond what I would consider to be a reasonable doubt.
The public does not know the evidence against him, yet. The prosecution has that under lock and key. We only know the relatively small handful of photos that surfaced in the media, and we don’t even know if the prosecution will use those.
Watching carefully here, and I have my own personal opinion and hope for the trial outcome will be, but let’s not hyperbolically jump to “we know what the evidence is” (or isn’t)
Wasn’t the evidence the things they found in his bag? The gun and manifesto?
I hope Luigi gets the jury nullification and walks free. But let’s not pretend that he’s falsly accused or was illegally detained/arrested.
The police can completely detain someone based only on a passing resemblance to a grainy security cam image of a suspect. They can detain someone off even a vague description or sketch. They only need reasonable suspicion to detain someone, and that is a very low bar.
In order to arrest, they need the higher standard of probable cause. They have to have some sort of evidence that leads them to believe that you have, are, or were about to commit a crime, or observe you in said commission of a crime. I don’t have all the details from the arrest, but it sounds like he was identified visually, yes, but also that he provided them the same fake id which was also used to check into the hostel in Manhattan where the security cam footage came from. That is enough to connect him to the crime and gain probable cause for the arrest. Actually, even independent of the shooting, providing false identification to the police during there investigation is itself an arrestable crime in Pennsylvania, too.
And even if you think that the evidence that was on his person at the McDonald’s in Pittsburgh was wholly or partially planted, it is not the only evidence they have. For example, they have a water bottle and protein bar wrapper found near the shooting that the shooter left behind. Both have Luigi’s fingerprints on them.
Luigi did it. That much seems apparent. Now whether that makes him “guilty”… that’s another question.
To be clear, we have no idea what evidence they have, except for what has been sworn to under oath. And that evidence may or may not be reliable.
Don’t assume any press release contained any facts.
There is some flat-earther level of denial going on with Luigi supporters.
I guess I was wrong then. Gotta thank Cunningham’s law.
Do you have a source for your claim about the fingerprints? I recall that there was a bottle and a wrapper near the scene of the shooting that may have been left by the shooter, but this is the first I’m hearing about fingerprints.
I also don’t understand how tying someone to the hostel would tie them to the crime. We saw the hostel security images during the manhunt, but those images didn’t look like an obvious match to the security footage of the shooting. The eyebrows looked different and we really couldn’t see much of the shooters face for comparison. Maybe the police have evidence that establishes a string connection between flirty hostel checkin guy and the shooter, but i have not seen it.
I’m not saying that it wasn’t him. But I have not seen enough evidence to say that Luigi did it…
I mean, they caught Timothy McVeigh because of a missing license plate. It’s not unusual to get caught over something that’d have been otherwise insignificant.
I mean, they caught Timothy McVeigh because of a missing license plate
Or there may have been some parallel construction going on.
With McVeigh? Doubtful, read up on that whole situation, he was definitely not innocent.
If I remember right, his lawyer is primo. She is one of the best.
The judge won’t throw it out. Career suicide. We’re looking at a jury trial unless he gets killed first.
Another health insurance CEO gets murdered?
Haha! Don’t tease ;)
I saw graffiti while driving in Seattle: KILL 3, WIN A PRIZE!
