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.
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.
Now is a good time for all Americans to learn about Juror Nullification
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
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.
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
deleted by creator
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.
The media likes to downplay that the CEO had straight up killed people. Eye for an eye applies. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice to find Luigi guilty.
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.
This is actually quite an interesting case study for jury selection / vetting. The motive clearly relates to political views about the healthcare industry that affect every single American other than extreme outliers. It’s therefore pretty impossible to select a jury that can be entirely neutral. Because no matter how politically unengaged they are, it still affects them.
Arguably, the most neutral person would be someone who hasn’t interacted much with healthcare as a citizen. But healthcare issues in America start straight away from birth, because the process of birth itself is a healthcare matter for both mother and child, and there’s no opting out from being born. That’s only not the case if you’re foreign born or from a very wealthy background, but you can’t have a jury comprised of just them because that’s not representative of the American public.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this drags on for a long time before any trial even starts. In fact, I’d be suspicious if it doesn’t.
If you think of other issues, it’s not as strange as you would think. If someone is accused of speeding and goes to trial, or reckless manslaughter for a traffic accident, let’s say, the jury will be filled with drivers, most of whom break traffic laws on a daily basis.
As a result of this obvious impasse, the standard is not whether people have exposure to the general issue or the shitty system at hand. You can be sure the prosecution will pretend it is, and the defense will point out it’s not.
I’d argue that’s not really equivalent, because being a driver or not doesn’t really have any implications towards motive in that case, or sympathy towards it from a jury. It’s also not political - or at least, most people don’t see it that way.
My point is, this is a race that almost every American has a horse in. So how do you draw a satisfactorily unbiased jury? I don’t have the answer, but I can see why it’s evidently become a sticking point.
Everyone has a horse in the race, just like with breaking traffic laws. If I’m a juror on a speeding case, and I speed too, of course I’m likely to be sympathetic to the defendant. Similarly, what about cops investigating or testifying about DV when over 1/3 of them beat their families? There’s bias, but the “justice” system still operates.
Or we could look at the Google trials. Are we seriously thinking that no potential jurors would be able to have ever used use their services or products? … That all just doesn’t work. It’s nearly impossible to avoid Google. And your standard is even lower – you’re talking about exclusion based on use of competing companies in the field along with the company itself. In other words, I can’t be a juror on a Google case if I’ve used Google or Apple or Microsoft products…? That’s the parallel to the health insurance industry.
Of course that standard couldn’t possibly make sense, and legal scholars knew this centuries ago. So it’s not how the law works, and it never was.
It just doesn’t equate with traffic offences, because it’s not seen as a political matter. In fact, they’re generally strict liability meaning motive isn’t in question anyway.
Broad claims about DV in officers, again, don’t cast into doubt an individual witness (without even going into the veracity of that number), which is a separate point from jury vetting anyway.
Again, with Google, having used a product doesn’t necessarily mean bias is present as you rightly point out. Is using Google going to influence someone the same as systematic healthcare issues that are central to the motive in this case? Clearly not.
I’m not disagreeing with your sentiment. I’m just telling you for a fact that there are very good reasons why the composition of the jury is especially crucial in this particular case, for both sides. Of course that’s always an issue to some extent, but the profile and nature of this case are unique. The proof of this is in the very article we’re commenting on, so I’m not sure what you disagree with.
Everyone simply knows he is not guilty.
liable* guilty is reserved for criminal cases and killing parasites isn’t a crime.
Eveyone is the parasite of someone else. Think of it before spitting nazi shit next time.
He’s 100% guilty. He crossed state lines to stalk and shoot his victim dead. He even wrote a mini manifesto where he admitted the crime.
The issue is that his victim was a piece of shit and so there is a great deal of sympathy with the killer who appears to have suffered his own health issues. It must be hard to find jurors who haven’t been personally negatively impacted by United Health or else know someone who has.
That means in a jury of 12 it might be impossible to ensure the verdict is unanimous. I am sure the defence will also try to make the trial about private health insurance and will be leaning hard into things like the victim and his company’s culpability in so much pain, suffering & death.
So far we have not seen any evidence of his guilt. We have opened an investigation with the IDF to check whether he is guilty and we will come back to that in the future.
He was literally caught with a written confession.
To the Feds, I’ll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.
That is something we will discuss with the Israeli government and we will get back to you. In the mean time we cannot draw any conclusions.
Nah, he’s guilty, but I wouldn’t convict him.
Guilty of what? Caring too much?
Murder is murder no matter how much the victim had it coming.
Edit: as others have told me murder is only applicable after conviction. My post here is wrong and dumb.
The word murder has a specific meaning in law: The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Given that the whole point of the act was that the CEO and his company were indifferent to human life, one could argue that the shooter valued the life and dignity of his fellow beings far more than his target. Furthermore, the tens of thousands of deaths attributed to the vile strategies of this company in particular would seem to offer a very significant justification and excuse. Of course, malice aforethought is inherent to an assassination, so I guess they have him there.
In the end, though, the jury will be under no legal obligation to follow the law and could choose to find him not guilty if they agree with his reasons for acting.
I agree, its entirely possible that a jury may find his act of killing justified.
Don’t know what you’re talking about. They clearly have the wrong guy.
Just some other random guy with weapons and a manifesto admitting to killing a health exec
He’s pleading not guilty, claiming that the cops planted that shit.
And the cops routinely lie and plant evidence, so it’s not out of the question.
If the cops did indeed plant evidence then happy days for the defence since it should be easy to disprove. e.g. by simple handwriting analysis or other such means. But this is fantasy wishful thinking since he did write the words. So stick to the reality here. He shot the guy and confessed to it. Lord knows what else he said during interviews with the cops but probably lots. His defense team will attempt to disqualify evidence and diminish his culpability while transforming the trial into one about private health care. They only need one not guilty and that’s what they’ll do their best to achieve.
If the cops did indeed plant evidence then happy days for the defence since it should be easy to disprove. e.g. by simple handwriting analysis or other such means. But this is fantasy wishful thinking since he did write the words. So stick to the reality here
Handwriting analysis is hardly objective.
He shot the guy and confessed to it.
He’s pleaded not guilty, and unless you have more up to date information, he’s made no confession outside of the alleged note.
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?
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.
They will try Luigi until it sticks. It’s critical to the powerful that they send the message they are beyond reproach.
I’m sad I won’t get picked for the jury. I’d refuse to convict on all counts. If Trump gets no punishment for literally anything this dude should get no punishment for fighting back against an absolutely broken system. Honestly, I don’t view his actions to be something to cause a public backlash. The prosecution is what will cause the public backlash, imo.
That’s not really how jury’s work though.
You’re not there to dispense justice. You’re there to decide whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against him.
Someone will be along in a moment to tell us all about Jury Nullification, a refusal to find the defendant guilty on the grounds that it would be unjust, despite the defendant’s obvious guilt.
This pretty much reduces the court process to a popularity contest - how does the jury “feel” about the defendant, what are the “vibes” of the circumstances before them.
Jurors determine guilt, and judges determine punishments. The separation of these concerns is the best way we have found to mitigate corruption since the advent of written laws. The outcome of a specific case may be unjust, but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.
but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.
Lol…phew…omg…phew. Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh today.
The US justice system is easily one of the most corrupt in history at this point. It’s honestly kind of disturbing someone can make a statement like that with a straight face.
The separation of these concerns is the best way we have found to mitigate corruption since the advent of written laws. The outcome of a specific case may be unjust, but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.
Do you have some examples of justice systems which do not separate these concerns and produce better outcomes? If not, your comment is just hyperbole.
There’s simply not a “just” system of laws. I’m not an anarchist or anything, but trying to pretend the US justice system is more or less fair than the things that came before it, or contemporary systems in other countries is pure fantasy.
Might makes right has always been the way with humans, and I think it will always be the way with humans.
I pretty much agree with you on all points.
Anyone who works in law will tell you that justice is pretty thin to the ground.
I think you’ve misconstrued my position though. I’m not saying the current system is fine, merely that the role of jurors is to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against them, and the role of the judge is to determine the appropriate punishment, and that this separation of duties is the best structure we have to mitigate corruption.
I’m not saying there’s no corruption, merely that allowing a jury to determine whether a defendant should be punished despite their guilt is tantamount to corruption. If a jury can determine penalties then the whole court process is basically a popularity contest.
A few months ago, I would’ve told you that I’m holding to the belief that might doesn’t make right and that no one is above the law. However, recent events have demonstrated that more than half the voting public prefer a system where the law does not apply to wealthy nor powerful people. I’m astonished, but apparently my views are not represented amongst the population generally. It seems that in the current era there is no denying that there is a class of people to whom the law does not apply.
Ok we are in line as far as our thinking goes…now chew on this…60 percent of Americans can’t read above a 6th grade level. Those are your peers. Do you really want someone that struggles with The Hunger Games to decide a life or death case?
I just hope I’m never put to trial. Facts simply don’t matter any more and theater wins.
Maybe they should fix the justice system if they want juries to actually act like they’re intended to.
But they won’t, billionaires, CEOs, business execs, and other parasites will continue to do what they like and harm who they like with a slap on the wrist at most.
Who is “they” and how might they “fix” the justice system ?
More than half of American voters just chose to subvert the already ineffective legal system, to install a corrupt felon as dictator.
Are you proposing that allowing a jury of peers drawn from this public ought to be able to make up the law based on the vibe of cases before them ?
Who is “they” and how might they “fix” the justice system ?
The oligarchs that own the country.
Are you proposing that allowing a jury of peers drawn from this public ought to be able to make up the law based on the vibe of cases before them ?
I’m proposing that the inherent protections the judicial system gives people be used to protect Luigi.
Justice is dead so long as billionaires can cause immeasurable death and suffering without repercussions.
You’re operating under the incorrect assumption that the public can control the law.
If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.
inherent protections the judicial system gives people
Like the right to an attorney? Sure.
Jury nullification is not an “intentional feature” of the justice process. It’s corruption.
I said inherent, not intentional.
And it’s not inherently corrupt. It can be used as a check against immoral law, or it can be used to refuse justice to just law. It’s entirely based on the case it’s used in.
and how exactly is a jury deciding about someone’s fate not already a popularity contest?
A jury does not decide someone’s fate.
They determine whether a person is guilty of the charges against them beyond any reasonable doubt.
A jury refusing to find a defendant guilty despite their obvious guilt simply because their actions might be understandable is corruption.
60,000 Americans die every year because of the insurance industry, but how many oligarchs were brought to justice? How many oligarchs were arrested for raping children on Epstein’s island? How many oligarchs were arrested for funding Israel’s genocide of Gaza? How many oligarchs were arrested for the massive tax evasion revealed from the Panama papers???
Justice that only punches down is not justice. If our system will not hold the wealthy accountable for their crimes against humanity then our system is utterly rotten
Everything you said is true, but it doesn’t really contradict my point.
The current system is terrible, but it’s better than having a jury of laypeople make up the law based on the vibe of the case.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better judicial system.
A better judicial system, one where it implicitly illegal for those with money to receive preferential treatment. And one where victimless crimes built on abstract ideals of abstinence only moralism dont ruin the lives of marginalized people while wealthy privileged individuals engage in these same behaviors with impunity, and one where qualified immunity isn’t grossly abused to avoid consequence for a militarized police force and portray a fantasy image tjat police generally always have a pristine moral compass and aren’t just flawed human beings with a propensity to abuse their power in a system with so many unjust laws that are designed to favor those with privilege and wealth.
How about just that for starters and i will get back to you for any further improvements.
This sounds like a very just system but how can it be achieved? How would you restructure the existing system to achieve these outcomes?
The comment I originally responded to suggested that juries could just dispense justice based on the vibe of the case before them. IMO such a system would be more or less guaranteed to fail to produce any of the outcomes on your list.
Considering its apparent that those with massive amounts of capital have hijacked the system, if you you look at the wall street war profiteering industrialists relationships with our DOD, as well as every branch of our government and historical events such as the business plot, nixon shock and 8 years of the Regan administration i think its evident we live in a fascist authoritarian police state that works to violently suppress any leftist policy that Benefits working people. We have no left party in the US only a far right and center right. violent tactics are regularly used against peaceful demonstrators so anyone with a brain knows the system will use whatever tools are at its disposal to thwart change. So luigi seems to have said the quiet part out loud if he is indeed the perpetrator of the acts he allegedly committed.
So there is really only one option besides violent revolution and thats a massive general strike. If at least 25% of the labor force refused to produce labor for as long as was needed to get demands met then that could work but i feel even that will be met with violence and martial law. So that puts us back to square one / the drawing board
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.
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.
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.
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.
