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.
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.
Nah, he’s guilty, but I wouldn’t convict him.
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.
Handwriting analysis is hardly objective.
He’s pleaded not guilty, and unless you have more up to date information, he’s made no confession outside of the alleged note.
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.