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.
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.
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.
I’m sorry if I implied that jurors interpreting the law “kicks in” during jury vetting. I’m not actually sure what that means.