• AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      They charged him with terrorism so a regular jury won’t get to make that decision. It will be a federal grand jury of selected stooges, and maybe even a secret court.

      • EpeeGnome@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        7 hours ago

        A federal grand jury isn’t a replacement for a regular federal trial jury. They’re completely different things. A grand jury decides if there is a strong enough case to take the charges to trial, or if they should just be dismissed. When a grand jury isn’t used, the trial judge makes that determination themselves. I agree that the terrorism charge will affect how the trial is conducted, but I don’t know enough on that topic to comment further.

        • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          5 hours ago

          That’s true but the way that a federal jury works is very different.

          It allows them to choose people from outside of the area in which the crime occurred.

          Making it a federal trial jury instead of a state trial jury allows them to charge this single murder against an individual perpetrated by another individual who made no public statement with a much more severe crime than the state laws that he broke would normally allow.

          It’s also important to note that making it a federal trial makes it less public as there will be no cameras allowed. They don’t want him tried in the state of New York because that could legally be televised which is a bad look when you’ve already got judicial homicide lined up and the trial is purely performative.

          Being that they can choose people from all over and that the process of jury selection is even more opaque at the federal level they can make sure there won’t be any nullification issues.

          The way they are treating Luigi whether or not he’s guilty indicates that it’s not relevant whether or not he’s guilty. They legitimately don’t care, this is about sending a message that the poors don’t get to fight back.

  • quixotic120@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    uh, dunno if people have noticed but the Mediterranean is kind of goin through some shit right now. Also Italy has a pretty notable history of bombings and assassinations

    But also what the other person said, dude is american. I’m so sick of my family members talking like sopranos characters because our grandparents were actual Italians. Plus they 100% definitely didn’t say gabbagool and proshoot before like 2003

      • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Yeah but they’re saying their family didn’t start pronouncing it that way until they saw the Sopranos and think it makes them special.

    • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Yes, we know he’s an American citizen, calm down please. So was Al Capone BTW, who certainly worked a lot harder to deserve a terrorism charge, but they ended up nailing him on tax evasion. So perhaps it’s really the definition of terrorism that changed. I think you’re taking the joke a little too serious.

      As for your family members, I’m afraid I can’t help you with that.

    • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I’m pretty sure it’s up to the state attorney to decide what charges to bring is all I’ll say.

    • FanBlade@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Have you done actual research or are you assuming because it feels right, it must be?

          • wieson@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            13 hours ago

            I think that for terrorism you need the goal to instill terror in the population. Since it was so specifically targeted and only one victim, I don’t know how well it fits. Also, most of the population doesn’t feel terror, maybe he should be hit with satisfaction charges.

            • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              12 hours ago

              The definition of terrorism doesn’t say you need to terrify people at all.

              Besides, there’s been a lot of acts that are generally agreed to be terrorist acts, that have targeted a very small group of people, such as a religious group, or even one specific individual. The IRA’s famous reply to Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.

              It seems his goal was to terrify one small group of people, namely senior people in the healthcare industry, and I think that counts.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        “Unlimited scope of people” does not require political statement.

  • Donkter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Is there any chance that the terrorism charge is so ridiculous that it actually strengthens Luigi’s case and makes his defense better?

    • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Local militias are perfectly acceptable as per the second amendment, as long as they’re “well regulated”, whatever that means…

      • unknown1234_5@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        14 hours ago

        it means that it needs to be an actual maintained organization, not Jim bob and his buddies threatening anybody they don’t like. it’s also not a requirement, it’s only the reasoning provided.

    • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      100
      ·
      13 hours ago

      They also don’t charge people who blow up abortion clinics with terrorism either. They haven’t since the 60s - 70s.

      If you look it up the courts have been petitioned several times to associate abortion clinic bombings with Christian terrorism but they keep refusing to call it what it is.

      After reading about that fiasco I have very little faith our government actually has a working definition of terrorism that doesn’t shift at their convenience.

      • mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Hardly shocking that the christofascist courts of America refuse to classify abortion clinic bombings as domestic terrorism.

  • Tgo_up@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    How tf can killing a single person with a handgun be classified as terrorism?

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      8 hours ago

      “They’re making us CEO’s afraid, terrified even, so he’s clearly a terrorist. The implication that the working class could actually fight back against the systemic oppression we inflict on them? That’s horrifying. We can’t allow them to believe they could ever fight back. Make an example of this person.”

      The rich assholes or something

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      71
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Because they don’t like him.

      I mean Dylan fucking Roof shot dead 9 black people and they didn’t consider it terrorism.