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.
I don’t think that’s why they charged him with terrorism. The reason that some terrorism trials are (were?) done in secret in the past I believe is because most of the evidence that would have been presented would have been classified. I don’t think there is any classified evidence related to Luigi’s trial.
I think it’s more likely that they added the terrorism charge just as an enhancement to potentially add time to his sentence or more opportunities for him to be convicted of something. However, someone posted an insightful comment here a couple of days ago, pointing out that in order to prove terrorism they will have to discuss his motivations at length, which will only make him more sympathetic to most jurors.
It also lets the defense examine “would a killer target the United healthcare CEO specifically because they were personally evil vs a statement against the system?” That’s also helpful for a defense angling for a nullification mistrial.
Technical question: isn’t nullification an innocent verdict, not a mistrial?
I am not a lawyer.
Nullification is when the jury hands in a verdict of “not guilty”, even though there’s a preponderance of evidence that the law was indeed broken by the defendant. They basically ignore the Judge’s instructions to weigh the evidence and do something else instead. This would trigger an appeal by the prosecution on the basis of mistrial, since the optics on that situation look like something procedural is way off.
I’m not well-versed in these matters, but I am intrigued by what would happen if this went to appeal. If it went all the way to SCOTUS, or even some appeals court with a crooked judge, that might not go so well for the defendant.
You don’t get to appeal a not guilty verdict right or wrong its done forever. A mistrial only happens before a verdict is reached so either side could be looking for justification for one if they believe that they stand to lose the case but the judge has to find there is cause.
Well that certainly gives nullification teeth. Interesting. Thank you.
It is, but you need the whole jury to vote that way which i find particularly unlikely. One person voting for nullification, which is more likely, is a mistrial.
I haven’t seen anything about this, your saying a terrorism charge doesn’t have a jury at all?
It’d be pretty rough if they couldn’t possibly find a jury that would convict, think of how the CEOs of the nation would feel if they realized fully just how many people are entirely okay with eating them.
It doesn’t have to even be full jury nullification, a single juror can cause a mistrial by refusing to join in an otherwise unanimous verdict. Imagine this going through 2-3 juries that cannot come to a consensus?
I think Josh Johnson has a killer bit on this, but in it, he was talking about how the news corporations and CEOs and people were horrified to learn that the people are seeing them for how they see us.
We don’t see them as human, just like how they don’t see us as human.
I see the ultra-rich as human. The worst kind of human. They had hearts once, but those have long since rotted to nothing. It’s possible for them to figure shit out, but almost none of them will.
Good.
It’s never “so much sympathy” for a killer cop, or genocide, but one CEO is just a step too far.
murdersocietal self-defenseThey will try Luigi until it sticks. It’s critical to the powerful that they send the message they are beyond reproach.
Which is exactly why people like Luigi resort to the actions he took. It can never be undone no matter what they do to him afterwards.
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.
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
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.
Dude your last sentence was the cherry garnish in a big cup of government Kool aid.
A just system wouldn’t have 98% of its convictions arriving out of plea deals.
A just system wouldn’t jail a dude for stealing bread from a company that steals money from all of its employees. Employees that are already so underpaid, that they qualify for food stamps, that largely get spent at the same damn company.
I never said the system was just.
Merely pointing out that separating the finding of guilt from the determination of punishment is the best way we have to mitigate corruption.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better system.
They will make it slow so they can twist the knife they shove into the publics stomach to keep everyone too scared to act. Government repression is the first cousin of terrorism, and Israel has innovated this year in making repression and racist terrorism cool again.
You think?
I’d think they’d want to push him off the front page first. Then push him out a window later.
There’s a McDonald’s worker able to be jury. Oh wait, he didn’t get the reward money as his claim got denied for bullshit reasons, just like insurance… Never mind.
I understand that she can only get the money if he gets convicted. They’ll probably still find some other excuse not to pay her, but still - I argue that’s a pretty big bias that should disqualify her from jurying.
Is there a source for this? Last time I heard about it, it turned out to be just a ”possibly, maybe, it could be denied”, but nothing was decided yet.
he called the wrong number to report it. u have to call a special crimenow number
deleted by creator
Hahahaha, the corporate shill got shafted. Rip bozo, maybe you learned something.
“yeah, thank you for the golden tip, we caught the guy thanks to you. But you snitched, and we do not endorse that (with all the whistle lowers lately) so we’re not going to reward your behavior by paying you to show people it’s better to keep your mouth shut… Or we will shut it for you (again, like with all the whistle blowers). Snitches get stitches!”
So, the reports say “might not get it” Like this report but in almost all cases reward money isn’t paid. In this case I’d think he has somewhat of a chance to get it due to public pressure, now that it’s in the media. But in most cases it is denied because of bullshit reasons. “Thanks to your tip we were able to catch the guy, but through other sources we would have found him as well, so, no” or “multiple agencies offered reward money, so they both say the other one should pay up, so none pay up” or “you didn’t follow the right procedures to get the money” or any other bullshit reason to deny payout. Often you’d have to prove you were the sole reason the person got caught, while you don’t have access to restricted case files so good luck with that.
It basically works like the health insurance system in the US. They will do anything they can to reject your claim while you will have to fight to get what you should.
Fun fact: radio stations do the same. They offer amazing prices, get loads of people to listen ‘to find the hidden clue’, have them call an expensive phone number. They pick a winner, have them on the air over the phone, everyone hears how happy they are by winning, so people will try to compete next time again. But they never get a price. Because, no one will hear they didn’t get any. Or at least, this used to be so, now with social media it’s harder to hide these shady tactics.
Not just radio stations by the way, This was recently.
This is the best answer ive seen thus far. Ive just being saying all sources reporting he isn’t being paid are sourcing their info from a game of telephone origination from articles speculating he might not be paid. This is much better written though thanks!
Got no doubts about what you stated (also a huge wtf to that basketball charity fuckup) but I’m still convinced the snitch will get her money just as Lugi will be convicted for terrorism, although the commenter above, in his epic joury-comment wrote that the double-conviction wasn’t allowed under the state law. If it isn’t FBI or the police who pays her then it will be the some other CEOs. Maybe on a charity event.
No one cares whether the snitch will get their money. All eyes will be on the court case. And she it comes to money, everything will be done to deny a payout. It’s how big corps and the government work. Whenever there’s a desk approving a payout, there will be a desk above it questioning it and putting it on hold, finding ways to drown it in paperwork. Spending money means someone will be held responsible for losing funds, which means someone will have a bad rep concerning their career so no one wants to work towards a payout. Capitalism thrives around reducing spendings and increasing profits. That’s a major flaw of capitalism. Investing in the future, the general public or the greater good are not part of the equation.
Manhattan has the world’s largest concentration of FIRE (Financial, Insurance, Real Estate) employees
Just because people work for these places doesnt mean they dont also feel the system effects of them. Most people just need a paycheck to support thenselves
Ever been to Manhattan?
I’ve never seen that acronym used for that. It’s usually Financially Independent, Retired Early
It can be used for either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE
It’s just unclear why this other one would ever be needed…
I read a blog that analyses a lot of financial and other news and they use this term frequently. It took me a while to figure it out because I was more familiar with the acronym you mentioned.
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.
Many young, healthy people haven’t had to deal with it much, but this is also the demographic highly engaged on social media and probably very sympathetic to him.
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.
Just import a jury
The sympathy is so thick I can feel it in the air
I wonder why
Shame it even got past Grand Jury
That was a forgone conclusion since they only need a majority vote and they only hear evidence from the prosecution.
I kno
Was there even a Grand Jury? Those are not required in most states, only on federal charges.
Figure o speech then ;)
These clowns have no idea they’re so out of touch with everyday Americans
I think they know how out of touch they are. But they don’t understand the level of discontent across vast swaths of the large percent of the population that they would never dream of chatting with.
Of course. He’s clearly not guilty. Thompson willingly surrendered his humanity a long time ago, and you can only commit murder against a human. What Luigi did was more like deconstructing a cardboard box or other inanimate object.
He did however leave those shell casings on the sidewalk, and that’s just not cool. They should give him a ticket for littering and send him on his way.
Something something pile of garbage in a suit.
To be fair, he may also have run a couple of reds when he cycled away.
Innocent until proven guilty
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.
It’s only dangerous if you’re a mass murderer. Don’t want to get gunned down on the sidewalk and have people celebrate your death? Don’t be a mass murderer.
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
