• Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Remember remember!

    The 4th of December

    A CEO dies all alone;

    On the street he was lain,

    cold, pale and in pain,

    thousands of deaths that he own.

    The decisions he’d struck,

    Layers removed from the slaughter,

    Were a shareholder’s treat,

    Your dead mother or daughter.

    Those investors all wait, on that cold winter morn,

    Still unawares of profit potential they’d mourn,

    Poking at hotel breakfast, bored looks on their face

    As was Brian’s when he denied and delayed at great pace

    Endless growth, deposed, on behalf of us all

    Luigi didn’t do it, we were hiking in Nepal.

  • ceenote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    2 days ago

    I would think it might be excusable if this were a straight-up murder charge, which is mostly facts and evidence based. However, if they’re charging him with terrorism, which is much more subjective, doesn’t that make this a serious conflict of interest?

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 days ago

      No. It’s inexcusable. Even if he pooped on her lawn she should have no right to be legally judging him.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      2 days ago

      Can’t help but be biased here. The facts fit too well. Remember, bias has to do with the perception of poor judgment. We don’t need to gamble on it.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      That was the magistrate. Whether the trial will be biased is something we don’t know yet.

  • SpiceDealer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    “I swear, officer, that I didn’t kill that judge. The fact that my search history indicates an interest in 3D printed guns, and I own the works of Karl Marx, AND I was wearing a free “Free Luigi” shirt doesn’t prove anything.”

  • QaspR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I’m not so sure this would be considered a conflict of interest.

    Don’t get me wrong; it’s egregious, but I don’t know if it actually is a COI.

    (Not a lawyer).

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Definitely good reason to get them swapped out for a different judge but are they going to oversee the whole trial or just the pretrial?

    Also, they were an executive at Pfizer, not an insurance firm.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yes, you’re right, Pfizer has absolutely no relationship with the insurance companies.

      We’re idiots guys, let’s pack it up and move on!

    • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      Pfizer isn’t exactly in the good graces of the public either.

      For profit healthcare is the problem. It’s not the doctors, or nurses, or phlebotomists, or pharmacists that are trying to save lives. It’s the people who handle the money fucking around with people’s lives so they can make more.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        Right now it’s the largest pharmaceutical company in the USA maybe on earth, so definitely can’t be morally upright. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • Drusas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is the sort of thing judges are supposed to recuse themselves over.