• stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    316
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    He has the right to be judged by a jury of his peers, and it appears as if his peers agree with his actions.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      173
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      “As this man’s peers, you must be the judge of his actions.”

      “Ok”

      “Wait, not like that”

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yup. The article mentions that the prosecutors have a problem, but the U.S. people certainly don’t.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      “Friedman Agnifilo would ask potential jurors where they reside in Manhattan and where they get their news sources from to determine their political leanings,” Kerwick said.

      I mean, he is from a wealthy family, but there’s still not going to be many working class people in Manhattan.

      I think people are expecting too much from the jury.

      It’s going to be a bunch of insanely wealthy people who will 100% want to remind everyone the rich are untouchable

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 days ago

      agree with

      I’d accept ‘excuse’ his actions. I’m firmly of the belief that pain caused the shooter to lose grip of the “hey don’t kill people” to where “yeah maybe just this scumbag” seemed okay. And while we wanna kill evil people, vigilante justice is less about them and more about us. And I don’t like that us that is willing to kill people outside of the Justice system we built and maintain.

      I’m okay with supporting Luigi (if it was him ;-) ) get through this break with reality that was engineered by shitbag HMOs, accepting that a person died (terrible as he was, still a person who could have been rehabilitated), accepting that it was an insanity of a kind, and getting Luigi any help he needs, medical or mental, to get back up to a productive and fulfilling life.

      As in, let’s not ruin Luigi completely, as already one fixable human is dead so lets not kill another.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        5 days ago

        And I don’t like that us that is willing to kill people outside of the Justice system we built and maintain.

        I think this is the disconnect. I don’t believe I have any (even 1/330 million) input into what the justice system is. When the Supreme Court is being openly bribed and stacked through legislative malfeasance, and as a result are taking away rights that a majority of the country supports, and yet nothing happens in response, it’s not our system. The very fact that there was a massive manhunt for this particular killer while others get ignored and he now has a federal murder charge because he was on a cell phone or planned it in another state or some bullshit is demonstration that this isn’t a system built to pursue justice equally. Neither the justice system nor the health system that provoked this reaction is based on codifying the broad cultural consent about “how things should work”.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        105
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        It was clarified that talking about Jury Nullification in the context of future crime is a no-no because it’s a no-no in the country lw is based. But in the context of already committed crime it’s fine.

        So “Go ahead and commit the crime and we’ll do jury nullification!” Is bad, but “Crime was committed, but we sympathize with the motive/person/whatever so let’s do jury nullification !” Is OK

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          53
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 days ago

          The whole thing sounded to me like a smokescreen for, “We fucked up, and we shouldn’t have banned talking about it in the first place. We talked about it and banning it was a bad decision that we briefly doubled down on.”

          Credit to them for reversing themselves, I guess. That said, coming up with contrived explanations for why you never made a mistake in the first place, because you’re always right, is one of the telltale signs of being full of shit. You can just tell people the main explanation. They’ll actually respect you more, not less, if you don’t engineer your reasonings to maintain this Wizard of Oz veneer.

          • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            5 days ago

            The whole thing sounded to me like a smokescreen for, “We fucked up, and we shouldn’t have banned talking about it in the first place. We talked about it and banning it was a bad decision that we briefly doubled down on.”

            I mean… Yeah.

          • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 days ago

            Lemmy world should have lost all credibility after they hard commited to the bias bot against the majorities wishes, but even on the fediverse people just don’t want to move instances. Im starting to think centralization is far from the only issue with social medias today, probably still the biggest, but by a lot smaller margins than I used to think.

            • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              25
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              I think they did, to be honest. I’ve abandoned most of the LW communities and I think I’m not the only one. There’s enough inertia in the system that I’m sure they will still be a big instance, but the reputational impacts of things like that are often permanent.

              To me, the big thing about the bias bot wasn’t the enforcing of the bias bot, it was the lying. If they had come out and said, “The bot is useful for moderation, we’re keeping it even if people don’t like it,” I don’t think it would have been any kind of big deal. What causes people to have this really unhappy reaction is telling them, “People love the bot! The minority who doesn’t like it is just mounting a pressure campaign” or “You just don’t understand the issues involved like we do” or “We’re fighting misinformation!” or “The admins are making me keep the bot” “No we’re not, the moderators want to keep the bot” or deflecting into this conversation about the cost of accessing the MBFC API or whatever other totally weird irrelevant issue.

              The !news@lemmy.world moderators were the ones who asked their users, got the answer that people didn’t like the bot, and took it away. It doesn’t have to be complicated. That’s why I’m still subscribed to !news@lemmy.world when I’ve abandoned the other LW news communities, and I’ve noticed that my Lemmy browsing experience has been remarkably free of weird bad-moderation bullshit ever since. There are no friendly conversations between jordanlund and UniversalMonk. I haven’t had articles I’ve posted get removed for totally frivolous reasons. There are no bots that every user hates and every moderator insists has to be there. It’s just news! Good stuff.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              5 days ago

              Lemmy world should have lost all credibility after they hard commited to the bias bot against the majorities wishes

              Hard agree!

              but even on the fediverse people just don’t want to move instances

              Soft disagree. I took a long time to do it, but I moved from .world because of the whole “being the r/politics of Lemmy” thing.

              You won’t find a more wretched hive of scum and Neoliberalism than the .world admins and mods anywhere outside of the aforementioned subreddit and the DNC itself.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            The world admins have a long history of this kind of shit.

            A great example was when they updated the TOS to remove specific call outs for (if memory serves) transphobic hate being against TOS and instead replacing it with very generic text. The response being that they didn’t need that text because the generic call outs covered it.

            Nobody with two brain cells was fooled and everyone knew it was about getting ahead of angry chuds who might be mean to the admins. But enough people were mysteriously banned for horrible shit (with their whole post histories being wiped) and everyone else who cared left for different instances.

            I’m not going to fault admins for not wanting to get calls from the FBI. I will fault them for abandoning our friends because they don’t want angry emails. But, either way, the constant need to build up weird narratives and assume everyone else is really THAT stupid is just tiresome.

            • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              Nobody with two brain cells was fooled

              That’s the thing. For some reason, people will come up with this logic that’s designed to fool a 4-year-old, and then just assume that all the adults who are reading it will be totally taken in by it. I don’t know why. Maybe they don’t want to throw some individual who ran out in front with a bad decision under the bus. Or, maybe it’s just painful to say out loud, “I think we were wrong now that we’ve had a chance to look at it more.”

              I’m not going to fault admins for not wanting to get calls from the FBI.

              Yeah, but that’s why you need legal advice. They’re sort of pretending that they’re qualified to make determinations about what is and isn’t a legal problem, which isn’t always a good idea to do all on your own once you’ve grown beyond a certain size. Pretending that you’re making these decisions from a position of knowledge and authority just compounds the problem.

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                5 days ago

                The reality is that legality doesn’t matter a lot unless you have enough lawyers on staff to fight various government agencies. That is WHY most creators and communities use established services like youtube or reddit because it offloads that hassle to a company that actually has the lawyers to figure out what is and isn’t a risk.

                Whereas a lemmy instance is a few people who have no idea what they are doing.

                The best metaphor I have heard to explain this is: A group of weirdos start singing prayers while you are boarding a plane. The flight attendant tells you that you need to sing along or you will be kicked off the plane. You say that is nonsense. They say they are going to have you escorted off the plane if you continue to be disruptive.

                You KNOW you are within your legal rights to not do that bullshit. But you don’t have a lawyer with you. Best case scenario? You get off the plane, you get an apology handy from a CSR, and you get to get on a different plane in 12 hours. But now you have missed your connecting flight and 1-2 days of your trip. So you are wasting personal days or pissing off your boss and missing an important client meeting and blah blah blah. And… the browner you are, the less likely you are to see that CSR after the cops escort you off a plane.

                So… you just sing along because it is easier. Even if you know it is bullshit, you know it is “close enough” that your life will become a living hell.


                Which is why I have no issue with a site policy of “We don’t want that smoke. Please don’t make jokes about the guy who killed a piece of shit CEO until we know we won’t get investigated by law enforcement”. But I DO have issues with making up weird narratives to justify it.

            • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              or when they banned piracy at db0, citing legal threats that didn’t happen, which was before defederating exploding heads, a nazi instance

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          What country is lemmy.world based in? Because having a law about talking about jury nullification in the context of a future crime sound so incredibly stupid and specific that I need to know the precedent that led to it.

        • azuth@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 days ago

          No, it was not clarified, they vaguely mentioned they were not based in “free speech” US but it’s pretty clear that it was their own policy since they changed it (they do say they were asking mods to ban all mentions of jury nullification).

          If their opinion was actually based on law, they would not change their policy. They would probably also have added it to their TOS before hand.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        Lw mods aren’t nearly as awful as Reddit ones - most removed comments are either personal attacks or open calls for violence. Even calls for civil disobedience are usually allowed unless they’re clearly direct threats.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          I got a comment removed because they said insinuating Isralies shouldn’t be allowed somewhere was racism. It was fine to do that with Russians during their active war, but Isreal is special and its racist when you hold them accountable the way we hold Russia accountable. And thats when I was specifically refering to the Israeli football hooligans who literally trashed the country they were guests in. So I dont buy that they aren’t as bad. They just don’t control the whole fediverse.

            • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              I don’t think it’s Ruud, I think it’s a little clique of the Lemmy people who stepped forward to take it on day-to-day. Ruud doesn’t seem active on Lemmy.

  • Allonzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    I thought they put the terrorist charge on him precisely to avoid requiring a jury as part of all the rights privileges 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.

    • turtle [he/him]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • Huckledebuck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      5 days ago

      “Jury nullification is a fundamental aspect of the American jury system, allowing jurors to acquit defendants despite overwhelming evidence of guilt if they deem the law unjust or immoral. This concept has its roots in colonial America and has been exercised throughout U.S. history, often in response to unjust laws or societal norms.”

      For those not on the know.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 days ago

        Werent the admins banning posts about jury nullification for some bullshit “glorifying violence” reason or something?

        • nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          5 days ago

          .world did for a little bit but i think they ended up deciding that it can be referenced for an already done crime, whereas if it is said in context before someone commits a crime then it would be considered inciting violence or whatever.

          So it’s ok in this context of Luigi, the alleged killer.

  • Emberleaf@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    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?

      • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        It would ultimately depend on the context but sure. “Innocent” Germans were put on trial post WW2 for enabling the system that resulted in the murder of millions of people, how is this any different?

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 days ago

          I think you’re misinterpreting the comment. Police officers in the US are regularly not put on trial even for egregious killings. They’re getting trial more often after the BLM protests, but they’re still usually getting found not guilty because we’re inundated with copaganda.

          • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 days ago

            True. Worth noting as bad as police are most countries outside of America actually have civilian oversight of the police. You can argue the effectiveness of it but it’s lightyears ahead of the lack of training and corruption that America faces.

    • osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      If they went with justifiable homicide they could have gotten an easy conviction. Instead they went with terrorism and Murder 1, both of which there is too much sympathy for.

        • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 days ago

          No, but they sometimes undercharge as manslaughter, negligent discharge of a firearm, or assault.

        • Mezmer1zed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Yes, basically it’s what they evaluate for a self-defense homicide or homicide in the defense of another person, such as if you shoot someone who is raping or murdering another person, for example.

    • tlou3please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

  • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Maybe this is somewhat similar to a woman killing her rapist, after police refuse to investigate? There are probably examples of leniency in such cases.

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • lobut@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 days ago

      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?

  • P_P@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    It’s going to be really difficult to convict him, I’m happy to say. Dude’s a hero.

    • pachrist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Part of what made Joan of Arc a name that has lasted 1000 years is not that she was a hero, it’s that she was killed for being a hero.

      Heroes get remembered, but legends never die.

  • dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    And yet with millions of people to choose from I don’t think they will have a terrible time finding some that are pro-corporation and pro-billionaire and/or sufficiently against killing no matter what the justification.

    • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      5 days ago

      Isn’t it a random selection (ignoring any possibility for manipulation for a moment) and then each lawyer gets a certain number of objections to a juror?

      I guess with this they can still try and stack a CEO sympathetic jury still.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        5 days ago

        Trying to rig the jury to be sympathetic to your side is one essential aspect of good lawyering. The rules are theoretically just objective filters applied to a random sample, but in practice it is a pure contest of skill between the two legal teams.

        • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 days ago

          Oh I’m not against the practice you need to remove people that are not going to be impartial.

          I just find jurisprudence interesting in general so thought I would mention it.