Because that’s how lynch mobs got off without penalties too. It’s very much a case of being careful what you wish for in this case. If he gets off because the jury says it’s OK to gun someone down without direct provocation, you can bet that others will too. You shot a gay man for no reason? No problem, the jury says that’s fine. You shot someone you suspect of having sympathies for Democrats? Head home, the jury was packed with MAGAs.
Well, given that jury nullification is a thing and considering how rarely it happens, I’d rather risk the scenarios outlined by you than having no way of giving a not guilty verdict to people this way who do something illegal but legitimate.
The difficulty comes with defining shooting someone, who isn’t an obvious immediate threat, as legitimate. If there’s a plausible way to do that, it should be the core of his defense, if there isn’t you’re asking the jury to let him off just because you don’t like the guy who was killed.
I hope his defense team can find a way to show that he acted in self defense against the harm the company were doing to him. That would be a plausible reason for the jury to find him not guilty, not set a precedent for letting murderers go free, and send a suitable warning to other CEOs.
I agree with your second paragraph.
I want Luigi to go free even if he did pull the trigger, because the jury comes to the conclusion that killing Brian Thompson was done, because ultimately CEOs need to be (hold) responsible or they aren’t needed in the first place.
If holding them responsible is impossible due to a rigged system, alternatives need to be tolerated.
People (especially CEOs) need to consider the consequences of their actions.
Until very recently people in power could do as they please without fear of consequences. That needs to change one way or the other. I’d prefer them changing coursefor the better of all. If they won’t, well…
Rich people and people in government already get away with this stuff. Our president is a felon. If people in power aren’t bound by the law then citizens will act. Only holding the people who act accountable is ensuring that the people in power never have consequences.
I agree with what you are saying, but this is not a precident you want to set. Jurys are supposed to consider whether the defendant broke the law, not whether they agree with the ethics of the action. Too many miscarriages of justice have occured for ‘vibes’ to be an acceptable way to judge these things.
I would rather see his defence mount a case around self-defence or something of that nature (the CEO was harming Luigi or his family for instance) so that the jury have a reason to say he was within the law.
Ok and if people in power refuse to press charges or just ignore it, then what? That’s the problem we’re facing. Trump was convicted, he is a 34 time convicted felon and has 0 consequences. The supreme court is corrupting the law itself. If the law was such that you go to jail for being gay, I would say it is very much up to the people to judge the ethics of that law. This whole concept is at the root of the civil war, and it’s why there had to be an actual war.
I was making a distinction between ‘the people’ in general, and ‘the jury’. The people can, and should, consider the ethics of the law, and act appropriately. In less extreme cases that might involve encouraging your local legislator to push for changes in the law. We’ve seen the results in more extreme cases. Juries on the other hand should judge the case in front of them on its facts, rather than their feelings about the defendant and their actions. We’ve seen the results of juries not doing so, with lynch mobs getting away without consequence, and other defendants being found guilty for the color of their skin.
As to your point regarding the problem of those in power simply ignoring the law, you’re right, that is a problem, and one which I doubt will be solved without extreme action. It is, of course, possible that in four years this gang will peacefully hand over to a less criminal administration, but I’m not confident of that. Even if they do, rebuilding trust in the concept of the law being applied equally and fairly will be a massive, and long term, challenge.
This is supposed to be uplifting news though, so let us hope that his defence can find a compelling argument and the jury can find him not guilty without recourse to tactics that might make the overall situation worse.
Yes, pardons get used like that, but are applied but one, theoretically accountable (I know, I know…) office. Having jurys just decide someone is not guilty because the dont like the victim seems far more likely to lead to a complete breakdown of what remains of law and order. Given what’s coming, maybe that’s inevitable, but I don’t think encouraging it is a good idea.
Because that’s how lynch mobs got off without penalties too. It’s very much a case of being careful what you wish for in this case. If he gets off because the jury says it’s OK to gun someone down without direct provocation, you can bet that others will too. You shot a gay man for no reason? No problem, the jury says that’s fine. You shot someone you suspect of having sympathies for Democrats? Head home, the jury was packed with MAGAs.
Well, given that jury nullification is a thing and considering how rarely it happens, I’d rather risk the scenarios outlined by you than having no way of giving a not guilty verdict to people this way who do something illegal but legitimate.
The difficulty comes with defining shooting someone, who isn’t an obvious immediate threat, as legitimate. If there’s a plausible way to do that, it should be the core of his defense, if there isn’t you’re asking the jury to let him off just because you don’t like the guy who was killed.
I hope his defense team can find a way to show that he acted in self defense against the harm the company were doing to him. That would be a plausible reason for the jury to find him not guilty, not set a precedent for letting murderers go free, and send a suitable warning to other CEOs.
I agree with your second paragraph.
I want Luigi to go free even if he did pull the trigger, because the jury comes to the conclusion that killing Brian Thompson was done, because ultimately CEOs need to be (hold) responsible or they aren’t needed in the first place.
If holding them responsible is impossible due to a rigged system, alternatives need to be tolerated.
People (especially CEOs) need to consider the consequences of their actions.
Until very recently people in power could do as they please without fear of consequences. That needs to change one way or the other. I’d prefer them changing coursefor the better of all. If they won’t, well…
Rich people and people in government already get away with this stuff. Our president is a felon. If people in power aren’t bound by the law then citizens will act. Only holding the people who act accountable is ensuring that the people in power never have consequences.
I agree with what you are saying, but this is not a precident you want to set. Jurys are supposed to consider whether the defendant broke the law, not whether they agree with the ethics of the action. Too many miscarriages of justice have occured for ‘vibes’ to be an acceptable way to judge these things.
I would rather see his defence mount a case around self-defence or something of that nature (the CEO was harming Luigi or his family for instance) so that the jury have a reason to say he was within the law.
Ok and if people in power refuse to press charges or just ignore it, then what? That’s the problem we’re facing. Trump was convicted, he is a 34 time convicted felon and has 0 consequences. The supreme court is corrupting the law itself. If the law was such that you go to jail for being gay, I would say it is very much up to the people to judge the ethics of that law. This whole concept is at the root of the civil war, and it’s why there had to be an actual war.
I was making a distinction between ‘the people’ in general, and ‘the jury’. The people can, and should, consider the ethics of the law, and act appropriately. In less extreme cases that might involve encouraging your local legislator to push for changes in the law. We’ve seen the results in more extreme cases. Juries on the other hand should judge the case in front of them on its facts, rather than their feelings about the defendant and their actions. We’ve seen the results of juries not doing so, with lynch mobs getting away without consequence, and other defendants being found guilty for the color of their skin.
As to your point regarding the problem of those in power simply ignoring the law, you’re right, that is a problem, and one which I doubt will be solved without extreme action. It is, of course, possible that in four years this gang will peacefully hand over to a less criminal administration, but I’m not confident of that. Even if they do, rebuilding trust in the concept of the law being applied equally and fairly will be a massive, and long term, challenge.
This is supposed to be uplifting news though, so let us hope that his defence can find a compelling argument and the jury can find him not guilty without recourse to tactics that might make the overall situation worse.
That’s already a thing with pardons.
Yes, pardons get used like that, but are applied but one, theoretically accountable (I know, I know…) office. Having jurys just decide someone is not guilty because the dont like the victim seems far more likely to lead to a complete breakdown of what remains of law and order. Given what’s coming, maybe that’s inevitable, but I don’t think encouraging it is a good idea.