He has the right to be judged by a jury of his peers, and it appears as if his peers agree with his actions.
“As this man’s peers, you must be the judge of his actions.”
“Ok”
“Wait, not like that”
deleted by creator
“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
Median household income in Manhattan is about 100k. It’s not all insanely wealthy people.
I make $11k per year.
$100k IS insanely wealthy.
Dear God man, get ANY other job
I’ve had multiple injuries at work (and a few from sports) so am unable to do my former labor-type jobs. I’m also over 65 so retraining is out of the question.
Worked minimum wage positions most of my life so have no savings and currently live in a rooming house.
There’s lots of us out here scraping the bottom of the barrel just to survive.
That really sucks, and I’m genuinely sorry you’ve had to deal with all that. $100K USD can be eaten up very quickly depending on your city’s cost of living though. I’d imagine someone making $100k USD in Manhattan would be barely scraping by as well
100K in Manhattan is nothing. My father was a principal earning $150K and still could barely get by in the city.
When apartments run total 40K annually, 100K is just a step above poverty wages.
11k is like $5.5/h, assuming you’re working full time. It’s well below minimum wage.
As stated in the comment you responded to I am no longer working because of injuries and age.
You have it backwards. 100k in Manhattan is not wealthy, let alone insanely wealthy. 11k is insanely impoverished, even if you live in the middle of nowhere.
I was living with about 10k CAD/y for a few years when I was single and I was mostly fine.
Granted, this was in the 2010s. And of course I wasn’t in Manhattan, as you can guess by the currency.
Now, I’m making about 70k CAD with a family (sole provider) and I’m just staying afloat.
In Manhattan, it’s enough to get by. It’s a working-class salary there.
That’s well below the poverty line wages. That’s dirt poor in almost any part of the country let alone Manhattan, one of the most expensive cities in the U.S.
Not really. Poverty line in New York City for two adults/two children is $43,890.
Edit: also keep in mind that New Yorkers often don’t need a car. That’s a huge yearly spending reduction.
NYC or Manhattan?
Yeah, as the other person pointed out, I was pointing to the 11K per year comment. Maybe a typo?
He thinks you mean 11K/year, and you think he means 100k/year. Just trying to help out… :)
Frezik was talking about the $100K, not the $11K.
Doing what?
Not in NYC, that leaves you with hundreds of dollars a month after rent if you’re lucky.
I made 70-90k in Boston and had nothing left for savings if I dared to eat out once a week.
In the US? That’s less than the legal minimum wage
Not if you don’t/can’t work full time.
Not if you live in Manhattan. Housing alone there is stupidly expensive.
Except both sides have the same number of rejections they can apply.
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.
Maybe he’s guilty of manslaughter in my book. Murder? I don’t see it.
Manslaughter is when you didn’t mean to kill the person. You might be thinking of justifiable homicide?
He didn’t mean to kill him, he just wanted to put a few rounds in the guy
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”.
I thought they put the terrorist label on him precisely to avoid requiring a jury.
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?
careful, lw mods don’t like that
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
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.
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.
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.
Lost it for me when they didn’t say no to threads
Honestly not too happy about that one either.
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.
Tinfoil hat time, I think MBFC bot was the smokescreen for a GroundNews sponsor/ad.
The bot started up at the same time GN started a massive ad campaign sponsoring a lot of YouTubers (~7 months ago). MBFC was the bias checker and GN was the hot new “good” source included in every single post. I bet Rooki or someone was getting checks.
That is absolutely not what happened, but play your own drum I guess.
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.
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.
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.
Prayer day in kenshi
or when they banned piracy at db0 which happened before defederating exploding heads, a nazi instance
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.
You’re not allowed to talk about smokescreens before the act of fucking up.
If discussing commiting a future crime on your hardware it can be seized as evidence I imagine. If people discuss an already committed crime I suppose they know the discussion isnt evidence as the person believed to be the angel is already in custody.
Almost like censorship is almost always bad! Who’d have thunk it!?
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.
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.
I’m not sure what kind of professional legal input they can afford. It’s big by fedi standards but the Patreon raises about 10k/year. Not exactly lawyer money.
I suspect that it’s a lot of guess work and maybe some help with drafting and filing here and there. I’ve never asked.
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.
Even calls for civil disobedience are usually allowed
how merciful of them
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.
i guess ruud thinks he owns lemmy because he won timing lottery and snatched a lot of post-reddit userbase
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.
Weird, jury nullification is super legal and super cool
It’s super legal, but it’s not always super cool:
American Dad basically did an episode on this where Roger is on trial and is so personable that Stan is the only reason jury nullification didn’t happen.
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.
Billionaries and CEOs don’t bother to show up to jury duty
Imagine they show for this though…
If I was the only working class juror, I would try my hardest to get the CEO jurors sequestered with me.
Can we really call ceo’s our peers?
Nope. I’d be deliberately wasting their time and money until we’re a hung jury. They aren’t capable of a good faith discussion.
Can you imagine their horror as they watch stocks slip and make an alarming $12.50/hr like a “commoner”? Gasp! Even worse have to sleep in a 3star hotel.
And so much for a “jury of our peers” if they are padded with billionaires.
Jury Nullfication is the People’s Presidential Pardon
Just don’t mention jury nullification in front of a judge or prosecutor. They hate that.
Definitely mention it, just not at your own trial or after you’ve been selected for jury duty
Never mention it. They will often ask questions about how you think a juror should or can act. If you answer them in a way that shows you might know about nullification, you are out. If you then later admit you know about it, they will point to those questions and know you lied about them. Safest answer is to just never, ever use the term, ideally you should go through the motions in deliberation of putting the the rules together, like you are just realizing it’s a possibility then and there.
Yeah, I’m saying that we should mention it as non jurors. Its our responsibility to tell them. Here on Lemmy and every way we can. Let jurors know that they have the ability to do justice, even if the law is wrong
Yep. Some parts of the law have evolved so far afield from their original context that they conflict with other legal basics. You never know when a conversation like this one might be personally applicable. No one expects or plans to die, or to be called on for jury duty. Its a surprise.
It’s going to be really difficult to convict him, I’m happy to say. Dude’s a hero.
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.
He’s already thrown away his life.
Honestly it would be demoralizing for him to get sentenced to death (or life) in this information environment. People would just move on, back to the status quo. But if he gets off, its a vindication of what he did.
These clowns have no idea they’re so out of touch with everyday Americans
Shame it even got past Grand Jury
Was there even a Grand Jury? Those are not required in most states, only on federal charges.
Figure o speech then ;)
That was a forgone conclusion since they only need a majority vote and they only hear evidence from the prosecution.
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.
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.
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.
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!
he called the wrong number to report it. u have to call a special crimenow number
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!”
Based on the recent Emerson poll (https://emersoncollegepolling.com/december-2024-national-poll-young-voters-diverge-from-majority-on-crypto-tiktok-and-ceo-assassination/), they’ll find a jury just fine. They will have to weed out strong sympathizers, but it’s not going to halt the process or anything. While it’s uncommon for murderer cases to get this level of sympathy, prosecutors of high profile cases with a sympathetic defendent have delt with this before.
Statistically speaking: if 17% of people say that the murder of the healthcare CEO is even somewhat acceptable, if you were to pick 12 people randomly from that group (so not accounting for any other potential filters from a jury questionnaire), you’d only have a 10% chance that all 12 answering it is unacceptable.
That’s not how jury selection works, though. They find people, filter some out, bring in the alternates, filter them out, and repeat until they have 12 they’re happy with.
deleted by creator
I’m not sure how much I trust that poll.
Data was collected by contacting cell phones via MMS-to-web text, landlines via interactive voice response and email (phone list provided by Aristotle, email lists provided by Commonwealth Opinions), and an online panel of voters pre-matched to the L2 voter file provided by Rep Data. The survey was offered in English.
If someone just called or texted me out of the blue for a survey like that, I would be tempted to lie about my opinion of Luigi out of fear. Honestly I find it shocking so many people ‘confessed’ to that… it has to be an underestimate.
There’s limits on selecting people. You can only say not that one so many times.
This is correct. I’ve been in two juries that went to trial, and each side got a handful of denials that they could use, each. Like 5 for my cases, or something in that ballpark. I think that the number is at the discretion of the judge, so because there is so much sympathy for the defendant, the judge may allow a much larger number of denials.
Disclaimer: I have no legal training and my trials were not in New York, so my comments could be inaccurate.
Edit: according to this article, this is the number of peremptory challenges (i.e., objecting to a juror during selection for no reason) each side gets - https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-270-25/
- Each party must be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges:
(a) Twenty for the regular jurors if the highest crime charged is a class A felony, and two for each alternate juror to be selected.
This is in addition to presumably an infinite number of juror dismissals for cause, like, for example, if the juror tells that the judge that they would not be able to follow the law.
I’m pretty sure they have to give each side the same number though, right?
Yes. Also, see my edit. I found the law for New York. For a felony of this type, each side gets 20 for regular jurors plus 2 for each alternate juror.
Bye bye right to a jury trial
Both teams will be given an opportunity to eliminate potential jurors they believe are too sympathetic to the one side or the other.
Good luck with that, you can only weed out a limited number, and there’s a fucking lot of us.
Working as intended, jury of his peers not some mindless robots.
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.
To be fair, he may also have run a couple of reds when he cycled away.
Innocent until proven guilty
Something something pile of garbage in a suit.
That’s the jury working exactly they way it should
Right, not sure what they’re complaining about.
They’re just going to keep going through jury pools until they can find enough bootlickers, which seems to be the antithesis of the “jury of your peers” system.
His peers find his actions justifiable. The rich can get over it.
Jurors have to be approved by both the defense and the prosecution. They will not get a 100% bootlicker jury
On this particular case they will find a way. A little nudge here, a few background checks moved to the top of the queue there. I think the way it works is that lawyers have only so many chances to reject a jury candidate and then they run out of rejections. Thats what I saw on TV anyway.
No. Again, either the prosecutor or the defense can reject any juror
I agree, but isnt it true that either side only gets the opportunity to reject so many candidates before they lose the option to reject? They cant just keep on rejecting forever right?
There is no rule, only a judge that may get annoyed
I think we’re each half right, theres some nuance. I finally goiogled it like I should have from the start. Heres a law office talking about it in New York:
