You must log in or register to comment.
I just hope there’s people around smart enough and willing to lie, when asked in jury selection interviews, that they’ve never heard of jury nullification. I doubt they ask that in those words, because people would go look it up, but I’m sure they have a roundabout way of getting to that answer.
It isn’t settled though. Innocent until proven guilty.
Correct. I meant the debate about whether Italians are white is settled.
All Americans are equals. But some are more equals than others.
CEO’s: Second degree murder is the highest you can charge him with for killing a CEO in NY? But we want to torture him and make an example of him so the proles don’t get uppity!
DA: No problem sirs, we can make that happen.
Honestly, this applies to all of us (replace pheasant and wine with whatever you can afford)
Eat your chickie nuggies, drink your honey mussy…
Profanity
Fuck your girlfriend right in the pussy
Is there any chance that the terrorism charge is so ridiculous that it actually strengthens Luigi’s case and makes his defense better?
Man, if the fact that Luigi, the smiling man, and the actual shooter are visibly three different people isn’t enough of a defense, nothing is. The ruling class wants to see someone punished for this crime, and rule of law bends to their will. He will be sentenced to life in prison or death by the end of this month, mark my words.
Yes because it specifically allows examining his motive from a political angle which allows the defense to question the character of the guy he shot, which increases the chance of nullification.
Depends on how brain rotted the jury is
who knows at this point. you should ask all the other Americans who were charged with terrorism when they get out of jail.
How tf can killing a single person with a handgun be classified as terrorism?
Because they don’t like him.
I mean Dylan fucking Roof shot dead 9 black people and they didn’t consider it terrorism.
Because the ruling class is terrified
“They’re making us CEO’s afraid, terrified even, so he’s clearly a terrorist. The implication that the working class could actually fight back against the systemic oppression we inflict on them? That’s horrifying. We can’t allow them to believe they could ever fight back. Make an example of this person.”
The rich assholes or something
Crimes against the ruling class are more harshly punished than crimes against the plebs.
It’s more of an assassination in my opinion.
justifiable sin
the definition of terrorism from the FBI is very… vague
Here’s an exerpt from the declaration of Independence :3
I didn’t know Miku was a textbook definition of a terrorist /s
Lemmy is filled with domestic terrorists!
Me included!
Don’t let the jandarma take me
Probably some international ones too.
jandarma
Is that a real english word?
it’s Turkish gendarmerie
Ok. It looked so much like the french gendarmes, I was surprise. Turns out the word is in many languages.
The problem with the latter is that it only applies to the government, not private corporations.
I love that it took us almost 20 years to finally understand this.
🤣🤡
“I learned it from watching you, ok?!?!?”
Freedom fighter
Ftfy
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
The dead guy was the terrorist.
But he was white…?
fine “Domestic” terrorist
So he was a “lone wolf” then
So was Timothy McVeigh.
The good old boy???
Good? No, he murderd a lot of innocent people.
Old? He was in his 20’s? Did he live to see his 30th birthday?
boy? Apparently.
Let’s hope the jury disagrees
They charged him with terrorism so a regular jury won’t get to make that decision. It will be a federal grand jury of selected stooges, and maybe even a secret court.
A federal grand jury isn’t a replacement for a regular federal trial jury. They’re completely different things. A grand jury decides if there is a strong enough case to take the charges to trial, or if they should just be dismissed. When a grand jury isn’t used, the trial judge makes that determination themselves. I agree that the terrorism charge will affect how the trial is conducted, but I don’t know enough on that topic to comment further.
That’s true but the way that a federal jury works is very different.
It allows them to choose people from outside of the area in which the crime occurred.
Making it a federal trial jury instead of a state trial jury allows them to charge this single murder against an individual perpetrated by another individual who made no public statement with a much more severe crime than the state laws that he broke would normally allow.
It’s also important to note that making it a federal trial makes it less public as there will be no cameras allowed. They don’t want him tried in the state of New York because that could legally be televised which is a bad look when you’ve already got judicial homicide lined up and the trial is purely performative.
Being that they can choose people from all over and that the process of jury selection is even more opaque at the federal level they can make sure there won’t be any nullification issues.
The way they are treating Luigi whether or not he’s guilty indicates that it’s not relevant whether or not he’s guilty. They legitimately don’t care, this is about sending a message that the poors don’t get to fight back.
Oh. So that was their play.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
“Nothing will meaningfully improve” is a good translation of biden/harris’s “nothing will fundamentally change” promise.
It also addresses people pretending like knocking down statutes and similar moral victories are meaningful progress twoards addressing real problems.
So this is terrorism but they refuse to give terrorism charges to local militias?
Whatever helps the ruling class protect their money
They also don’t charge people who blow up abortion clinics with terrorism either. They haven’t since the 60s - 70s.
If you look it up the courts have been petitioned several times to associate abortion clinic bombings with Christian terrorism but they keep refusing to call it what it is.
After reading about that fiasco I have very little faith our government actually has a working definition of terrorism that doesn’t shift at their convenience.
Hardly shocking that the christofascist courts of America refuse to classify abortion clinic bombings as domestic terrorism.
Local militias are perfectly acceptable as per the second amendment, as long as they’re “well regulated”, whatever that means…
it means that it needs to be an actual maintained organization, not Jim bob and his buddies threatening anybody they don’t like. it’s also not a requirement, it’s only the reasoning provided.
Well, that’s when Jim Bob and his friends can get together and form a neighborhood watch group and suddenly it’s perfectly legal.
Hence the joke
Uhuh… And the school shooters? No terrorist charges?..
I’m pretty sure it’s up to the state attorney to decide what charges to bring is all I’ll say.
Those tend to be a personal grudge, not a political statement.
“Unlimited scope of people” does not require political statement.
Pretty sure you could agree he had a personal grudge as well
Potentially, but I think that’s true of most terrorists.
I think that for terrorism you need the goal to instill terror in the population. Since it was so specifically targeted and only one victim, I don’t know how well it fits. Also, most of the population doesn’t feel terror, maybe he should be hit with satisfaction charges.
The definition of terrorism doesn’t say you need to terrify people at all.
Besides, there’s been a lot of acts that are generally agreed to be terrorist acts, that have targeted a very small group of people, such as a religious group, or even one specific individual. The IRA’s famous reply to Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.
It seems his goal was to terrify one small group of people, namely senior people in the healthcare industry, and I think that counts.
I’m starting to think your username isn’t true, at all!
Have you done actual research or are you assuming because it feels right, it must be?
Research on what?
Cool
