• Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Find him not guilty, the world celebrates the jury that spared Luigi and he goes onto become a hero.

    Find him guilty, the world shames the judge that killed Luigi and he goes onto become a martyr.

    There’s no winning for the corporate elite here

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      unfortunately there always is, and it’s almost always the same. wait for it to die down.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      The darker part of my psyche is a little giddy at the idea of CEOs shitting their boots cause there’s a man on the loose in the world who is willing and able to murder them and that no one will ever convict him.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Oh I could easily see him winning the Criminal Case and losing a Civil.

        They’d probably not even care during the Civil Case if he killed Brian or not, they’d just talk about how “Because the news cycle about Louie G over here we lost stonks.”

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      I really can’t see a scenario where the jury don’t find him guilty. They really don’t have a choice, they have to uphold the law as it is written. It is not within the remit of a trial to make new law.

      No matter the ethical considerations he did kill someone. The law is very clear that murder is not acceptable even if you personally think it’s justifiable.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        They really don’t have a choice, they have to uphold the law as it is written.

        They do, indeed. However, the “written law” includes the sixth amendment to the constitution, guaranteeing the accused the right to a jury of their peers. Peers. The purpose of that right is to ensure that We The People are the ones determining if a person should be punished for a particular action. Not a government agent, or legal professional.

        The flip side of the 6th amendment guarantee to the accused is that the juror owes that duty to the accused, and the juror is constitutionally empowered to reach a decision.

        Constitutional powers supersede legislated law. The juror is not beholden to legislated law. Indeed, if they feel that strictly applying a lower law results in an injustice, they have a constitutionally-imposed duty to reject the short-sighted legislated law.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            That question is nonsensical: 1. The jury never has to justify anything; 2. “Murder” is a legislated concept. The jury is not beholden to the legislature, and is constitutionally empowered to reject the laws they create. They do have to follow the law, but the law includes the constitution that demands and empowers them to make their decision as laypersons.

            Where the jury feels that enforcing the legislated law would be an injustice, they are free to rule “not guilty”, even if they believe the accused’s actions violate that law.

            To more directly answer your question, though: If the jury felt that the healthcare extortion industry was completely out of control and a clear and present danger to society in general, they could determine that the legislated prohibition against killing did not contemplate this particular killing. They could determine that the accused does not deserve to be convicted just because the legislature was shortsighted in the way they wrote the law. I’m not saying the law is actually shortsighted, nor am I saying that the jury should nullify. I’m saying that they could “uphold the law as written” and elect to acquit him under the authority conveyed to them, in the “written law” of the 6th amendment.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            There is precedent.

            Something similar happened for a man who killed a Christian Science practitioner for forbidding him from taking his son to the doctor despite getting medical care himself.

            This had been done after he tried to have said practitioner charged with negligent homicide and voluntary manslaughter charges over what became of the kid. The Justice System let him walk because of religious exemption, the father took revenge himself and the Jury decided that the man was merely correcting an error made by the Judge of that case.

            Disclaimer: Christian Science is neither science nor Christian. It was basically a clickbait name given to a Quantum Mysticism cult that existed before Quantum Physics was really a thing. Please do not “Skydaddy” it up like a common redditor in response.

            • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              16 hours ago

              I don’t think something that happened in the 1800s is particularly applicable to the 21st century.

      • BehindTheBarrier@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        I don’t think it will happen, and especially not for something this high profile, but Jury Nullification is essentially the “he did it, but we don’t see his actions as punishable”. It’d be a huge uproar if that happened too.

    • nfh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Do you think there’s a world where his pleading innocent, and his attorneys’ arguments that someone else did it will affect his status as a folk hero? It seems like a fine line for him to tow, for him to minimize his sentence, but not negatively impact the message, and his status in bearing it.

      I want to see him do it, but that seems like the challenge of his position.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 days ago

        At this point, the idea of Luigi is more important than the man. And it doesn’t hurt that the media’s been fucking up and forgetting to call him an ALLEGED killer.

        So he’d be the reverse of OJ, in that he’d be found innocent of a crime he didn’t commit, but beloved by everyone as most believe he did to it. (Whereas with OJ being found innocent of a crime he DID commit made him hated because everyone believe he did, infact, do that shit)

        • DancingBear
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          OJ is a lot different. He was a famous celebrity sports figure. He killed or didn’t kill his wife. The public only cared about OJ because of his celebrity status, and because the woman was white, and he is black.

          I don’t think it’s a very good comparison.