Olgratin_Magmatoe @ Olgratin_Magmatoe @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

869

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that it's a false dichotomy, but do you have viable alternatives?

Trying to use the threat of possible assassination to get someone to act in a CEO role in a way beneficial to their millions of customers, that’s just not stable.

Nothing about our current situation is stable. So yeah, of course the violent symptoms of the starving and ill masses won't be stable either.

The wording of the meme definition isn't fully correct, but the spirit of it is.

And that's why if you're selected as a juror you shut your mouth about jury nullification.

I haven’t seen 1 person call the assailant a hero

I've seen it in a few threads, and they're right.

🍽

Found the explanation:

https://lemmy.world/comment/13802091

Still slightly hyperbole, but somewhat grounded.

🍽

🍽

🍽

They have to fall asleep at some point.

It could be the one thing that heals the country.

The number isn't really the point though, if it's the case of a metaphor. The trolly problem is usually set up with 1v5 people, but it's just as arbitrary and hypothetical. The trolly problem could just as easily be set up as 1v100, because the actual number of people on the tracks is to a degree irrelevant to the morality of the question.

This probably isn't any different.

They may mean tomorrow in the metaphorical sense. Like "the world of tomorrow" kind of sense.

It also could just be an arbitrary/hyperbole number, to show how little the lives of the many mater to the news in comparison to the ceo.

Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity, or a perverse verdict, is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

1. Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.
2. In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense.

A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the law. Such a pattern may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment. It may also happen that a jury convicts a defendant even if no law was broken, although such a conviction may be overturned on appeal. Nullification can also occur in civil trials; unlike in criminal trials, if the jury renders a not liable verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or order a new trial.

There is an uper limit to how much that kind of security can help.

That, and we've evolved to really enjoy foods high in sugar/fat/carbs/protein/etc.

If it has shit loads of energy, we love it, because that's what got us to survive.

🍽

Read the room. We all care except for dumbasses who think that their neck won't be eventually on the chopping block.

I think the best part is that you don't really need to be able to play it for it to work. Just drown them out with garbage.