The repeated mention of "jury nullification" here is a cop-out.
Jury nullification is essentially an admission that the law itself is conditionally unjust and the popular belief is that it should be ignored this time, nullified. So why pretend the legal system is always valid in the first place? I do not see the legal system as fair or representative of the people; if it was, this assassination wouldn't have ever happened. The laws are made by politicians and the politicians represent the owner class, those with enough money to purchase politics.
If you don't want to see the assassin prosecuted, if you too "didn't see anything", then why insist "murder is murder" when you clearly think this one doesn't deserve equal treatment? It's utopian idealism, the kind of rule that holds true in an ignorant vacuum experiment but not in this unfair rigged game of a world.
The appropriate sentence for this crime is: "Keep up the important work."
No it isn't. Neither major party has used their power to fix this system. Both have had ample opportunity in the many past decades.
Due to the dominance of the FPTP system's spoiler effect and of the two-party system, we can't reasonably expect a mass shift to third parties. Therefore, of the two viable parties, neither will change the system. No realistic voting behavior indicates support of the broken system - if anything the lowering voter turnout is a general indication that they don't support the system.
Further, legality should not be considered a measure of justice. The best thing to do is often illegal. Laws are made by politicians, and politicians are overwhelmingly representing the owning class, not typical people, so the utopian idea that laws are fair is completely ignorant of the real legal and political system defining them.
Given the perspective you described, I would consider the actions of the company to be systematic mass murder who the legal system fails to stop, and the actions of the shooter to be community defense against a mass murderer. They're certainly not equivalent, and I don't see what the benefit is of treating that defense equally to even one callous for-profit murder.
The problem isn't that exceptions are made and therefore all crimes should be treated in an ignorant vacuum. The problem is that the idealist legal system doesn't even consider indirect suffering as the violence it is, because the legal system is ultimately beholden to the power of capital (money buys politicians and the media power to make them win, politicians write laws).
What is this, reddit.com? There's no bourgeois advertisers or venture capitalists to appease here. [0]
edit: just noticed your account is registerd on lemmy.world...... consider exploring other instances just in case they get out the banhammer. but, I mean, they can't ban all of you.
I deleted it myself because I felt a couple of the targets were a bit too pointlessly edgy for the room. But some of them are spot on. (Eulogy Song from The Chaser's War on Everything for those curious)
The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the
reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the
defendant believed them to be.
Given how composed they are and premeditated it was, I'm not sure if this is in the spirit of the legal clause, but it could be... interpreted liberally by a judge.
Thanks for supplying your legal expertise pro bono, but we're going to need a citation of relevant legislative definition if you're going to make broad claims like that about legal matters.
It sounds to me like a professional hit. The guy used a silencer and when his gun jammed he cleared the jam and got off a couple more shots
I'm no gun expert, but this doesn't sound special or advanced. Just seems like basic research and planning after checking how previous assassinations have failed. From what I've seen there are plenty of suggestions it was amateur but reasonably-well planned.
comfy @ comfy @lemmy.ml Posts 29Comments 973Joined 3 yr. ago
The repeated mention of "jury nullification" here is a cop-out.
Jury nullification is essentially an admission that the law itself is conditionally unjust and the popular belief is that it should be ignored this time, nullified. So why pretend the legal system is always valid in the first place? I do not see the legal system as fair or representative of the people; if it was, this assassination wouldn't have ever happened. The laws are made by politicians and the politicians represent the owner class, those with enough money to purchase politics.
If you don't want to see the assassin prosecuted, if you too "didn't see anything", then why insist "murder is murder" when you clearly think this one doesn't deserve equal treatment? It's utopian idealism, the kind of rule that holds true in an ignorant vacuum experiment but not in this unfair rigged game of a world.
The appropriate sentence for this crime is: "Keep up the important work."