- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
I thought they put the terrorist charge on him precisely to avoid requiring a jury as part of all the
rightsprivileges we surrendered post 9/11 in the name of… Pffff… National security.National security being hilarious considering the CEOs are still walking the streets free, murdering citizens for profit having never not being actively sucked off by legislators that passed the patriot act and similar legislation.
The murderous Shareholders are already inside the house. They own the house. You can barely afford to rent it from them.
I haven’t seen anything about this, your saying a terrorism charge doesn’t have a jury at all?
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.
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.
When this happens, it means the laws that enable these people are no longer acceptable to the people. That’s a dangerous place to be.
It’s only dangerous if you’re a mass murderer. Don’t want to get gunned down on the sidewalk and have people celebrate your death? Don’t be a mass murderer.
So, not guilty?
If it works for qualified immunity it works for Luigi.
Was Luigi ever trained that he was specifically not allowed to shoot a CEO in the back? If not, qualified immunity
Every time I hear the words “qualified immunity” I think about this:
I was first trained in acute psychiatry years ago to never ever in forever restrain people face down. Me and my highschool diploma were sitting in a side room in a state hospital for I shit you not a two. week. crash course in inpatient psychiatry after which they dumped me out on the unit to work with criminally insane men for two years. And in my four hour restraint class they hammered into us to never restrain people face down.
I remember seeing two men fighting and I just figured I’d grab one and somebody else would grab the other and we’d pull and I remember looking over my guy’s shoulder and seeing the other guy gnawing on his face and then there’s a hole in my memory (likely about 60 seconds; it happens with adrenaline) and the next thing I remember I guess we had all fallen and I was laying on top of the guy I grabbed and I shit you not the very first thought in my head was “oh shit, he’s face down I need to get off him” and I slid to the side and just kept a hand hovering over his shoulders in case he tried to pop up and… idk, bite my face off or something. I didn’t even know who it was until he looked back at me. But they had hammered that one thing into my head that hard that I didn’t know what the fuck this guy was gonna do and the first thought in my head was still to get off him.
So when I saw all these news stories and all this footage of the cops holding people facedown until they asphyxiate I started asking around. I don’t work with cops in the sense that they’re my coworkers but I do run into them a lot dropping off involuntary holds. So I started asking about how they’re trained to restrain people and if they have any training on how to protect people’s airways. And it turns out they do, actually. Everybody I asked pretty universally told me they’re trained to get the cuffs on then immediately turn them on their side. It’s not super advanced, in fact it’s super basic. Basic in the sense that you could’ve taught it to a highschool graduate in under two weeks.
So it’s funny you mention not being trained for something because actually yeah they are trained to not do things that kill people and yet-
i love every bit of this
He has the right to be judged by a jury of his peers, and it appears as if his peers agree with his actions.
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”.
“As this man’s peers, you must be the judge of his actions.”
“Ok”
“Wait, not like that”
Yup. The article mentions that the prosecutors have a problem, but the U.S. people certainly don’t.
“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
Except both sides have the same number of rejections they can apply.
Median household income in Manhattan is about 100k. It’s not all insanely wealthy people.
I make $11k per year.
$100k IS insanely wealthy.
Not if you live in Manhattan. Housing alone there is stupidly expensive.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Doing what?
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.
He thinks you mean 11K/year, and you think he means 100k/year. Just trying to help out… :)
NYC or Manhattan?
Yeah, as the other person pointed out, I was pointing to the 11K per year comment. Maybe a typo?
Frezik was talking about the $100K, not the $11K.
Bye bye right to a jury trial
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.
Something something pile of garbage in a suit.
To be fair, he may also have run a couple of reds when he cycled away.
Innocent until proven guilty
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:
Juror 1: It wasn’t him. I know it in my heart…because I’ve had congenital heart disease my whole life, so I’m acutely aware of how my heart is feeling at all times. Like when my insurance company raised my premiums, I felt that in my heart. I feel this verdict in my heart, too.
Juror 2: At first, I thought it was him, but then I didn’t. Something about it made me change my mind. He just looks like a highly principled person. The media owes this man an apology.
Juror 3: This reminds me of the time I went to the ER with a severe migraine, and the insurance company denied payment for the visit because there was no proof that I had a migraine and said it could have been anxiety, which wasn’t covered in my plan. Maybe this wasn’t murder. Maybe this was assault. I guess we’ll never know now.
Juror 4: The prosecution made a good case, but the defense made one very good point: the victim has a long history of gaslighting vulnerable people. It made it hard to trust them.
Juror 5: I think it was a cover up. Maybe the “victim” killed himself and wanted to make it look like a murder so his family would get the insurance money. They seemed to know a lot about insurance loopholes and tactics.
Juror 6: I feel for the victim, but I think that considering the charges, they need a second opinion…Oh, the law states that someone can’t be tried for the same crime twice? If they think that is unjust, they could work with government to come up with a better system then. Though it is going to be a tough battle to repeal the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution since they will need approval from 38 states, but maybe they have the public’s sympathy.
Juror 7: I’m glad this trial is over. I need to get to the home to take care of my wife with cancer. The insurance company keeps giving me trouble, and she’s too weak to fight it.
Juror 8: Did you know that the defendant hadn’t even met the victim once. Who targets a random stranger for no reason at all? The prosecution wasn’t able to make a case defining the motive of the defendant.
Juror 9: In my experience, you have to be careful with insurance companies. You can never trust them. The prosecution was working for an insurance company, so it was hard to believe anything they presented.
Juror 10: As a family practice doctor, I have to deal with insurance companies that lie about denials all the time, so I can tell when they are lying, and I think they were lying in the trial.
Juror 11: NOT GUILTY. The defendant seemed to be defending others from death or serious bodily injury, which is legal according to New York Penal Law 35.15.
Juror 12: The defense made a good point. The victim had told his doctor that he smoked a cigarette once in college, and I heard that smoking cigarettes can lead to poor health. Maybe the victim would have survived if he hadn’t smoked before. We have to consider that.
Now is a good time for all Americans to learn about Juror Nullification
Knowing about Horror Nullification makes you ineligible to be on Jury Duty
It’s like asking us to feel bad that Osama Bin Laden was killed. Or that Charles Manson died. Why are they trying to generate sympathy for a serial killer? Deciding on who does and doesn’t get health care makes you just as much a murderer as Mangione. So why should I care?
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.
They will try, but people will answer that murder is not acceptable and then find not guilty later anyway. And they can potentially do that truthfully. If they find small issues with the evidence, they can go with not guilty.
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
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!”
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.
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.
