72
Man who tried to assassinate Trump in Florida sentenced to life in prison
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
72 points (97.4% liked)
News
35471 readers
3031 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's not how a society built on laws work, and the judge would be abdicating his duty if he let him off light.
Besides, he is MAGA, and I suspect that whole situation was set up as a PR boost for Trump. He's the fall guy anyway.
We don’t live in a society built on laws anymore
It was built on them. Doesn't mean they're still working.
Laws aren’t black and white, they’re always open to interpretation and discretion. It’s why jury’s exist, it’s why lawyers exist, it’s why the courts exist, it’s why the police exist.
If allowances aren’t made, it’s not a lawful society.
You’re wanting to go back to Monarchy/dictatorship, which is where one person rules and makes the decisions.
The law's pretty clear in this case.
What you're saying is really that breaking the law was justified, something that the legal system has no concept of and never can.
This has nothing to do with dictatorship; all democracies are built on the rule of law, which means the if you break the law (and are caught) you suffer the punishment.
It's actually the opposite: Discretionary exceptions to the law are a hallmark of authoritarian societies where those with power let their friends off the hook, but punish their enemies harshly. Maybe you can think of some examples in recent times in the US.
Who made the laws mate? Lmfao.
Do you notice how in dictatorships they actually just ignore the laws instead?
The answer to that is not relevant to the question of whether laws are "black and white".
They ignore some laws, some of the time.
The principle of the Rule of Law is that all people are subject to the same law, and that law is available so that everyone can know what it is.
Quick history lesson: in Tudor and Stuart England, the King could prosecute anyone he liked for anything he liked in the so-called Star Chamber; it did not have to hand down judgements based on any written law and instead it could decide any case before it based on its own ideas of morality. Successive Kings used this to punish those opposed to them and their policies. The Star Chamber was abolished during the English Civil War by parliament (opposed to the King) because of its excesses, and along with its abolition came a growing understanding that became the principle of the rule of law.
When you allow courts to rule otherwise than in accordance with the law, you allow them to pick whom they punish and whom they do not punish. This is the case with all exceptions to Rule of Law - such as presidential pardons. They were designed to permit mercy, but Trump used them to pardon his supporters.
When you ask to suspend Rule of Law and permit leniency - permit deviation from the law - you're asking to allow whomever has influence over the use of that deviance to exert their own personal will on the judicial process. The powerful having influence over justice is a hallmark of authoritarianism, which is what you're asking for.
What you want is for people who commit crimes that you think have mitigating circumstances to be let off. Making you the authority in your authoritarian fantasy.