view the rest of the comments
News
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
I really think he’d have a shot at jury nullification tbh
Even if his defense was that he only killed a CEO and not a person, I'd acquit him.
If I became president, I'd pardon him.
If I became president, I’d pardon him AND give everyone a free yo-yo
I fuck yeah! One Duncan butterfly please.
I want mine to be a transparent blue and light up when I’m yo-ing.
Also, can I get a helmet.
We have Top People working on that right now. It is a major priority for my administration.
I do not take yo-yos lightly.
Kinda funny how when Trump pardons criminals everyone gets mad but here when someone suggests doing the exact same it’s totally fine (because this guy’s on our side…)
Pardons haven't only been issued by Trump. They exist because context and extenuating circumstances are important.
Just because they can be abused doesn't mean every pardon is corrupt.
Kinda funny that you can't distinguish between criminal and hero. You need book to tell you who is bad and who is good
This is the issue though. You say he’a a hero and the other half of the population say he’s a criminal. What makes you right and them wrong? Or the other way around?
If he is indeed guilty then that does make him a criminal by definition. As for being a hero, that’s subjective. One can be both a criminal and a hero.
If his defense droped a few stories of other people being ruined by the insurance industry an just kept hammering it home he totally could
they will likely try to find jurors, not screwed over by insurances, and certainly not anyone that had UHC, or any of its affiliates.
That's a really small section of Americans at this point.
If the jury was all Lemmings then for sure. But people here aren't as representative of the general public as they think they are. Older Americans in particular are not down with Luigi.
It only takes one person intent on nullification to hang a jury. The prosecution can retry the case, but they have to decide if it’s worth it.
And lawyers are really good at jury selection and striking potential jurors. Better than the average person is at trying to outsmart a federal prosecutor.
This is why you need to make sure you don't look sharp.
I'm certain they would find it worth it, given the high profile nature of the murder.
All the old people on my social media stopped short of explicitly praising murder, but none of them objected to people saying it was cool and most said they understood. Old people, while more conservative are also more likely to have an insurance horror story of their own or someone they know. Even my the MAGA boomer acquaintance treated it with humor rather than tragedy.
There's no way in this world he would get a fair jury. Any member of that jury will absolutely be bribed and or threatened.
If juries were fairly selected he'd 100% get jury nullification...
Which is why it wasn't going to happen organically in the current selection.
It's like how to beat "straw purchase" gun laws: you just have to lie.
If you've heard of it as a concept, that's enough to take you off. To the point it's been a strategy for a long time of people who want to avoid jury duty. It doesn't always work, because most of the time they don't really care
Something like this, the government isn't letting anyone on who knows what it is, and especially today would investigate anyone who suddenly "learned about it" after being selected.
So to be clear:
It should have worked.
It wouldn't have.
Like, we'd have need Mario to get on the jury while wearing an obvious disguise, and they'd be taking almost as much of a risk as player 2. It just wasn't likely.
I'm super interested in his reasoning for this, but I'd be really surprised if they let him do interviews anytime soon, and what matters more than us knowing is his legal strategies working. We just gotta wait and see.
I have lied about my intentions on every jury and I tell my loved ones to do the same.
Don’t disclose it ahead of time, obviously.
They can investigate it all they like, but all you have to do is never say the phrase “jury nullification” and start talking about how you’re not sure this should be a crime at all. I’m not saying it would necessarily work, but it’s not as though jury nullification is a wild thing that only exists in the US, it’s a fundamental part of how juries work- acknowledging it isn’t suspicious (again, without the name).