• 0 Posts
  • 175 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle


  • I was making a distinction between ‘the people’ in general, and ‘the jury’. The people can, and should, consider the ethics of the law, and act appropriately. In less extreme cases that might involve encouraging your local legislator to push for changes in the law. We’ve seen the results in more extreme cases. Juries on the other hand should judge the case in front of them on its facts, rather than their feelings about the defendant and their actions. We’ve seen the results of juries not doing so, with lynch mobs getting away without consequence, and other defendants being found guilty for the color of their skin.

    As to your point regarding the problem of those in power simply ignoring the law, you’re right, that is a problem, and one which I doubt will be solved without extreme action. It is, of course, possible that in four years this gang will peacefully hand over to a less criminal administration, but I’m not confident of that. Even if they do, rebuilding trust in the concept of the law being applied equally and fairly will be a massive, and long term, challenge.

    This is supposed to be uplifting news though, so let us hope that his defence can find a compelling argument and the jury can find him not guilty without recourse to tactics that might make the overall situation worse.



  • Yeah, I don’t think he gets a pass by blaming his behaviour on mental health issues, but a lot of people bring it up. I watch people like him, and I’m fairly convinced they don’t have the principals to actually, deep down, be Nazis, they’re too vain, too self-centred and too desperate for power of any sort. That doesn’t mean they won’t fly that particular flag if they think it’ll bring them what they want, or that they wont cheer on the harm it brings to others if they think it gets them closer to power. Functionally, you can treat them as Nazis, traitors and whatever else they align themselves with. With luck they will reap the consequences of that.


  • Could I offer an alternative viewpoint? I don’t know if it’s true, and if it is I don’t know if it’s better or worse. His style of ‘music’ holds no interest for me, and I know nothing more than what I have read about him, so I could be wildly off base.

    As many have pointed out, he might well have a mental health issue, but is it not also possible that he is, and always has been, just totally amoral and has seen which way the wind is blowing? He seems to have sonewhat list relevance recently, and fixating on, and loudly proclaiming your hatred of, a chosen ‘other’ group may seem like a good way to get back into the centre of attention and curry favour with those in power.

    I don’t think that would be any better than him being a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi, as functionally it means he is one, but might explain a rapid appearance his Nazism.








  • The difficulty comes with defining shooting someone, who isn’t an obvious immediate threat, as legitimate. If there’s a plausible way to do that, it should be the core of his defense, if there isn’t you’re asking the jury to let him off just because you don’t like the guy who was killed.

    I hope his defense team can find a way to show that he acted in self defense against the harm the company were doing to him. That would be a plausible reason for the jury to find him not guilty, not set a precedent for letting murderers go free, and send a suitable warning to other CEOs.



  • I agree with what you are saying, but this is not a precident you want to set. Jurys are supposed to consider whether the defendant broke the law, not whether they agree with the ethics of the action. Too many miscarriages of justice have occured for ‘vibes’ to be an acceptable way to judge these things.

    I would rather see his defence mount a case around self-defence or something of that nature (the CEO was harming Luigi or his family for instance) so that the jury have a reason to say he was within the law.