Oh, so like when it goes the other way and the public decides someone is guilty long before they go to trial and prosecutors go after him anyway.
Big deal. The jury will decide one way or another and I will be very surprised that the highest charges will stick if they get normal people on the bench.
The fact that this guy had a manhunt out for him when people are murdered every day and nearly no resources are used at all to go after them is astounding. Just shows the law is there for the rich, not the rest of us.
There was another school shooting this week, i think that’s the 80th this year and people don’t seem to care. Why would anyone care about some parasite millionaire when innocent kids are gunned down everyday and that’s just the way it is.
They will try Luigi until it sticks. It’s critical to the powerful that they send the message they are beyond reproach.
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
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.
Good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!”
deleted by creator
Jury Nullfication is the People’s Presidential Pardon
Just don’t mention jury nullification in front of a judge or prosecutor. They hate that.
Definitely mention it, just not at your own trial or after you’ve been selected for jury duty
Never mention it. They will often ask questions about how you think a juror should or can act. If you answer them in a way that shows you might know about nullification, you are out. If you then later admit you know about it, they will point to those questions and know you lied about them. Safest answer is to just never, ever use the term, ideally you should go through the motions in deliberation of putting the the rules together, like you are just realizing it’s a possibility then and there.
Yeah, I’m saying that we should mention it as non jurors. Its our responsibility to tell them. Here on Lemmy and every way we can. Let jurors know that they have the ability to do justice, even if the law is wrong
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.
Billionaries and CEOs don’t bother to show up to jury duty
And so much for a “jury of our peers” if they are padded with billionaires.
Imagine they show for this though…
If I was the only working class juror, I would try my hardest to get the CEO jurors sequestered with me.
Can we really call ceo’s our peers?
Nope. I’d be deliberately wasting their time and money until we’re a hung jury. They aren’t capable of a good faith discussion.
These clowns have no idea they’re so out of touch with everyday Americans
Maybe this is somewhat similar to a woman killing her rapist, after police refuse to investigate? There are probably examples of leniency in such cases.
Sympathy and empathy are definitely a problem in an openly corrupt, heartless justice system that only serves the elite.
Jury nullification
“Jury nullification is a fundamental aspect of the American jury system, allowing jurors to acquit defendants despite overwhelming evidence of guilt if they deem the law unjust or immoral. This concept has its roots in colonial America and has been exercised throughout U.S. history, often in response to unjust laws or societal norms.”
For those not on the know.
Werent the admins banning posts about jury nullification for some bullshit “glorifying violence” reason or something?
.world did for a little bit but i think they ended up deciding that it can be referenced for an already done crime, whereas if it is said in context before someone commits a crime then it would be considered inciting violence or whatever.
So it’s ok in this context of Luigi, the alleged killer.
He has the right to be judged by a jury of his peers, and it appears as if his peers agree with his actions.
“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
Median household income in Manhattan is about 100k. It’s not all insanely wealthy people.
I make $11k per year.
$100k IS insanely wealthy.
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.
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.
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.
Frezik was talking about the $100K, not the $11K.
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… :)
Yeah, as the other person pointed out, I was pointing to the 11K per year comment. Maybe a typo?
NYC or Manhattan?
In the US? That’s less than the legal minimum wage
Not if you don’t/can’t work full time.
Doing what?
Except both sides have the same number of rejections they can apply.
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.
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”.
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?
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.
