5 ms·

> “Good evening, Major, my name is Muybridge and here’s the answer to the letter you sent my wife.” Muybridge aimed his Smith & Weston No. 2 six-shooter, fired

> “Good evening, Major, my name is Muybridge and here’s the answer to the letter you sent my wife.” Muybridge aimed his Smith & Weston No. 2 six-shooter, fired once and shot the man dead. > against the judge’s direction they acquitted him on account of justifiable homicide. The most interesting part to me is how he was so casually acquitted of murder.

JKCalhoun 4y ago
Phillip Glass's The Photographer always begins to haunt my mind when I read about Muybridge. "Whose baby is this?!" https://youtu.be/S3Q1k3TlQis https://youtu.be/S3Q1k3TlQis
spaceribs 4y ago
The thing they don't tell you about jury nullification and prosecutorial nullification is that it's been historically used for far more injustice than justice.
unmole 4y ago
A similar high profile case lead to India doing away with jury trials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_v._State_of_Maharashtra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_v._State_of_Mah...
Johanx64 4y ago
There use to be a time when fucking somebody's wife had a certain... weight to it. Marriage actually 'ment' something in a fairly direct way.
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  It sounds like it "ment" you literally owned your wife and if she didn't enjoy being with you, you were justified in taking your rage out on others... So, kinda glad people can just get divorced now instead of having random psychopaths propelling around the country murdering with impunity
  - Johanx64 4y ago
    Did he kill his wife or not? No? Then why are you even bringing his wife into it. Some man fucked a married woman, he got killed. At no point does this bring up questions of "ownership" or "random psychopathy". A random psychopath out of nowhere didn't kill you, you got killed by a husband of a married woman you fucked. Action -> Consequence. Very deterministic. There's no randomness in who got killed in this circumstance, in fact it's pretty predictable outcome (like rolling a dice where one face of a dice might kill you). Actions had consequences. Unless the woman hid that she was married, and the man had no way of knowing then that'd be bit different. Additionally, according to the article, they did end up getting divorced, which seems to indicate that a divorce was an available option. I get it, consequence-free, zero responsibility stuff is all the rage now, and thus marriage means jack shit now (and little to no reason to do it really)
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      Since we're playing the action->fatal consequence game, what other perfectly legal (although irritating) things should justify first-degree, premeditated murder?
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        I am sure that if violating any software license attracted such kind of vengeance, HN would be a server of ghosts.
      - splitstud 4y ago
      - Johanx64 4y ago
        It is telling that you're refering to adulterly as this innocent "perfectly legal", but "irritating" (LOL!) thing, given that within the context of the article, the mid 19th century, it was pretty darn far from "perfectly legal" to say the least, and has legal consequences even to this day. Legality is absolutely irrelevant in any conversation about morality, ethics or societal norms and their decline and similar. They are not laws of universe and are malleable, made up and thus completely irrelevant outside of context of seeking legal advice. Legality of thing X, implies absolutely NOTHING about thing X, other than it being legal that is. It's the hidden implicit implication (but "hey, it's perfectly legal", and therefore) which is particularly dishonest and insidious. And in many cases a murder as a consequence of adultery would not necessarily be classified as "premediated first-degree murder" either.
concordDance 4y ago
Different times, different values. Even today there are still places where honor is more important than life.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I would describe that as ego, not honor.
  - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
    It's one thing to woo a partner away. It's quite another to be fooled into raising another man's child all their life at great expense. If she'd left him and taken the child with her, I'd think of it very differently.
wazoox 4y ago
Raoul Villain was acquitted from the murder of Jean Jaurès, and there are some similar cases across history.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

Phillip Glass's The Photographer always begins to haunt my mind when I read about Muybridge. "Whose baby is this?!" https://youtu.be/S3Q1k3TlQis https://youtu.be/S3Q1k3TlQis

spaceribs 4y ago

The thing they don't tell you about jury nullification and prosecutorial nullification is that it's been historically used for far more injustice than justice.

unmole 4y ago

A similar high profile case lead to India doing away with jury trials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_v._State_of_Maharashtra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_v._State_of_Mah...

Johanx64 4y ago

There use to be a time when fucking somebody's wife had a certain... weight to it. Marriage actually 'ment' something in a fairly direct way.

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
It sounds like it "ment" you literally owned your wife and if she didn't enjoy being with you, you were justified in taking your rage out on others... So, kinda glad people can just get divorced now instead of having random psychopaths propelling around the country murdering with impunity
- Johanx64 4y ago
  Did he kill his wife or not? No? Then why are you even bringing his wife into it. Some man fucked a married woman, he got killed. At no point does this bring up questions of "ownership" or "random psychopathy". A random psychopath out of nowhere didn't kill you, you got killed by a husband of a married woman you fucked. Action -> Consequence. Very deterministic. There's no randomness in who got killed in this circumstance, in fact it's pretty predictable outcome (like rolling a dice where one face of a dice might kill you). Actions had consequences. Unless the woman hid that she was married, and the man had no way of knowing then that'd be bit different. Additionally, according to the article, they did end up getting divorced, which seems to indicate that a divorce was an available option. I get it, consequence-free, zero responsibility stuff is all the rage now, and thus marriage means jack shit now (and little to no reason to do it really)
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    Since we're playing the action->fatal consequence game, what other perfectly legal (although irritating) things should justify first-degree, premeditated murder?
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      I am sure that if violating any software license attracted such kind of vengeance, HN would be a server of ghosts.
    - splitstud 4y ago
    - Johanx64 4y ago
      It is telling that you're refering to adulterly as this innocent "perfectly legal", but "irritating" (LOL!) thing, given that within the context of the article, the mid 19th century, it was pretty darn far from "perfectly legal" to say the least, and has legal consequences even to this day. Legality is absolutely irrelevant in any conversation about morality, ethics or societal norms and their decline and similar. They are not laws of universe and are malleable, made up and thus completely irrelevant outside of context of seeking legal advice. Legality of thing X, implies absolutely NOTHING about thing X, other than it being legal that is. It's the hidden implicit implication (but "hey, it's perfectly legal", and therefore) which is particularly dishonest and insidious. And in many cases a murder as a consequence of adultery would not necessarily be classified as "premediated first-degree murder" either.

concordDance 4y ago

Different times, different values. Even today there are still places where honor is more important than life.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
I would describe that as ego, not honor.
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  It's one thing to woo a partner away. It's quite another to be fooled into raising another man's child all their life at great expense. If she'd left him and taken the child with her, I'd think of it very differently.

wazoox 4y ago

Raoul Villain was acquitted from the murder of Jean Jaurès, and there are some similar cases across history.