4 ms·

> That will be part of the defense argument presented to the jury. That evidence wouldn't be admitted. There's no “the guy deserved it” defense for murder, it'

by paulgb 2y ago

> That will be part of the defense argument presented to the jury. That evidence wouldn't be admitted. There's no “the guy deserved it” defense for murder, it's always illegal to kill people.

RunningDroid 2y ago
> That evidence wouldn't be admitted. There's no “the guy deserved it” defense for murder, it's always illegal to kill people. That's where jury nullification comes in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
- paulgb 2y ago
  I'm aware of jury nullification, but it doesn't change what evidence can be introduced.
griomnib 2y ago
A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). This is not drunk driving, ergo motive will be central to prosecution and defense alike. B) His lawyers will be the best of the best. C) Jury nullification.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). You literally can, You have to, of course, prove the elements of the offense, but iif the defense wants to introduce evidence whose only legal relevance is proving an element of the crime, the prosecution will be more than happy to stipulate to the legally relevant fact and render the evidence unnecessary. Generally, the defense will not wish to prove the crime, though. > B) His lawyers will be the best of the best. That’s an argument agasinst them spending effort proving a key element of the offense. > C) Jury nullification. Jury nullification exists, but evidence whose only purpose (given the facts in dispute) is to promote it is, ipso facto, legally irrelevant and will be excluded for that reason.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    > Jury nullification exists, but evidence whose only purpose (given the facts in dispute) is to promote it is, ipso facto, legally irrelevant and will be excluded for that reason. What's interesting about this is it places jurors into a position where they need to decide whether to make an adverse inference against the state. If they have reason to believe that the defense may have wanted to present such facts but the state disallowed it, then it makes sense to refuse to convict (even if they wouldn't otherwise be in favor of nullification) so as not to participate in a show trial. But they can't actually know whether this happened because explaining why you committed a crime is usually a terrible idea, so you'd usually expect it to not happen.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
bbqfog 2y ago
That this sort of mass killing is an externality to our legal system is why people have to take matters into their own hands. Our system is flawed and this a a symptom.
- griomnib 2y ago
  Yes Hobbes discussed this in Leviathan.
samatman 2y ago
It is by no means always illegal to kill people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide This assassination meets none of the criteria however. I suspect we'd find an amusing overlap between people who want to exculpate the assassin, and those who are opposed to the state applying the death penalty to convicts. Whether or not the guy had it coming is an opinion, one I'm personally holding off on having until we have more information about it. That means I'm not ruling out thinking so, and harbor hope in any case that it might prompt other health insurance CEOs to consider whether providing better service to their customers might also be in their direct self interest. Then again, I'm not opposed to the death penalty either. But regardless of where one might fall on that question, it's delusional to think that the state will not regard the assassination as first-degree murder, and that a jury would do other than convict in the event that they're persuaded that the defendant is the same person as the one who was caught on video shooting him in the back. That's not what's going to happen.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pixelatedindex 2y ago
There is a double standard though - when a common man is gunned on the street it’s just thoughts and prayers, there’s nothing we can do, etc. But when it’s an elite somehow that death is more important. If there is no justice for them, then there should be no justice here either. Otherwise it just reaffirms that some human lives are worth more than others.

by paulgb 2y ago

> That will be part of the defense argument presented to the jury. That evidence wouldn't be admitted. There's no “the guy deserved it” defense for murder, it's always illegal to kill people.

RunningDroid 2y ago

> That evidence wouldn't be admitted. There's no “the guy deserved it” defense for murder, it's always illegal to kill people. That's where jury nullification comes in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

paulgb 2y ago
I'm aware of jury nullification, but it doesn't change what evidence can be introduced.

griomnib 2y ago

A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). This is not drunk driving, ergo motive will be central to prosecution and defense alike. B) His lawyers will be the best of the best. C) Jury nullification.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). You literally can, You have to, of course, prove the elements of the offense, but iif the defense wants to introduce evidence whose only legal relevance is proving an element of the crime, the prosecution will be more than happy to stipulate to the legally relevant fact and render the evidence unnecessary. Generally, the defense will not wish to prove the crime, though. > B) His lawyers will be the best of the best. That’s an argument agasinst them spending effort proving a key element of the offense. > C) Jury nullification. Jury nullification exists, but evidence whose only purpose (given the facts in dispute) is to promote it is, ipso facto, legally irrelevant and will be excluded for that reason.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  > Jury nullification exists, but evidence whose only purpose (given the facts in dispute) is to promote it is, ipso facto, legally irrelevant and will be excluded for that reason. What's interesting about this is it places jurors into a position where they need to decide whether to make an adverse inference against the state. If they have reason to believe that the defense may have wanted to present such facts but the state disallowed it, then it makes sense to refuse to convict (even if they wouldn't otherwise be in favor of nullification) so as not to participate in a show trial. But they can't actually know whether this happened because explaining why you committed a crime is usually a terrible idea, so you'd usually expect it to not happen.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

bbqfog 2y ago

That this sort of mass killing is an externality to our legal system is why people have to take matters into their own hands. Our system is flawed and this a a symptom.

griomnib 2y ago
Yes Hobbes discussed this in Leviathan.

samatman 2y ago

It is by no means always illegal to kill people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide This assassination meets none of the criteria however. I suspect we'd find an amusing overlap between people who want to exculpate the assassin, and those who are opposed to the state applying the death penalty to convicts. Whether or not the guy had it coming is an opinion, one I'm personally holding off on having until we have more information about it. That means I'm not ruling out thinking so, and harbor hope in any case that it might prompt other health insurance CEOs to consider whether providing better service to their customers might also be in their direct self interest. Then again, I'm not opposed to the death penalty either. But regardless of where one might fall on that question, it's delusional to think that the state will not regard the assassination as first-degree murder, and that a jury would do other than convict in the event that they're persuaded that the defendant is the same person as the one who was caught on video shooting him in the back. That's not what's going to happen.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pixelatedindex 2y ago

There is a double standard though - when a common man is gunned on the street it’s just thoughts and prayers, there’s nothing we can do, etc. But when it’s an elite somehow that death is more important. If there is no justice for them, then there should be no justice here either. Otherwise it just reaffirms that some human lives are worth more than others.