• @tlou3please
      link
      12 months ago

      Again, I appreciate the sentiment but that’s not really what ‘immediate’ means in this context.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 months ago

        If I was a juror I wouldn’t buy that for a second. That CEO was actively killing people.

        • @tlou3please
          link
          12 months ago

          Again, not disagreeing with the sentiment, but legally he WASN’T actively killing people. Nobody was in any immediate danger. That means physically and temporally immediate. That means the defences and laws that are relevant are entirely different. That’s just how it works and how the law is set up.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            Sure but the law includes interpretation by jurors too, and in reality he was an immediate threat. I’m not going to put a man in prison because of a definition that’s clearly wrong.

            • @tlou3please
              link
              12 months ago

              The jurors have discretion, yes, but that doesn’t kick in at the jury vetting stage. Again, I get the sentiment, but that’s just the way it works.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 months ago

                I’m sorry if I implied that jurors interpreting the law “kicks in” during jury vetting. I’m not actually sure what that means.

                • @tlou3please
                  link
                  22 months ago

                  I mean it’s true that jury nullification is a thing, but that relates to decisions made in the jury room. Jury vetting is a completely separate matter that takes place before the trial starts proper.