• @zergtoshi
    link
    English
    181 month ago

    Well, given that jury nullification is a thing and considering how rarely it happens, I’d rather risk the scenarios outlined by you than having no way of giving a not guilty verdict to people this way who do something illegal but legitimate.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 month ago

      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.

      • @zergtoshi
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        I agree with your second paragraph.
        I want Luigi to go free even if he did pull the trigger, because the jury comes to the conclusion that killing Brian Thompson was done, because ultimately CEOs need to be (hold) responsible or they aren’t needed in the first place.
        If holding them responsible is impossible due to a rigged system, alternatives need to be tolerated.
        People (especially CEOs) need to consider the consequences of their actions.
        Until very recently people in power could do as they please without fear of consequences. That needs to change one way or the other. I’d prefer them changing coursefor the better of all. If they won’t, well…