NOW I see why they went for “terrorism”.
A charge of murder in the first degree is rare in New York because it requires special elements related to the crime to be charged.
Under state law, murder in the first degree only applies to a narrow list of aggravating circumstances, including when the victim is a judge, a police officer or a first responder, or when the killing involves a murder-for-hire or an intent to commit terrorism.
BUT…
“This victim was shot in the back of the head, not the front of the head, on a quiet sidewalk, early in the morning, in the dark. It doesn’t appear from a defense attorney’s perspective that this was intended to be a terroristic type of murder,” Schneider said.
“The murder happened first, the outcry was second and totally unpredictable,” Schneider said. “So, I think this might be a case of overreaching on murder one.”
What are they going to try and prove? That the social media outcome was what he wanted and predicted? Horse. Puckey. We know they’ll try to use his manifesto though.
“It was a cold and calculated crime that stole a life and put New Yorkers at risk,” Tisch continued. “We don’t celebrate murders, and we don’t lionize the killing of anyone, and any attempt to rationalize this is vile, reckless and offensive to our deeply held principles of justice.”
Always worth mentioning that Tisch is the daughter of the CEO of a billion dollar company as was his father.
She’s only in her position because Eric Adams is corrupt as fuck and keeps letting rich influential people have high ranking government positions.
deleted by creator
I mean, that’s kinda the crux of it, right?
If the response was unpredictable, then it isn’t terrorism.
If the response was predictable, then the court would be acknowledging that the victim was a giant piece of shit.
Two instances? Still too small a sample size.
If they deny him a jury trial in the name of “terrorism”, we should all riot.
They cannot deny him a jury trial. That right is at the very pillars of our system of law. Hell, even dictators run kangaroo courts. Which this trial won’t be because the eyes of the world on on it.
My understanding is that “terrorists” do not always have that right.
Attorney: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there’s nothing in particular that can prove that my client had premeditated intent to kill Mr. Thompson.
Luigi: No that’s wrong, I definitely planned to kill him.
Attorney: Who can say if he was even in his right mind?
Luigi: I wrote up a whole manifesto!
Attorney: Your honor can I have a moment to speak with my client?
It’s almost like the phrase “murder in the first degree” has a different meaning in New York State law than common parlance.
You know, the whole things that the article was about.
Oh, whoa, you’re right.
I did read what CNN said, but honestly, I was half assuming they were talking out of their ass and sweeping a more normal definition of murder one under that little “including when”. But yes.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-125-27.html
There are thirteen different subsections that can be murder one, not just the three they listed out, but they’re all very specific circumstances similar to those, that don’t seem like they can apply to Luigi unless they can make the terrorism one stick.
Thanks for coming back and saying you were wrong.
