News

He has the right to be judged by a jury of his peers, and it appears as if his peers agree with his actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

I thought they put the terrorist charge on him precisely to avoid requiring a jury as part of all the ~~rights~~ privileges we surrendered post 9/11 in the name of... Pffff... National security.

National security being hilarious considering the CEOs are still walking the streets free, murdering citizens for profit having never not being actively sucked off by legislators that passed the patriot act and similar legislation.

The murderous Shareholders are already inside the house. They own the house. You can barely afford to rent it from them.

When this happens, it means the laws that enable these people are no longer acceptable to the people. That's a dangerous place to be.

Sympathy and empathy are definitely a problem in an openly corrupt, heartless justice system that only serves the elite.

Jury nullification

Oh, so like when it goes the other way and the public decides someone is guilty long before they go to trial and prosecutors go after him anyway.

Big deal. The jury will decide one way or another and I will be very surprised that the highest charges will stick if they get normal people on the bench.

The fact that this guy had a manhunt out for him when people are murdered every day and nearly no resources are used at all to go after them is astounding. Just shows the law is there for the rich, not the rest of us.

Jury Nullfication is the People's Presidential Pardon

That's the jury working exactly they way it should

There's a McDonald's worker able to be jury. Oh wait, he didn't get the reward money as his claim got denied for bullshit reasons, just like insurance... Never mind.

Billionaries and CEOs don't bother to show up to jury duty

Juror 1: It wasn't him. I know it in my heart...because I've had congenital heart disease my whole life, so I'm acutely aware of how my heart is feeling at all times. Like when my insurance company raised my premiums, I felt that in my heart. I feel this verdict in my heart, too.

Juror 2: At first, I thought it was him, but then I didn't. Something about it made me change my mind. He just looks like a highly principled person. The media owes this man an apology.

Juror 3: This reminds me of the time I went to the ER with a severe migraine, and the insurance company denied payment for the visit because there was no proof that I had a migraine and said it could have been anxiety, which wasn't covered in my plan. Maybe this wasn't murder. Maybe this was assault. I guess we'll never know now.

Juror 4: The prosecution made a good case, but the defense made one very good point: the victim has a long history of gaslighting vulnerable people. It made it hard to trust them.

Juror 5: I think it was a cover up. Maybe the "victim" killed himself and wanted to make it look like a murder so his family would get the insurance money. They seemed to know a lot about insurance loopholes and tactics.

Juror 6: I feel for the victim, but I think that considering the charges, they need a second opinion...Oh, the law states that someone can't be tried for the same crime twice? If they think that is unjust, they could work with government to come up with a better system then. Though it is going to be a tough battle to repeal the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution since they will need approval from 38 states, but maybe they have the public's sympathy.

Juror 7: I'm glad this trial is over. I need to get to the home to take care of my wife with cancer. The insurance company keeps giving me trouble, and she's too weak to fight it.

Juror 8: Did you know that the defendant hadn't even met the victim once. Who targets a random stranger for no reason at all? The prosecution wasn't able to make a case defining the motive of the defendant.

Juror 9: In my experience, you have to be careful with insurance companies. You can never trust them. The prosecution was working for an insurance company, so it was hard to believe anything they presented.

Juror 10: As a family practice doctor, I have to deal with insurance companies that lie about denials all the time, so I can tell when they are lying, and I think they were lying in the trial.

Juror 11: NOT GUILTY. The defendant seemed to be defending others from death or serious bodily injury, which is legal according to New York Penal Law 35.15.

Juror 12: The defense made a good point. The victim had told his doctor that he smoked a cigarette once in college, and I heard that smoking cigarettes can lead to poor health. Maybe the victim would have survived if he hadn't smoked before. We have to consider that.

Maybe this is somewhat similar to a woman killing her rapist, after police refuse to investigate? There are probably examples of leniency in such cases.

When a person or entity is responsible for the untimely deaths of literally thousands of American citizens, the question should be whether or not this was a justifiable homicide. Is a police officer put on trial for shooting and killing a gunman mowing down children at a school? Why is this case different?

The media likes to downplay that the CEO had straight up killed people. Eye for an eye applies. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice to find Luigi guilty.

Of course. He's clearly not guilty. Thompson willingly surrendered his humanity a long time ago, and you can only commit murder against a human. What Luigi did was more like deconstructing a cardboard box or other inanimate object.

He did however leave those shell casings on the sidewalk, and that's just not cool. They should give him a ticket for littering and send him on his way.

It'd be pretty rough if they couldn't possibly find a jury that would convict, think of how the CEOs of the nation would feel if they realized fully just how many people are entirely okay with eating them.

It's never "so much sympathy" for a killer cop, or genocide, but one CEO is just a step too far.

Both teams will be given an opportunity to eliminate potential jurors they believe are too sympathetic to the one side or the other.

Good luck with that, you can only weed out a limited number, and there's a fucking lot of us.

These clowns have no idea they're so out of touch with everyday Americans

It's going to be really difficult to convict him, I'm happy to say. Dude's a hero.

They will try Luigi until it sticks. It's critical to the powerful that they send the message they are beyond reproach.

Now is a good time for all Americans to learn about Juror Nullification

And yet with millions of people to choose from I don't think they will have a terrible time finding some that are pro-corporation and pro-billionaire and/or sufficiently against killing no matter what the justification.

This is actually quite an interesting case study for jury selection / vetting. The motive clearly relates to political views about the healthcare industry that affect every single American other than extreme outliers. It's therefore pretty impossible to select a jury that can be entirely neutral. Because no matter how politically unengaged they are, it still affects them.

Arguably, the most neutral person would be someone who hasn't interacted much with healthcare as a citizen. But healthcare issues in America start straight away from birth, because the process of birth itself is a healthcare matter for both mother and child, and there's no opting out from being born. That's only not the case if you're foreign born or from a very wealthy background, but you can't have a jury comprised of just them because that's not representative of the American public.

I wouldn't be surprised if this drags on for a long time before any trial even starts. In fact, I'd be suspicious if it doesn't.

But the problem is, the mainstream and government are calling him a "terrorist" and "terrorists" don't have rights; under the USAPATRIOT Act, they are "enemy combatants" and the only thing they get is extrajudicial imprisonment and daily ~~torture~~"simulated drowning".

Maybe set an income limit of $25 million per year to be on the jury?