• BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s only dangerous if you’re a mass murderer. Don’t want to get gunned down on the sidewalk and have people celebrate your death? Don’t be a mass murderer.

        • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Was Luigi ever trained that he was specifically not allowed to shoot a CEO in the back? If not, qualified immunity

          • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Every time I hear the words “qualified immunity” I think about this:

            I was first trained in acute psychiatry years ago to never ever in forever restrain people face down. Me and my highschool diploma were sitting in a side room in a state hospital for I shit you not a two. week. crash course in inpatient psychiatry after which they dumped me out on the unit to work with criminally insane men for two years. And in my four hour restraint class they hammered into us to never restrain people face down.

            I remember seeing two men fighting and I just figured I’d grab one and somebody else would grab the other and we’d pull and I remember looking over my guy’s shoulder and seeing the other guy gnawing on his face and then there’s a hole in my memory (likely about 60 seconds; it happens with adrenaline) and the next thing I remember I guess we had all fallen and I was laying on top of the guy I grabbed and I shit you not the very first thought in my head was “oh shit, he’s face down I need to get off him” and I slid to the side and just kept a hand hovering over his shoulders in case he tried to pop up and… idk, bite my face off or something. I didn’t even know who it was until he looked back at me. But they had hammered that one thing into my head that hard that I didn’t know what the fuck this guy was gonna do and the first thought in my head was still to get off him.

            So when I saw all these news stories and all this footage of the cops holding people facedown until they asphyxiate I started asking around. I don’t work with cops in the sense that they’re my coworkers but I do run into them a lot dropping off involuntary holds. So I started asking about how they’re trained to restrain people and if they have any training on how to protect people’s airways. And it turns out they do, actually. Everybody I asked pretty universally told me they’re trained to get the cuffs on then immediately turn them on their side. It’s not super advanced, in fact it’s super basic. Basic in the sense that you could’ve taught it to a highschool graduate in under two weeks.

            So it’s funny you mention not being trained for something because actually yeah they are trained to not do things that kill people and yet-

      • FLeX@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Eveyone is the parasite of someone else. Think of it before spitting nazi shit next time.

        • D1G17AL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s what I said as soon as they nabbed Luigi. Does not look like the original shooters profile.

        • arc@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Just some other random guy with weapons and a manifesto admitting to killing a health exec

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            He’s pleading not guilty, claiming that the cops planted that shit.

            And the cops routinely lie and plant evidence, so it’s not out of the question.

            • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Know what?

              I’m thinking you might be right. Walking that confidently? The show of police presence? The assuredness of the police? The publicly shared evidence? A guy that kinda fits the profile?

              He’s also a smart dude. He sees this for what it is. He also probably understands that regardless of what happens, the public will probably obtain justice.

              We’re all furious with the state of things. We’re furious over the lack of police accountability, the laws for the poor and not the elite. We’re furious that they can look at what health insurance can do to make profit, and let it be completely legal to let people die.

              It doesn’t matter if he did or did not do the crime at this point. The elite showed their hand too early, the public is calling it. He’s probably scared shitless, but he knows. He knows that regardless of what the outcome is, the people have rallied to him. He knows they can’t risk making him a martyr, and an acquittal would be devastating. The entire Spirit of the Constitution (regardless of it’s interpretation by the Supreme Court) and the people is behind him.

              He knows justice is coming.

            • arc@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              If the cops did indeed plant evidence then happy days for the defence since it should be easy to disprove. e.g. by simple handwriting analysis or other such means. But this is fantasy wishful thinking since he did write the words. So stick to the reality here. He shot the guy and confessed to it. Lord knows what else he said during interviews with the cops but probably lots. His defense team will attempt to disqualify evidence and diminish his culpability while transforming the trial into one about private health care. They only need one not guilty and that’s what they’ll do their best to achieve.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                If the cops did indeed plant evidence then happy days for the defence since it should be easy to disprove. e.g. by simple handwriting analysis or other such means. But this is fantasy wishful thinking since he did write the words. So stick to the reality here

                Handwriting analysis is hardly objective.

                He shot the guy and confessed to it.

                He’s pleaded not guilty, and unless you have more up to date information, he’s made no confession outside of the alleged note.

          • oshu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            The word murder has a specific meaning in law: The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

            • slingstone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Given that the whole point of the act was that the CEO and his company were indifferent to human life, one could argue that the shooter valued the life and dignity of his fellow beings far more than his target. Furthermore, the tens of thousands of deaths attributed to the vile strategies of this company in particular would seem to offer a very significant justification and excuse. Of course, malice aforethought is inherent to an assassination, so I guess they have him there.

              In the end, though, the jury will be under no legal obligation to follow the law and could choose to find him not guilty if they agree with his reasons for acting.

              • oshu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                I agree, its entirely possible that a jury may find his act of killing justified.

    • arc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      He’s 100% guilty. He crossed state lines to stalk and shoot his victim dead. He even wrote a mini manifesto where he admitted the crime.

      The issue is that his victim was a piece of shit and so there is a great deal of sympathy with the killer who appears to have suffered his own health issues. It must be hard to find jurors who haven’t been personally negatively impacted by United Health or else know someone who has.

      That means in a jury of 12 it might be impossible to ensure the verdict is unanimous. I am sure the defence will also try to make the trial about private health insurance and will be leaning hard into things like the victim and his company’s culpability in so much pain, suffering & death.

      • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        So far we have not seen any evidence of his guilt. We have opened an investigation with the IDF to check whether he is guilty and we will come back to that in the future.

        • arc@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          He was literally caught with a written confession.

          To the Feds, I’ll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.

  • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

  • 2ugly2live@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

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

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Based on the recent Emerson poll (https://emersoncollegepolling.com/december-2024-national-poll-young-voters-diverge-from-majority-on-crypto-tiktok-and-ceo-assassination/), they’ll find a jury just fine. They will have to weed out strong sympathizers, but it’s not going to halt the process or anything. While it’s uncommon for murderer cases to get this level of sympathy, prosecutors of high profile cases with a sympathetic defendent have delt with this before.

      • turtle [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        This is correct. I’ve been in two juries that went to trial, and each side got a handful of denials that they could use, each. Like 5 for my cases, or something in that ballpark. I think that the number is at the discretion of the judge, so because there is so much sympathy for the defendant, the judge may allow a much larger number of denials.

        Disclaimer: I have no legal training and my trials were not in New York, so my comments could be inaccurate.

        Edit: according to this article, this is the number of peremptory challenges (i.e., objecting to a juror during selection for no reason) each side gets - https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-270-25/

        1. Each party must be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges:

        (a) Twenty for the regular jurors if the highest crime charged is a class A felony, and two for each alternate juror to be selected.

        This is in addition to presumably an infinite number of juror dismissals for cause, like, for example, if the juror tells that the judge that they would not be able to follow the law.

          • turtle [he/him]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yes. Also, see my edit. I found the law for New York. For a felony of this type, each side gets 20 for regular jurors plus 2 for each alternate juror.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m not sure how much I trust that poll.

      Data was collected by contacting cell phones via MMS-to-web text, landlines via interactive voice response and email (phone list provided by Aristotle, email lists provided by Commonwealth Opinions), and an online panel of voters pre-matched to the L2 voter file provided by Rep Data. The survey was offered in English.

      If someone just called or texted me out of the blue for a survey like that, I would be tempted to lie about my opinion of Luigi out of fear. Honestly I find it shocking so many people ‘confessed’ to that… it has to be an underestimate.

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Statistically speaking: if 17% of people say that the murder of the healthcare CEO is even somewhat acceptable, if you were to pick 12 people randomly from that group (so not accounting for any other potential filters from a jury questionnaire), you’d only have a 10% chance that all 12 answering it is unacceptable.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That’s not how jury selection works, though. They find people, filter some out, bring in the alternates, filter them out, and repeat until they have 12 they’re happy with.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          They will try, but people will answer that murder is not acceptable and then find not guilty later anyway. And they can potentially do that truthfully. If they find small issues with the evidence, they can go with not guilty.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The mediua 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.

  • chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

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

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      They will make it slow so they can twist the knife they shove into the publics stomach to keep everyone too scared to act. Government repression is the first cousin of terrorism, and Israel has innovated this year in making repression and racist terrorism cool again.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        You think?

        I’d think they’d want to push him off the front page first. Then push him out a window later.

    • prof_wafflez@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I’m sad I won’t get picked for the jury. I’d refuse to convict on all counts. If Trump gets no punishment for literally anything this dude should get no punishment for fighting back against an absolutely broken system. Honestly, I don’t view his actions to be something to cause a public backlash. The prosecution is what will cause the public backlash, imo.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s not really how jury’s work though.

        You’re not there to dispense justice. You’re there to decide whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against him.

        Someone will be along in a moment to tell us all about Jury Nullification, a refusal to find the defendant guilty on the grounds that it would be unjust, despite the defendant’s obvious guilt.

        This pretty much reduces the court process to a popularity contest - how does the jury “feel” about the defendant, what are the “vibes” of the circumstances before them.

        Jurors determine guilt, and judges determine punishments. The separation of these concerns is the best way we have found to mitigate corruption since the advent of written laws. The outcome of a specific case may be unjust, but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.

        • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          60,000 Americans die every year because of the insurance industry, but how many oligarchs were brought to justice? How many oligarchs were arrested for raping children on Epstein’s island? How many oligarchs were arrested for funding Israel’s genocide of Gaza? How many oligarchs were arrested for the massive tax evasion revealed from the Panama papers???

          Justice that only punches down is not justice. If our system will not hold the wealthy accountable for their crimes against humanity then our system is utterly rotten

          • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Everything you said is true, but it doesn’t really contradict my point.

            The current system is terrible, but it’s better than having a jury of laypeople make up the law based on the vibe of the case.

            I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better judicial system.

            • exploitedamerican@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              A better judicial system, one where it implicitly illegal for those with money to receive preferential treatment. And one where victimless crimes built on abstract ideals of abstinence only moralism dont ruin the lives of marginalized people while wealthy privileged individuals engage in these same behaviors with impunity, and one where qualified immunity isn’t grossly abused to avoid consequence for a militarized police force and portray a fantasy image tjat police generally always have a pristine moral compass and aren’t just flawed human beings with a propensity to abuse their power in a system with so many unjust laws that are designed to favor those with privilege and wealth.

              How about just that for starters and i will get back to you for any further improvements.

              • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                This sounds like a very just system but how can it be achieved? How would you restructure the existing system to achieve these outcomes?

                The comment I originally responded to suggested that juries could just dispense justice based on the vibe of the case before them. IMO such a system would be more or less guaranteed to fail to produce any of the outcomes on your list.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Maybe they should fix the justice system if they want juries to actually act like they’re intended to.

          But they won’t, billionaires, CEOs, business execs, and other parasites will continue to do what they like and harm who they like with a slap on the wrist at most.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Who is “they” and how might they “fix” the justice system ?

            More than half of American voters just chose to subvert the already ineffective legal system, to install a corrupt felon as dictator.

            Are you proposing that allowing a jury of peers drawn from this public ought to be able to make up the law based on the vibe of cases before them ?

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Who is “they” and how might they “fix” the justice system ?

              The oligarchs that own the country.

              Are you proposing that allowing a jury of peers drawn from this public ought to be able to make up the law based on the vibe of cases before them ?

              I’m proposing that the inherent protections the judicial system gives people be used to protect Luigi.

              Justice is dead so long as billionaires can cause immeasurable death and suffering without repercussions.

              You’re operating under the incorrect assumption that the public can control the law.

              If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.

              • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                inherent protections the judicial system gives people

                Like the right to an attorney? Sure.

                Jury nullification is not an “intentional feature” of the justice process. It’s corruption.

                • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I said inherent, not intentional.

                  And it’s not inherently corrupt. It can be used as a check against immoral law, or it can be used to refuse justice to just law. It’s entirely based on the case it’s used in.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Dude your last sentence was the cherry garnish in a big cup of government Kool aid.

          A just system wouldn’t have 98% of its convictions arriving out of plea deals.

          A just system wouldn’t jail a dude for stealing bread from a company that steals money from all of its employees. Employees that are already so underpaid, that they qualify for food stamps, that largely get spent at the same damn company.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I never said the system was just.

            Merely pointing out that separating the finding of guilt from the determination of punishment is the best way we have to mitigate corruption.

            I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better system.

        • chakan2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.

          Lol…phew…omg…phew. Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh today.

          The US justice system is easily one of the most corrupt in history at this point. It’s honestly kind of disturbing someone can make a statement like that with a straight face.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            The separation of these concerns is the best way we have found to mitigate corruption since the advent of written laws. The outcome of a specific case may be unjust, but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.

            Do you have some examples of justice systems which do not separate these concerns and produce better outcomes? If not, your comment is just hyperbole.

            • chakan2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              There’s simply not a “just” system of laws. I’m not an anarchist or anything, but trying to pretend the US justice system is more or less fair than the things that came before it, or contemporary systems in other countries is pure fantasy.

              Might makes right has always been the way with humans, and I think it will always be the way with humans.

              • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                I pretty much agree with you on all points.

                Anyone who works in law will tell you that justice is pretty thin to the ground.

                I think you’ve misconstrued my position though. I’m not saying the current system is fine, merely that the role of jurors is to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against them, and the role of the judge is to determine the appropriate punishment, and that this separation of duties is the best structure we have to mitigate corruption.

                I’m not saying there’s no corruption, merely that allowing a jury to determine whether a defendant should be punished despite their guilt is tantamount to corruption. If a jury can determine penalties then the whole court process is basically a popularity contest.

                A few months ago, I would’ve told you that I’m holding to the belief that might doesn’t make right and that no one is above the law. However, recent events have demonstrated that more than half the voting public prefer a system where the law does not apply to wealthy nor powerful people. I’m astonished, but apparently my views are not represented amongst the population generally. It seems that in the current era there is no denying that there is a class of people to whom the law does not apply.

                • chakan2@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Ok we are in line as far as our thinking goes…now chew on this…60 percent of Americans can’t read above a 6th grade level. Those are your peers. Do you really want someone that struggles with The Hunger Games to decide a life or death case?

                  I just hope I’m never put to trial. Facts simply don’t matter any more and theater wins.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Which is exactly why people like Luigi resort to the actions he took. It can never be undone no matter what they do to him afterwards.

  • Critical_Thinker@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • nomous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      There was another school shooting this week, i think that’s the 80th this year and people don’t seem to care. Why would anyone care about some parasite millionaire when innocent kids are gunned down everyday and that’s just the way it is.

  • tlou3please@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you think of other issues, it’s not as strange as you would think. If someone is accused of speeding and goes to trial, or reckless manslaughter for a traffic accident, let’s say, the jury will be filled with drivers, most of whom break traffic laws on a daily basis.

      As a result of this obvious impasse, the standard is not whether people have exposure to the general issue or the shitty system at hand. You can be sure the prosecution will pretend it is, and the defense will point out it’s not.

      • tlou3please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’d argue that’s not really equivalent, because being a driver or not doesn’t really have any implications towards motive in that case, or sympathy towards it from a jury. It’s also not political - or at least, most people don’t see it that way.

        My point is, this is a race that almost every American has a horse in. So how do you draw a satisfactorily unbiased jury? I don’t have the answer, but I can see why it’s evidently become a sticking point.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Everyone has a horse in the race, just like with breaking traffic laws. If I’m a juror on a speeding case, and I speed too, of course I’m likely to be sympathetic to the defendant. Similarly, what about cops investigating or testifying about DV when over 1/3 of them beat their families? There’s bias, but the “justice” system still operates.

          Or we could look at the Google trials. Are we seriously thinking that no potential jurors would be able to have ever used use their services or products? … That all just doesn’t work. It’s nearly impossible to avoid Google. And your standard is even lower – you’re talking about exclusion based on use of competing companies in the field along with the company itself. In other words, I can’t be a juror on a Google case if I’ve used Google or Apple or Microsoft products…? That’s the parallel to the health insurance industry.

          Of course that standard couldn’t possibly make sense, and legal scholars knew this centuries ago. So it’s not how the law works, and it never was.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Many young, healthy people haven’t had to deal with it much, but this is also the demographic highly engaged on social media and probably very sympathetic to him.