• Ariselas@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      167
      ·
      3 days ago

      Even if his defense was that he only killed a CEO and not a person, I’d acquit him.

        • SorryQuick@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Kinda funny how when Trump pardons criminals everyone gets mad but here when someone suggests doing the exact same it’s totally fine (because this guy’s on our side…)

          • liuther9@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Kinda funny that you can’t distinguish between criminal and hero. You need book to tell you who is bad and who is good

            • SorryQuick@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              This is the issue though. You say he’a a hero and the other half of the population say he’s a criminal. What makes you right and them wrong? Or the other way around?

              If he is indeed guilty then that does make him a criminal by definition. As for being a hero, that’s subjective. One can be both a criminal and a hero.

          • GiantChickDicks@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            Pardons haven’t only been issued by Trump. They exist because context and extenuating circumstances are important.

            Just because they can be abused doesn’t mean every pardon is corrupt.

    • blackfire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      3 days ago

      If his defense droped a few stories of other people being ruined by the insurance industry an just kept hammering it home he totally could

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 days ago

      If the jury was all Lemmings then for sure. But people here aren’t as representative of the general public as they think they are. Older Americans in particular are not down with Luigi.

      • mercano@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        3 days ago

        It only takes one person intent on nullification to hang a jury. The prosecution can retry the case, but they have to decide if it’s worth it.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        All the old people on my social media stopped short of explicitly praising murder, but none of them objected to people saying it was cool and most said they understood. Old people, while more conservative are also more likely to have an insurance horror story of their own or someone they know. Even my the MAGA boomer acquaintance treated it with humor rather than tragedy.

    • Sharkticon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      There’s no way in this world he would get a fair jury. Any member of that jury will absolutely be bribed and or threatened.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      If juries were fairly selected he’d 100% get jury nullification…

      Which is why it wasn’t going to happen organically in the current selection.

      It’s like how to beat “straw purchase” gun laws: you just have to lie.

      If you’ve heard of it as a concept, that’s enough to take you off. To the point it’s been a strategy for a long time of people who want to avoid jury duty. It doesn’t always work, because most of the time they don’t really care

      Something like this, the government isn’t letting anyone on who knows what it is, and especially today would investigate anyone who suddenly “learned about it” after being selected.

      So to be clear:

      1. It should have worked.

      2. It wouldn’t have.

      Like, we’d have need Mario to get on the jury while wearing an obvious disguise, and they’d be taking almost as much of a risk as player 2. It just wasn’t likely.

      I’m super interested in his reasoning for this, but I’d be really surprised if they let him do interviews anytime soon, and what matters more than us knowing is his legal strategies working. We just gotta wait and see.

      • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I have lied about my intentions on every jury and I tell my loved ones to do the same.

        Don’t disclose it ahead of time, obviously.

        They can investigate it all they like, but all you have to do is never say the phrase “jury nullification” and start talking about how you’re not sure this should be a crime at all. I’m not saying it would necessarily work, but it’s not as though jury nullification is a wild thing that only exists in the US, it’s a fundamental part of how juries work- acknowledging it isn’t suspicious (again, without the name).