Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
Anyone smarter than me in law know if there is even a remote chance he walks?
I'm not good at law but I have heard from people smarter than me that there are chances for at least a hung jury (I think could be retried) and there's also another option called jury nullification, where the jury essentially says, "yeah we know he is guilty but we don't agree with the law in this case" and acquits.
The jury nullification thing pisses me off.
I get that people don't want Luigi to go to jail but wishing for juries to just make up the law based on the vibe of the case is just bonkers.
The court system is a joke already.
Why let only judges make the jokes then and not the people in the jury too?
Imho that's a fairness in a sometimes unfair system.
Because that's how lynch mobs got off without penalties too. It's very much a case of being careful what you wish for in this case. If he gets off because the jury says it's OK to gun someone down without direct provocation, you can bet that others will too. You shot a gay man for no reason? No problem, the jury says that's fine. You shot someone you suspect of having sympathies for Democrats? Head home, the jury was packed with MAGAs.
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.
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.
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...
Rich people and people in government already get away with this stuff. Our president is a felon. If people in power aren't bound by the law then citizens will act. Only holding the people who act accountable is ensuring that the people in power never have consequences.
That's already a thing with pardons.
It's really not a "fairness" because every case will be heard by different jurors with no legal experience.
The "fairness" you're talking about will depend on the popularity of the accused.
Do you honestly believe Luigi would enjoy the support he has of he were an aging overweight bald guy?
At its core, jury nullification is about deciding cases based on the vibe.
I do believe that the perception of the action of which Luigi got accused weighes orders of magnitude more than the perception of his appearance or his popularity.
It's not him who was popular in the first place.
It was what was done.
Accusing him of it in turn made him popular. That would've worked for other people too.
Because judges have experience in law, and they have to stand by their decisions.
The judges in the USSC want to have a word with you.
Jury's have kind of always been vibes. There's plenty of black kids that got the guilty verdict and hung and later it was revealed to be the womans father or friend of the family that raped.
It is important to be more than a clockwork orange, understand the law but don't apply it with such rigidity as to be devoid of morals or humanity.
I'm going to copy WoodScientist's post. Don't know how to tag, sorry, but credit goes to him for this.
"I would say that jury nullification isn't just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.
Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn't "juror" a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it's one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!
No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don't even consider to be crimes.
The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.
THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.
Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It's the entire reason we have juries in the first place."
I have two arguments to defend jury nullification. First of all, in our system "jury nullification" is NOT a policy. It is the name for the inevitable fact to that members of a jury can decide to vote "innocent" without being subject to some kind of interrogation.
My second argument is this: I think jury nullification is actually a good policy, because the only thing it produces are delays unless fully 12 out of 12 randomly selected citizens think this application of the law is completely unfair. If the citizenry believes a law is unfair with that much unanimity it probably IS unfair.
It always was
He isn't a threat to the public. No need to lock him up. Odds are good he won't reoffend either.
Every jury I've ever been on has been hung, just by averaging alone
Aside from the nullification and hung jurys, there's a good chance for a mistrial from them parading him around and letting everyone in the US know he fought for them.
How did he fight for anybody? Just seems like a run of the mill emotional murder.
Fucking troll
No. He's going to die in prison. I'm not happy about that fact. I'm just telling the truth. Just like there's zero chance Charles Manson ever gets out. There's zero chance Luigi gets out.
Might happen. Then when a sensible government gets in, somewhere down the line, we pardon him and make him secretary of HHS
Any government that puts this man, who murders strangers after getting emotional from reading books, in charge of HHS is not sensible.
I'm not smarter in the law, but I remember the OJ trial. Just because all the evidence points to the obvious conclusion doesn't mean that the result will be as you expect. Did the police do everything by the book, or is some of the evidence they're relying on tainted? Did a cop worry the evidence wasn't going to be enough and plant some more? Was he caught? Did they forget to read him his rights before interrogating him?
The trick with legal cases is that the prosecution basically has to avoid making mistakes, and it's up to the defense to find a mistake they made. One major difference between a public defender and an extremely expensive legal team is the number of flaws they can find in the prosecution's case before they run out of time.
There is absolutely no way. That jury is going to be tampered with more than any you've ever seen in history.