Comment on Accused killer of US insurance CEO pleads not guilty to 'terrorist' murder
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
The way they so desperately want to make an example out of him is going to give Luigi’s lawyer plenty of ammo.
Making it a terrorism charge significantly raises the bar to get a guilty verdict even if Luigi admits to the killing.
Trying for the death penalty I think requires every member of the jury to agree on a guilty verdict instead of a majority (IANAL)
And every time they do this shit it just highlights the injustice between the classes because of course people are going to compare it to the treatment of mass shooters:
A dozen police officers to escort him vs 2 for a serial killer.
Terrorism charges and risk of the death penalty
Super special emergency line for CEOs because 911 isn’t good enough for them.
Maybe a couple more assassinations of CEOs and the only country where this repeatedly happens will finally start looking into ways to prevent this.
Maybe a couple more assassinations of CEOs and the only country where this repeatedly happens will finally start looking into ways to prevent this.
Billionaires. The CEOs are still lapdogs. We must make the “invincible dragons” realize that they are vulnerable.
Even if the politics doesn’t change, enough CEOs getting cast into Hell sure might do the trick. People say that it won’t change how companies operate, but I disagree. First, changing CEOs isn’t easy for a company. The sudden loss of one is disruptive, and it means they can’t implement whatever plans they had for the company. A company with repeated CEO murders is one that will be thrown into chaos. Second, regardless of what shareholders might want, CEOs have to consider their own interests. Even a $10 million salary doesn’t mean much if you’re dead before you can enjoy it.
Third: the next day people were getting approved for procedures they were being denied the day before. This was across all insurance companies. It literally changed how these companies operate (at least in the short term) and likely saved lives.
Source?
The share value of UHC fell hard after the murder. That is the thing that really makes waves. As you say, losing CEO is costly, to investors and owners, which in the end is what matters most to the owning classes.
Super special emergency line for CEOs because 911 isn’t good enough for them.
Is this a thing?
Which is ridiculous and more intended as a warning to the public given that the groups that provide their bodyguards already have these sort of “hotlines” into law enforcement. They are just that afraid.
It’s pretty standard to charge with the most serious things they can and potentially drop/lower the charges before trial. Maybe theyre trying to get a plea deal or disposition and avoid the trial - ‘we’ll drop terrorism and the death penalty if you plead to first degree murder and life without’ or something like that
Or at least they have his legal team spending time knocking down the more superfluous charges instead of dealing with the meat of it all
Obviously I don’t know enough about the situation here to know exactly what’s up, but yeah
The prosecution needs to prove their charges, the defence only needs to knock down the evidence presented. Superfluous charges waste the time of the prosecution.
If they’re truly superfluous then they waste the time of both sides, but it’s the prosecution who get to decide whether or not to include a charge. The prosecution might not be holding out real hope of a conviction on the highest charges, but by including them they could include additional witnesses and evidence that will be heard by a jury and change their perception even on the more realistic charges, which the defense would have to react to.
Again, all hypothetical. For all I know theyre confident in the terrorism charge
But realistically criminal charges are a negotiation, and most of the work happens outside the courtroon
Maybe a couple more assassinations of CEOs and the only country where this repeatedly happens will finally start looking into ways to prevent this.
Yeah by hiring private armies and getting special provision to hire police directly.
RoboCop here we come
YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’m pretty sure most (if not all) juries have to be unanimous to reach a verdict of any kind.
Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 1 month ago
For criminal cases yes it has to be unanimous. They might have heard about civil cases sometimes allowing majority/supermajority vote verdicts (allowed in more than half the states).
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The current position of federal and state courts is that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require unanimous verdicts to convict a criminal defendant.
RAMOS v. LOUISIANA (2020) extended the 6th amendments right to a conviction by unanimous verdict through the 14th Amendment.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 month ago
To convict, but I thought a simple majority can acquit, and set the defendent free