Was the victim even a billionaire? I think those who most profit are more responsible than the managers they hire to do their dirty work. Both are clearly subject to self defense but owners are more effective targets than managers, so both Mangione and Kaczynski were a bit off. These managers are the hit men, not the real mob bosses. same for taxes where taxing the rich is more effective than taxing corporations, which have middle and even working class stockholders.
Drones above DC are Anglo-Saxons -- preparations for attack on Iran.
FYI -- It was a false flag attack to pull US into a world war but -- the ship for some reason, despite all efforts (including 5 torpedoes) failed to sink - it floated for 17 hours so rescue ships had to finally come..
As I explained in my article, the healthcare industry is universally loathed because it screws everyone. The oil and gas industry doesn't face that universal hatred -- or certainly not because they are the main reason for the climate crisis, which a fair part of the US publid doesn;t even believe is real. The people who like to buy big gas-guzzling pick-ups and muscxle cars gou'll note blame high gas prices not on the monopolistic oil and gas executives, but on the politicians. It's crazy but true. Never mind that the oil and gas companies jack up prices at the pump the moment the per-barrel price of oil rises, even though that oil won't have been refined, shiped around the country and delivered to retail gas stations for pumping into vehicles for probably months, and then they don'tt lower the price at the pumps when the well-head per barrel price falls, holding onto their high prices as llong as they can.
Universal loathing did not motivate the assassin. The fossil industry kills far more people than health insurance corporations. Once the propaganda by deed tactic is out of the bag. particularly with the easy of access to US guns, copycats are sure to follow and all bets are off. CEO hits will become the new school shootings. And I guess you missed my historical analogy, i.e. Frick.
1. Murder is never justified. Period end of discussion.
2.
'The government will no doubt try and will likely succeed in preventing Mangione’s defense from presenting evidence about UHC’S deadly crimes of denial of care as an argument either against guilt or even as a mitigating circumstance in deciding on the penalty in case of conviction. '
Because that evidence is irrelevant to whether or not the defendant committed the murder. It should not be allowed as evidence in the trial.
If the jury does not convict because there is not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, fine. However, if the state makes their case and the jury chooses to ignore the evidence and vote for acquittal, it will be open season for everyone. Everyone will be able to commit murder with impunity. That includes btw, abortion doctors, immigrants, etc.
Honestly if that happens, we need to rethink our jury system. It is a complete failure in that case.
I could support the notion that no murder is justified it war was outlawed too. And if war crimes were actually prosecuted against the country and soldiers of the victorious side, and not just the losing side.
Jim your prediction that one jury nullification of a murder case would upend justice nationwide and lead to the freeing of murderers from consequence in large numbers is nonsense. Jury nullification has existed in this country through its history and back into the colonial era. Judges hate it, but honestly, there is really nothing they can do if duly elected jurors, hearing all the evidence, decide on their own reasoning to vote "not guilty." That in fact is their obligation. The reality is that rather incredibly, jurors typically hear all the evidence from the prosecution in a murder case and all 12 end up voting "guilty" -- which means the defendant is found guilty. It is actually aquite difficult in most murder cases for a defense attorney to manage to convince even one juror among 12 to find a "reasonable doubt" meriting a not-guilty vote, though if that can be done, the defendant is not convicted. Conviction on a felony requires a unanimous finding of guilty. However, if the not-guilty votes are not unanimous, the prosecution can decide to try and retry the case. A judge can decide to not allow that to happen, but typically will okay a second trial. Only a unanimous qccquittal is a finding of innocence allowing the defendant to walk out, opinion, and cannot be questioned. If the juror thinks, "I thought the prosecution's evidence was not credible," that too is a valid position for a juror to take. If the entier jury feels that way, you have jury nullification. They are saying there was no prrof that the defendant was guilty as charged. Now in a case where the evidence cannot be contested, like there is a clear video showing the crime being committed, and the defendant has confessed it gets more interesting. A juror can think, "I don't think the defendant was guilty of first-degree murder because I don't believe he was trying to kill the victim." That juror doesn't have to express that. He just has to say check "not guilty" on the jury decision form, whidh means "not guilty of the charge of first-degree murder." If all the jurors do that, the charge irejected. (That's why prosecutors usually file multiple charges like second or third-degre murder and maybe manslaughter. Bottom lne is a juror has the absolute power to say conclude the defendant is innocent regardless of the evidence presented and does not to explain that decision. Conceding that awesome power doesn't mean that it will spread like widefire through the US legal system. We citizens as jurors have always had that power. It only gets used rarely, but it is an important bulwark against tyranny.
I think my definition of jury nullification and your definition is different.
If a prosecutor is unable to convince the jury that a defendant is guilty, and the jury votes for not guilty (the defendant may or not be guilty, but the prosecutor failed to prove their case) that is not jury nullification. I have no problem with that .
HOWEVER, if the prosecutor has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and a jury ignores the evidence and votes for not guilty because "the victim deserves it," that is jury nullification and that is always wrong.
I'm looking at cases like the Camden 28, who admitted their guilt when they were arrested by the FBI and Mangkione, who was videotaped actually shooting Thomnpson, and was caught with a copy of his manifesto saying what he did and how he did it. A jury could still look at the evidence and decide the evidence didn't support a first degree murder charge lr perhaps even a third degree murder charge, and the court and prosecutor could do nothing abbout it if they are unanimous. No juror has to explain her or his reasoning.
Of course the Thompson family could sue for wrongful death and seek huge damages, and there is no such thing as jury nullification, I don't believe, in civil cases, where also verdicts fdo not need to be unanimous.
The Camden 28 was a non-violent act, for the most part. And considering that it would seem the prosector was able to prove the case beyond reasonable double, this was jury nullification. The jury ignored the evidence. And that is wrong. However, it was non-violent so to a certain extent, I can understand how a jury could ignore the evidence and deliver the wrong verdict. Even I can recognize there is some wiggle room in criminal justice, at least for non-violent crimes.
In the case of the murder of Thompson, there is no way a jury with any intelligence cannot vote for one of the murder charges. It would appear they have the defendant dead bang. The only way they could find the defendant not guilty is if they ignore the evidence. And if they find a murder not guilty by jury nullification, we do need to rethink our jury system
The mob IS a business and one that needs really tough regulation! Honestly, when it comes to healthcare in a market model like we have in the US with vampire firms inserteed into alll the interstices between actual care giving organizations to suck up more money from patients, making it the most expensive place in the world to obtain medical care, the industry itself is as crooked and deadly as a loansharking operation by the Mob. Ahen companies like UHC or Carelon can casually refuse a in system doctorf's recommendation for a CT-scan or or angiogram to chedk for cancer tumor or a heart blockage for no reason but that they can, or when they can deny reimbursement for hip replacement because they can, that is as bad as a gangster kneecapping someone who is behind in a loan-shark payment, and is actually no different. When a insurance comp;any terminates someone's coverage because they have had to pay themselves for a leukemia treatment and athen didn't have the money left to make a monthly payment on their insurance, and so they die, it's no different from hen a gangster kills someone who isn't making their weekly confiscatory loan repayment. As Woody Guthree put it in his song about Jesse James, "Some men rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen."
Using your logic. any business or government for that matter is a criminal enterprise. Heck, libertarians consider the government to be no better than the mob (note, for the most part I do not ascribe to that rule. In no way am I a libertaraines. ) It can be silly.
(I also do agree that health insurance needs to be regulates)
Thje Mafia would be wiped out if they were subject to the corporate profits tax, and audited to show their books of income and expenses. Recall the Al Cspone was taken down by a tax audit that led t his being convicted to income tax fraud.
the issue with the mod is that they are usually engages in illegal activity. Taxing them will not wipe them out (though legalizing drugs would take a big swipe out of them and yes, I do not like the idea, but legalizing or at least decriminalize drug use would produce better outcomes than what we currently have)
A US hated mega-gangster has been murdered -- popular joy is perhaps fairly understandable
It certainly seems that way.
Did UHC give more to the DP or the GOP? because if the former, they would have far more gun owners to watch out for.
Was the victim even a billionaire? I think those who most profit are more responsible than the managers they hire to do their dirty work. Both are clearly subject to self defense but owners are more effective targets than managers, so both Mangione and Kaczynski were a bit off. These managers are the hit men, not the real mob bosses. same for taxes where taxing the rich is more effective than taxing corporations, which have middle and even working class stockholders.
Drones above DC are Anglo-Saxons -- preparations for attack on Iran.
FYI -- It was a false flag attack to pull US into a world war but -- the ship for some reason, despite all efforts (including 5 torpedoes) failed to sink - it floated for 17 hours so rescue ships had to finally come..
https://rumble.com/v5ybmmb-a-personal-announcement.html
Dave - how long before propaganda of the deed comes to the fossil industry?
As I explained in my article, the healthcare industry is universally loathed because it screws everyone. The oil and gas industry doesn't face that universal hatred -- or certainly not because they are the main reason for the climate crisis, which a fair part of the US publid doesn;t even believe is real. The people who like to buy big gas-guzzling pick-ups and muscxle cars gou'll note blame high gas prices not on the monopolistic oil and gas executives, but on the politicians. It's crazy but true. Never mind that the oil and gas companies jack up prices at the pump the moment the per-barrel price of oil rises, even though that oil won't have been refined, shiped around the country and delivered to retail gas stations for pumping into vehicles for probably months, and then they don'tt lower the price at the pumps when the well-head per barrel price falls, holding onto their high prices as llong as they can.
Universal loathing did not motivate the assassin. The fossil industry kills far more people than health insurance corporations. Once the propaganda by deed tactic is out of the bag. particularly with the easy of access to US guns, copycats are sure to follow and all bets are off. CEO hits will become the new school shootings. And I guess you missed my historical analogy, i.e. Frick.
1. Murder is never justified. Period end of discussion.
2.
'The government will no doubt try and will likely succeed in preventing Mangione’s defense from presenting evidence about UHC’S deadly crimes of denial of care as an argument either against guilt or even as a mitigating circumstance in deciding on the penalty in case of conviction. '
Because that evidence is irrelevant to whether or not the defendant committed the murder. It should not be allowed as evidence in the trial.
If the jury does not convict because there is not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, fine. However, if the state makes their case and the jury chooses to ignore the evidence and vote for acquittal, it will be open season for everyone. Everyone will be able to commit murder with impunity. That includes btw, abortion doctors, immigrants, etc.
Honestly if that happens, we need to rethink our jury system. It is a complete failure in that case.
I could support the notion that no murder is justified it war was outlawed too. And if war crimes were actually prosecuted against the country and soldiers of the victorious side, and not just the losing side.
So as long as wars happen you are going to justify murder. Sorry. That is wrong. Murder is never justified. Period.
Jim your prediction that one jury nullification of a murder case would upend justice nationwide and lead to the freeing of murderers from consequence in large numbers is nonsense. Jury nullification has existed in this country through its history and back into the colonial era. Judges hate it, but honestly, there is really nothing they can do if duly elected jurors, hearing all the evidence, decide on their own reasoning to vote "not guilty." That in fact is their obligation. The reality is that rather incredibly, jurors typically hear all the evidence from the prosecution in a murder case and all 12 end up voting "guilty" -- which means the defendant is found guilty. It is actually aquite difficult in most murder cases for a defense attorney to manage to convince even one juror among 12 to find a "reasonable doubt" meriting a not-guilty vote, though if that can be done, the defendant is not convicted. Conviction on a felony requires a unanimous finding of guilty. However, if the not-guilty votes are not unanimous, the prosecution can decide to try and retry the case. A judge can decide to not allow that to happen, but typically will okay a second trial. Only a unanimous qccquittal is a finding of innocence allowing the defendant to walk out, opinion, and cannot be questioned. If the juror thinks, "I thought the prosecution's evidence was not credible," that too is a valid position for a juror to take. If the entier jury feels that way, you have jury nullification. They are saying there was no prrof that the defendant was guilty as charged. Now in a case where the evidence cannot be contested, like there is a clear video showing the crime being committed, and the defendant has confessed it gets more interesting. A juror can think, "I don't think the defendant was guilty of first-degree murder because I don't believe he was trying to kill the victim." That juror doesn't have to express that. He just has to say check "not guilty" on the jury decision form, whidh means "not guilty of the charge of first-degree murder." If all the jurors do that, the charge irejected. (That's why prosecutors usually file multiple charges like second or third-degre murder and maybe manslaughter. Bottom lne is a juror has the absolute power to say conclude the defendant is innocent regardless of the evidence presented and does not to explain that decision. Conceding that awesome power doesn't mean that it will spread like widefire through the US legal system. We citizens as jurors have always had that power. It only gets used rarely, but it is an important bulwark against tyranny.
The ability of judges to suppress evidence always gives me a reasonable doubt.
I think my definition of jury nullification and your definition is different.
If a prosecutor is unable to convince the jury that a defendant is guilty, and the jury votes for not guilty (the defendant may or not be guilty, but the prosecutor failed to prove their case) that is not jury nullification. I have no problem with that .
HOWEVER, if the prosecutor has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and a jury ignores the evidence and votes for not guilty because "the victim deserves it," that is jury nullification and that is always wrong.
I'm looking at cases like the Camden 28, who admitted their guilt when they were arrested by the FBI and Mangkione, who was videotaped actually shooting Thomnpson, and was caught with a copy of his manifesto saying what he did and how he did it. A jury could still look at the evidence and decide the evidence didn't support a first degree murder charge lr perhaps even a third degree murder charge, and the court and prosecutor could do nothing abbout it if they are unanimous. No juror has to explain her or his reasoning.
Of course the Thompson family could sue for wrongful death and seek huge damages, and there is no such thing as jury nullification, I don't believe, in civil cases, where also verdicts fdo not need to be unanimous.
Juries rule self defense all the time so it is not rare.
The Camden 28 was a non-violent act, for the most part. And considering that it would seem the prosector was able to prove the case beyond reasonable double, this was jury nullification. The jury ignored the evidence. And that is wrong. However, it was non-violent so to a certain extent, I can understand how a jury could ignore the evidence and deliver the wrong verdict. Even I can recognize there is some wiggle room in criminal justice, at least for non-violent crimes.
In the case of the murder of Thompson, there is no way a jury with any intelligence cannot vote for one of the murder charges. It would appear they have the defendant dead bang. The only way they could find the defendant not guilty is if they ignore the evidence. And if they find a murder not guilty by jury nullification, we do need to rethink our jury system
Of course, murder is not justified. But, also, that CEO was simply a US mega-gangster — don’t you agree?
A mega gangster. No. A person in a businesses that needs massive regulation. Yes.
The mob IS a business and one that needs really tough regulation! Honestly, when it comes to healthcare in a market model like we have in the US with vampire firms inserteed into alll the interstices between actual care giving organizations to suck up more money from patients, making it the most expensive place in the world to obtain medical care, the industry itself is as crooked and deadly as a loansharking operation by the Mob. Ahen companies like UHC or Carelon can casually refuse a in system doctorf's recommendation for a CT-scan or or angiogram to chedk for cancer tumor or a heart blockage for no reason but that they can, or when they can deny reimbursement for hip replacement because they can, that is as bad as a gangster kneecapping someone who is behind in a loan-shark payment, and is actually no different. When a insurance comp;any terminates someone's coverage because they have had to pay themselves for a leukemia treatment and athen didn't have the money left to make a monthly payment on their insurance, and so they die, it's no different from hen a gangster kills someone who isn't making their weekly confiscatory loan repayment. As Woody Guthree put it in his song about Jesse James, "Some men rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen."
Using your logic. any business or government for that matter is a criminal enterprise. Heck, libertarians consider the government to be no better than the mob (note, for the most part I do not ascribe to that rule. In no way am I a libertaraines. ) It can be silly.
(I also do agree that health insurance needs to be regulates)
How would you regulate Mafias - like it is also DNC “party” (also a private criminal organization)?
Thje Mafia would be wiped out if they were subject to the corporate profits tax, and audited to show their books of income and expenses. Recall the Al Cspone was taken down by a tax audit that led t his being convicted to income tax fraud.
the issue with the mod is that they are usually engages in illegal activity. Taxing them will not wipe them out (though legalizing drugs would take a big swipe out of them and yes, I do not like the idea, but legalizing or at least decriminalize drug use would produce better outcomes than what we currently have)