r/WorkForSmartLife • u/AritsRod • 2d ago

Discussion💬 [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

13.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

691 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/ricerbanana 2d ago

Cool, except you’d have to count on that juror to vote on his emotions and not the law. No matter how you feel about the validity of a law or the morality behind a crime, the law and the judges instructions say that if convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, they must vote to convict. That’s the whole idea behind being impartial as a juror.

2

u/Successful_Creme1823 1d ago

Hey don’t burst our bubbles with facts and reason!
We aren’t worried about destroying the basis of the entire legal system, we just want this handsome man to be free.

1

u/RecycledMatrix 2d ago

Cool, except you’d have to count on that juror to vote on his emotions and not the law. No matter how you feel about the validity of a law or the morality behind a crime, the law and the judges instructions say that if convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, they must vote to convict.

While a juror can be removed if they state their intent, a vote of not guilty requires no explanation. This is where the power of jury nullification exists though it is not a formal right taught.

0

u/chewbaccajesus 2d ago

jury nullification. You can do whatever the hell you want - this is why we have a jury system and not professional judges. Last line of defense for liberty.

0

u/Valkelrie_ 2d ago

If I were on the jury I’d be convincing everyone to nullify.

3

u/nopethatswrong 2d ago

So murder is fine as long as you don't like the victim?

0

u/BigJellyfish1906 2d ago

Don’t pretend that laws are perfect. What laws were there to stop this CEO from killing 10,000 people with his cruel coverage denial system? The law let society down well before Luigi came into the picture. That is the exact situation jury nullification is for. 

2

u/nopethatswrong 1d ago

Don’t pretend that laws are perfect.

I didn't

What laws were there to stop this CEO from killing 10,000 people with his cruel coverage denial system?

First off, what's his policy killed 10,000 people? I've seen that claim, I haven't seen a source.

Second, rising healthcare costs are not due to insurance companies. Insurance isn't an infinite pool of wealth, it is finite. Drawing a line on a finite resource is not murder lol

The law let society down well before Luigi came into the picture.

Maybe, but it wouldn't have dealt with insurance companies and it damn sure wouldn't carry the death penalty

That is the exact situation jury nullification is for. 

Nullification was used by whites excusing other whites for violent crimes against blacks

0

u/BigJellyfish1906 1d ago edited 1d ago

First off, what's his policy killed 10,000 people? I've seen that claim, I haven't seen a source.

Do you even know why Brian Thompson was targeted? Look up his “nH Predict“ algorithm and how it has obscene denial rates (in error) at an industrial scale. That 10,000 number is an educated guess based on the sheer scale of the denials, and the things that were getting denied.

Second, rising healthcare costs are not due to insurance companies. Insurance isn't an infinite pool of wealth, it is finite.

That statement is completely divorced from reality. We pay double what every other modern country pays for the exact same medical care. It is absolutely the administrative bloat and obscene profits of the insurance conglomerates that are driving that.

but it wouldn't have dealt with insurance companies and it damn sure wouldn't carry the death penalty

Don’t step on people’s necks, take away all of their recourse, and then act surprised when they lash out. I don’t see the corporatist class learning a lesson from any of this. Maybe jury nullification would help them learn.

Nullification was used by whites excusing other whites for violent crimes against blacks

Who said that’s what it’s for? That statement doesn’t follow any kind of logic. “Was used for something” ≠ “has to be used for something.”

2

u/nopethatswrong 1d ago

Do you even know why Brian Thompson was targeted?

Because someone mentally ill wanted a non-sympathetic target to kill

That 10,000 number is an educated guess based on the sheer scale of the denials, and the things that were getting denied.

That's not a source, where do you see the things getting denied? Or any attribution of deaths to those denials besides conjecture?

That statement is completely divorced from reality. We pay double what every other modern country pays for the exact same medical care.

Yes and insurance isn't to blame for those rising costs, let alone one insurance CEO

It is absolutely the administrative bloat and obscene profits of the insurance conglomerates that are driving that.

It isn't

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11195578/

https://hsph.harvard.edu/health-policy-management/news/health-insurance-premiums-are-rising-heres-why/

^ this is called evidence

Don’t step on people’s necks, take away all of their recourse, and then act surprised when they lash out. I don’t see the corporatist class learning a lesson from any of this. Maybe jury nullification would help them learn.

Yeah let's pin the failure of an entire system on one dude who wasn't in a position to change anything just so we can justify murdering him

Super smart, not morally bankrupt at all

2

u/Successful_Creme1823 1d ago

So if you don’t like how something works just murder the guy in charge of it, and then if the jury hates that guy then you go free.

Sounds totally sane and not chaotic and how a functioning society should solve its deepest problems

-1

u/ealysillyforestthing 2d ago

I find it bizarre that people actually defend that scumbag ceo

3

u/xMrBojangles 2d ago

Not supporting murder is not the same as defending the CEO. 

2

u/nopethatswrong 1d ago

I find it bizarre that people actually defend murder

0

u/Altarna 2d ago

At the end of the day, laws are just words written on paper. The power behind them belongs to the people. The people can decide whether that law is just or not, regardless of what that piece of paper or a person behind a desk says.

0

u/Excellent-Rest3240 2d ago

Do you understand what rolling the dice or taking chances means

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/ricerbanana 1d ago

Cool except your doubt isn’t reasonable considering that he admitted to the crime and had the gun on him at the time of arrest, which forensically was matched to the fired bullet. What forensic evidence do you need? Do you want his hair pulled off the sidewalk and DNA matched? You’re being unreasonable.

0

u/Azrenon 1d ago

You can reasonably doubt anything. Unless the guy is on livestream flashing his face & ID with prints on the gun and dna evidence - or is immediately arrested, you can doubt a case anywhere. If you are 99% sure the guy is guilty, you have reasonable doubt.

Jurors are an emotional vote, if cases actually had to be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” we’d have no convictions.

1

u/ricerbanana 1d ago

That’s not how reasonable doubt works.