• peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    190
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 days ago

    Interesting, interesting, interesting, interesting.

    I need the bootlickers to show up and tell me it’s just coincidence.

    The whole damn thing is a show. They are terrified. The book they usually play by isn’t working. What will happen? The amount of support Luigi has is astounding. It’s even a topic I tested the waters with at work and these people I work with make a decent living.

    America is waking up. I feel it.

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        63
        ·
        5 days ago

        That’s literally what it’s taken in the past. It took the fear of communism to really get unionization accepted in the US. In other eras it’s taken the threat of invasion by external powers.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      5 days ago

      I genuinely think that they’ll have a hard time finding an impartial jury… I think that at this point, pretty much anyone who doesn’t live under a rock has heard of him and has an opinion on whether he should be found guilty.

      Regardless of which way you fall on that particular topic, you’re biased, and that would exclude you from serving on the jury.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        5 days ago

        I thought the same thing about the Trump trial, but they legitimately turned over rocks and found the most oblivious Americans living under them. There are evidently tons of people out there living in their own little bubble, completely untethered from the news media or even just casual conversations with strangers and probably have no idea who Luigi is right now. The news might not be able to reach them, but a jury summons from the state can, and the prosecution is going to hunt for these individuals specifically.

        • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          5 days ago

          An unfavorable view is still bias. The defense would reject any juror that shows significant malice towards the plaintiff.

          • Kitathalla@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            The defense can try to reject any juror that shows significant malice. Oftentimes both sides only have so many that they can strike from the potential juror pool unless the judge agrees there is enough bias to sway someone.

            …and since this entire thread started because the judge is married to a previous executive of a healthcare* company, well, good luck Luigi defense.

      • P1nkman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        5 days ago

        I’ve spoken with friends about this is Denmark, and we all read the news with great pleasure.

      • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 days ago

        Correct. And I strongly suspect they are wildly pumping out news about him to narrow the juror pool to people who do live under rocks.

        The other option is that jurors lie about their bias, which opens them up for legal consequences.

        His defense, in any case, has a very difficult task - they need to be able to somehow communicate him being innocent against stacked charges OR paint him light that the rest of us see that leans them towards Jury Nullification.

        My hope is that potential jurors hide their bias, which isn’t easy, but gives him the best chance.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 days ago

          The other option is that jurors lie about their bias, which opens them up for legal consequences.

          That’s almost impossible to prove, and almost never prosecuted.

          • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 days ago

            There are plenty of nevers and almost nevers with this case already, so it’s not unreasonable to worry that there might be more.

          • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 days ago

            They’re trying to use fear to spin a story against this guy. They’re going to use fear when telling them about lying under oath.

            They’re going to use fear the whole way, it’s their only weapon.

            It’s why they are so afraid. A lot of us see through it, and see their real fear.

        • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 days ago

          If they can find an “unbiased” jury, then the defense does indeed have a difficult challenge ahead. Even if the prosecution fails with their terrorism charge, they can fall back on murder 2, which is much harder to defend against.