The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

In terms of the guy that shot the United Health Care CEO, I sort of feel like I always did.  It's not good....vigilante justice like that is bad, but I recognize the inevitability of it and I don't feel bad for shitty people who take advantage of others for greed.

But my feelings pale in comparison to the absolute vitriol I'm seeing from young people online.   They hold this guy up as a hero.

So, two questions, what are the odds of jury nullification?  All it takes is one person.  And of that, what ramifications might happen if he is set free?

I doubt he will be found not guilty by a jury.  But I think it is quite possible there is a hung jury.  In a trial that gets more attention than OJ with over 95% of the protesters shouting "not guilty" and only a dozen demanding justice for the CEO.  Before the second trial the DA offers time served + probation if he pleads to manslaughter.  If he is convicted NYC could see riots that rival what LA had after the Rodney King verdict.

I would consider a hung jury a victory.

Be interesting if someone challenged Briggs this fall on a platform of dropping the charges and cracking down on white collar crimes of defrauding consumers

That comparison is bonkers.

Everyone agrees that Luigi killed that man in cold blood.  The idea that a murder conviction for a clear and obvious murder would be received the same as four officers being found not guilty of police brutality after being caught on video is just insane.

There is zero chance there will be "Rodney King-level riots" if Luigi is found guilty.  If there were enough anger against the healthcare industry for people to riot in response to an obvious murderer being convicted of murder, people would already be rioting right now.

The anger exists, it just needs a trigger.  The riots in LA weren't about one incident of excessive force. 

They were about a blatant and obvious injustice and lack of accountability - even when the police were caught on camera clearly committing a crime.

That is nothing like Luigi's killing, or his potential conviction.  If anything, the closer analogy would be if he were found Not Guilty.

I agree with Spider ... the Rodney King thing was a horrible injustice. This was a kid that took the law into his own hands and became judge, jury, and executioner because he didn't like the job he is doing.  If you blast drug dealer on the street just because you know his drugs killed someone you will still go to jail. If Luigi gets off it would be similar to the OJ trial but actually worse because they have video of him doing it.

He could also try to claim temporary insanity and hope for an NGRI.   

There isn't really a direct one to one, which I why I find this interesting.  There are shades of OJ, sure -- but in the case of OJ, I don't think anyone thought that Nicole deserved it; it was that the system was screwing people for a while and this was a way to throw that system into upheaval.

The closest I can think of was that guy that went up and shot that guy that molested his son while he was in police custody.  There was no reasonable case to be made for justifiable homicide other than...y'know...the guy had it coming.

The question is, what would any father do in this case?   Do you have kids?   I have two boys and if anyone ever molested them, I'd blow that sumbitch away.  They'd be a dead dog just like the guy that got shot while in police custory.

And then you should be convicted of murder and go to prison for a couple decades.

As the pro-law-and-order folks like to say, "You do the crime, you do the time."

I disagree. Molesting kids is illegal and outside of a few extremists, most people find it disgusting. This guy was killed because he was practicing free enterprise which is entirely legal. People can argue his morals, but he did nothing illegal.

People say that, but they wouldn't.  Kids are molested every day.  They're murdered.  All kinds of bad things happen and very, very rarely is there vigilante justice in broad daylight.

I'm not arguing that YOU should think that he deserved it.  I'm telling you that there are lots of vocal people out there who think he had it coming.  That's the comparison I'm drawing.  If any of those people are on the jury, that could sway how it works.

Gotcha

I'm sure there's more vigilante justice than you think.  Just not in broad daylight.  Not on the scope of the movie A Time To Kill with Matthew Mconaghey and Samuel L. Jackson.


I'm sure a lot of people think he had it coming, especially people who were policyholders and got screwed (or were related to those who were).   The big question is, was Luigi one of those people?

OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, and George Zimmerman were found to have committed no crime.

Hiding behind the law does not excuse deeply immoral and unethical acts.

Casey Anthony was convicted of some minor charges.

OJ and Casey were guilty but were found innocent. That's a huge difference.  Zimmerman broke no laws and that's is why police let him go on the night of the shooting. He was only later charged when Al Sharpton and company pretended he did break the law and tried to turn the country upside down. He may be an ass that needed to be beat up but he also had a legal right to defend himself in Florida.

We don't know if he broke the law or not.   The question is, who started the fight that led to him pulling out his gun?   And was he really in danger or is this a similar case of that parking lot incident we had over on the Gulf Coast somewhere?   If I recall correctly, that guy was convicted.

All three were equally found Not Guilty of the murders they were charged with.  Zimmerman is the only one of the three who directly admitted to taking a life; the fact that you happen to agree with his doing so doesn't make him any more "innocent" than Simpson or Anthony.

In any case, my point was that hiding behind "They broke no law" is not an excuse for immoral actions.  Why do you declare OJ to be any more guilty of committing a crime than this CEO?

I think arguing the morality of the CEO takes us on a tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with Luigi's guilt or innocence. I don't see any defense other than hoping they get at least one sympathetic juror willing to overlook the rules of law. I don't see there being a racist cop, lack of evidence other than circumstantial,  or a back and forth of who was actually the aggressor as we had in the other cases mentioned.

For the record, I think Luigi should rightly be convicted of murder.

I just object to the idea that because condemning people to die so you can make a bigger profit is legal, that makes it OK.  Because it turns out that what OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony*, and George Zimmerman did was legal, too.

*excepting the false statements to the police you noted, during the murder investigation she was ultimately found Not Guilty of

I'm not convinced what he did was legal because I haven't learned enough about what exactly he did and I am definitely not a legal expert.

I have a friend who along with a bunch of others one night while drunk called the tip line and said that she was with Lugi at the time of shooting.  A bunch of her friends also in a drunken stupper also called the tip line either to confess, offer themselves as an alibi or otherwise gave bogus info.  Each was told that filing a false police report is a crime, none of them were ever investigated or questioned.  I am guessing they were not alone in pranking the tip line and not being taken seriously.

So here is the defense.  The NYPD and FBI received tens of thousands of tips including confessions that were never investigated because they had already decided that they had their suspect and dismissed all evidence  to the contrary.  As the lead detective told you they dismissed all evidence of Lugi's innocence as a joke. 

Your friend should be charged.

Probably, but it is difficult to prove a negative.  They need to prove she wasn't with Lugi.  And Lugi would exercise his 5th amendment right.  And it would hurt the DA's primary case -- rather than follow up on evidence of his innocence you prosecuted anyone offering evidence of his innocence.

Would not surprise me if there are alibis placing the defendant on remote hiking trip.

It is very simple. There is video Luigi and both have cell phones to pinpoint locations. Most people don't consider how hard it is to hide your location these days. I'm guessing your friend doesn't live in New York. Wasn't this a work day? Was she working? It wouldn't be hard at all. It's just a matter of is it worth.

Jury nullification works best if the defense you can give the jury a reason other than jury nullification.  Can't find OJ not guilty just because you hate the LAPD.  Can't find Zimmerman not guilty just because you are racist.  You need another reason bias and not following all the leads allows a jury to vote not guilty without saying the CEO deserved it.

What your friend did isn't a lead though. She attempted to provide an alibi which can easily be discredited. I'm sure someone provided false leads and even confessions but that happens a lot in high profile situations and a good prosecutor should have a strategy but we will have to wait and see what happens.

Yes you can.  You don't have to give a reason.

I am not talking from a legal perspective, but a practical one.  Be a lot easier for a sympathetic juror to vote not guilty if there is a colorable argument that Lugi was not the gun man.

You have to give a reason to the other jurors to get them to vote Not Guilty, otherwise it's just a hung jury.

Yes, that's all I'm expecting is a hung jury.  But an individual juror doesn't have to give any reason for their vote.

What do you consider getting off?  For example he is convicted of manslaughter gets sentenced to 6 years and serves 3, would you consider that a win for defense or the state?

It was kind of an open question to start conversation, more than anything specific.

....but no, I was thinking that he isn't convicted of a crime, either through getting found not guilty (not likely) or multiple hung juries where the State (maybe through public support or political pressure) declines to continue to pursue the case.

Except the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to he was getting his head bashed into the concrete when he shot Martin. I'm not sure what kind of person it would take to think that didn't give him the right to fear for his life and defend. Being  an asshole is not against the law and certainly doesn't take away one's rights to defend themselves.   

Haha a... you're right. I guess the 90+% who feel that way are wrong. Most everyone who defended him later came out to insinuate or admit he probably did it.

If a Not Guilty verdict is "proof" Zimmerman didn't murder Martin, then a Not Guilty verdict is also "proof" OJ and Casey Anthony didn't commit murder, either.

100% of people (including Zimmerman himself) admit Zimmerman killed Martin.  The difference is that y'all approve of Martin's death.

The hell we do.   He was just a kid going to get some Skittles.   There probably was a fistfight and Martin got the upper hand before Zimmerman pulled out his gun.   The only thing that got Zimmerman off was they couldn't prove who threw the first punch.

I do not, nor have ever, "approved of his death". In fact I relate to Martin more than Zimmerman in this scenario. When I was  a punk kid of 15 years of age I got off on beating up adults and letting them know a 15 year old just kicked your arse! This could have happened to me to me as well. Although it didn't happen to me, I did have a gun pulled on me once. The law is there for a reason and while legal, it was still a very unfortunate act. I was very, very, fortunate that my youth did not destroy my life because I did some bad things.

If there's a difference between "I think Martin's death was legal and justified" and "I approve of Martin's death," I don't know what it is.
Seems like the same thing to me.

It's not.   There are those who think Martin started the altercation, and therefore the law says that his death was justifiable.   But them approving of Martin's death is an entirely different matter.   I don't think anyone would approve of a 15 year old boy dying at the hands of a grown man when it could've been prevented by the man minding his own business.

Approval of something is completely different than understanding the law as it is written.

So what, are you saying you disapprove of the relevant laws?  Because I doubt that's the case for the pro-Zimmerman crowd, either.

To say that Zimmerman's killing of Martin was justified is to approve of it.  This is fairly straightforward:

- if a bystander breaks the window of a burning home so that kids inside can escape, I would say I "approve" of breaking the window
- if a father shoots a stranger who has broken into his home, I would say I "approve" of the shooting
- if a woman bites off the finger of an attacker attempting to assault her, I would say I "approve" of the dismemberment

So why are y'all suddenly splitting hairs over whether you "approve" of Martin's death?  If you're one of the people who thinks Luigi was justified in killing the CEO, that means you approve of Brian Thompson's death.

Only because you choose to see it that way. I don't think the average person would have a problem understanding the difference between understanding and approving. I understand Luigi's supposed motive but I don't approve of it as I also understand murder is illegal.

You don't think Luigi was justified in killing the CEO, so you don't "approve."
But you do think Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin, which is why I said you "approve" of his death.

And that's the difference here: it's not that you merely "understand" Zimmerman's decision (like you might "understand" Luigi's), it's that you agree with and support Zimmerman's claim that it was reasonable self-defense and not criminal homicide.  To say that's somehow not "approval" is splitting hairs.

There are people who disagree with what the law says, but unfortunately the law is the law.   This statement is pure horseshit.   Based on what I've seen, a lot of what you write on here is as well.

If you disagree with the law, then say that.  I have yet to meet a single Zimmerman defender who has argued that the relevant laws themselves are immoral and should be changed.

And even if that is the case: to say that Zimmerman's actions were lawful evil is definitely not "approving" of them.
But that's not what y'all are doing.

OK, here's what I think actually happened that night:

-Martin was going to the store to get some Skittles.   Like any teen, he was screwing around on the way there.

-Zimmerman saw Martin and like the racist POS he is known to be, started following him.  Even after he called 911 and was advised not to.

-At some point, Martin confronted Zimmerman and asked why he was following him in an aggressive manner

-A physical altercation ensued from there.  At some point, Martin got the upper hand on Zimmerman and out came the gun.


Again, I think Zimmerman is a scumbag.   He was a known racist and was abusive to his now ex-wife.   If he was losing the fight, he should've taken his beating like a man rather than pull out a gun.

But the question that remains unanswered is, who threw the first punch?

Those questions are all about determining why one does or does not think Zimmerman was justified, which is a different discussion.  My point is that if you think he was justified in using deadly force - in other words, if he obeyed the applicable laws and those laws are just - then you approve of his actions.

You can argue that Zimmerman committed a crime and got away with it (as many people say about OJ and Casey Anthony).
You can argue that Zimmerman followed the law, but the law is unjust (as many say about the slain CEO).
But if you aren't making either of those arguments, you are condoning/endorsing/approving his actions.

Well, here's the thing.   Who threw the first punch?  If it was Zimmerman, he committed a crime.  If it was Martin, then Zimmerman was indeed following the law.   If it was the latter, the law was unjust.   A grown man has no business following a 15 year old boy around like that, let alone getting into a physical altercation.  Plus it's well known that Zimmerman is a POS who liked to start trouble.  Not to mention that I don't agree with the "stand your ground" law.  If you're attacked with fists, you need to respond with fists, not a gun.

Unfortunately, they can't prove who threw the first punch as the incident occurred with no witnesses.