this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
41 points (87.3% liked)
news
320 readers
529 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Any confession obtained without his lawyer present would be invalid and most likely coerced. Also, even if he did it, I personally don't consider the victim to be human, so unless they're charging luigi with a form of animal abuse, the charges being brought against him aren't even the correct ones.
That's my point. You don't think someone is human for being a bad guy. So just fucking say that instead of screaming Luigi is innocent.
Here's the thing, all you Lemmys crying "He's innocent, I tell you! Show me the proof!!" That's not really your true feelings. Your true feelings are that he murdered what you consider to be a capitalist rich prick. So you thinks it ok.
Truth: No revolution is going to happen. The rich aren't running scared. This guy murdered someone in cold blood and will spend rest of his life in prison. In ten years, no one is even gonna remember his name.
And see, you know all of that is true. But it pisses you off. So you get good feels for saying, "He's innocent!!" You know he's not. And you know that you were counting on some revolution and "eat the rich" shit happening.
Nothing changed by him murdering some wealthy insurance exec. Nothing.
Then nothing is going to change by holding anyone accountable. So if that's true, what's going to change by punishing anyone for the death of that wealthy insurance exec?
Because that's our law and rule of the land. He did he crime, he can do the time. Besides he's super proud of it and you all will donate plenty to his prison fund, so he'll have plenty of ramen noodles to eat.
If you don't like the laws, then vote someone in who will change them.
Except it's not the law of the land. Laws are applied equally to everyone. If the rule of law existed, fat shitbags in suits wouldn't get to make decisions that defrauds their clients and directly leads to their deaths, then hide behind a corporation to avoid justice.
Every day Brian Thompson went to work was an affront to justice and our legal system, and no one did a goddamn thing about it. But someone allegedly kills him to save the lives of others, and THAT is suddenly a problem.
Except it's not. Because as I stated earlier laws are applied equally and to everyone. The failure of our justice system to punish people like Brian Thompson does not impart or imply guilt on the behalf of someone that committed an act to defend themselves and others.
Murder is not against the law when it's in defense of yourself or others. That's established precedent. There is no established precedent today allows businesses or their executives to escape punishment for actions that directly lead to the harm and deaths of others. Especially when the people that are being harmed and killed are clients and customers of said business.
From a legal standpoint what Brian Thompson did was just as bad as defrauding shareholders which is a serious crime. And he was also trying to kill his companies clients, which from a moral standpoint makes him worse than a run of the mill murderer.
Whoever killed him was protecting the integrity of the business and shareholders interests. And what they did also would have been completely in self-defense if they themselves were a customer.
Law doesn't exist in a vacuum, it either applies to everyone or it doesn't exist at all. If the law didn't exist when it came to punishing Brian Thompson why should it exist in any other respect to him?
Laws should be applied equally to everyone, you mean. I think if Brian Thompson committed actual crimes, then he should have been prosecuted and sent to prison. Not shot dead on the street. Luigi deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. Just because he killed an asshole, doesn't mean he shouldn't answer for the crime.
Besides, if he's such a hero like Lemmy thinks he is, and did it all in protest, thjen he should man up and accept his punishment.
Brian Thompson committed crimes that are typically handled by military tribunals and the Hague. But I'm not here to make excuses for the last 30 years of US criminal policy towards mass murders, fraudsters, con-men, and other 'white' collar criminals. The president is already busy doing that.
Cool. Then he shoulda been arrested and convicted. Not shot by some coward with caterpillar eyebrows who thought he was gonna start a revolution. And that revolution didn't happen. And won't happen. :)
And he wasn't. So now a jury will decide if killing him was wrong or not. Jury nullification isn't a bug. It's designed as a final option in the face of injustice, a gift from our founders.
And I'm looking forward to them deciding it was wrong to murder him. If it was wrong for him to kill people, then it was wrong for Luigi to kill as well. Can't have it both ways.
Which, by the way, is why I'm also against the death penalty.
'Hitler murdered millions, but if we use violence against him, are we any better th--'
'YES.'
I stand by what I said: I don't believe in murdering anyone for any reason. Quaker (Society of Friends) upbringing here. You won't change my mind. You can bring up all the Hitler scenarios you want. Prison, yes. Murder, no.
I don't care if you, or all of Lemmy, disagree with me. I'm allowed my opinion, as you are allowed yours.
Accepting only ideal solutions mean some problems don't get solved. More die. Sometimes millions. Millions more people getting murdered is not somehow the murder-is-always-wrong side of the equation.
The trolley problem is not a cute cartoon and absolute stubbornness is not a virtue. Certainly not when it's something you were inculcated in from childhood, rather than anything you chose.
'I would let Hitler live if captured' is vaguely magnanimous. 'We should've shot zero Nazis because allied soldiers attacking camp guards were indistinguishable from people operating the gas chambers' is dogmatic horseshit.
I haven't changed my mind, and I won't.
Argument ad la la la I can't hear you.
I don't know what that means. If you can't understand what I wrote, then I can't help you. Lets just see if he gets convicted or not. 😀
I look forward to a mistrial or acquittal. Again, we've already decided as a nation that killing someone, under certain circumstances, like self defense or defense of another, is not a crime.
I also don't agree with the death penalty. Mainly because it creates scenarios where people can be robbed of due process and killed by the state before the truth comes to light.
Which I disagree with. Murder of anyone for anyone is wrong in my book. I look forward to him getting convicted and sentenced to life in prison. And I think he will be.