The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the
reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the
defendant believed them to be.
I’m not specifically saying that this particular case isn’t murder, but if the quote we’re all responding to is accurate then there’s explicitly a way it could be considered “not murder”. I know absolutely nothing about the relevant law, but legal definitions not quite matching common sense definitions is the case more often than not, I think
The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the
reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the
defendant believed them to be.
Given how composed they are and premeditated it was, I’m not sure if this is in the spirit of the legal clause, but it could be… interpreted liberally by a judge.
Thanks for supplying your legal expertise pro bono, but we’re going to need a citation of relevant legislative definition if you’re going to make broad claims like that about legal matters.
I don’t think capital punishment (murdering a helpless person in custody) is ever justified. It’s just cruelty for the sake of cruelty.
What we have here could be an act of societal self-defense, where the target was in the process of actively harming millions of people, and the legal system wasn’t doing anything to stop it. Whether or not it was self-defense or just a pre-paid hit for some other reason I can’t say, and neither can I judge whether it was justified or not. I just think it’s categorically different from capital punishment.
After someone’s responsible for the deaths of thousands, and suffering of millions more? Even beyond what he did or didn’t “deserve,” it was simply a practical choice to put him down and prevent him from hurting anyone else.
United healthcare has the highest denial rate the in country. He’s absolutely killed thousands, and would’ve killed many more.
I’m not saying anyone should be killed. But anyone who makes a living on the deaths of others certainly deserves it. For example, even assembly line workers for manufacturing white phosphorus or cluster bombs. There are some types of income that are unjustifiable.
People would say he was personally responsible for death and destruction of millions by making up reasons to deny them the necessary care for life and health of them and their loved ones. For me there is minimal difference between him and Hitler, Stalin, Putin.
Do I condone murdering them like they murdered others, no. But at the same time I can’t condemn anyone who has done it nor feel bad for the dead.
According to NY legal code, it is not murder if:
this is where jury nullification comes in.
It was murder.
Bootlicker says what?
Removed by mod
Which is why you told someone this hour that they shouldn’t be considered human.
ouch. talk about a boomerang
Oof
Trying to get someone to think a different way.
When you insult people it’s because you have nothing intelligent to say.
If only someone said this to the man while he was alive, maybe he would have seen people as other than red numbers on the balance sheet.
You don’t know this man or how he thought.
Sure we do. How many shareholder calls was he on openly discussing his plans to harm people for profit?
We do know how this person thought by the actions he took.
He denied healthcare to millions. Fuck him and fuck you too.
With a response like that, you should’ve kept quiet
On the colloquial sense, sure, but it’s entirely possible (and would be hilarious) for the legal definition not to agree
How so? (sincere question)edit: I misread and thought it was claiming a specific legal possibility
I’m not specifically saying that this particular case isn’t murder, but if the quote we’re all responding to is accurate then there’s explicitly a way it could be considered “not murder”. I know absolutely nothing about the relevant law, but legal definitions not quite matching common sense definitions is the case more often than not, I think
Interestingly, I just saw a post claiming:
Given how composed they are and premeditated it was, I’m not sure if this is in the spirit of the legal clause, but it could be… interpreted liberally by a judge.
Insanity can make a person very … Focused.
Interpreted by the jury.
It’s murder.
Thanks for supplying your legal expertise pro bono, but we’re going to need a citation of relevant legislative definition if you’re going to make broad claims like that about legal matters.
It’s dinner
Maybe it’ll become true if you keep saying it over and over!!!
bait used to be much harder to do back in the day
Yes so is capital punishment, wars and just like those this is also justified. He was judged by millions of his victims and his peers and executed.
I mean it was murder. Premeditated, planned etc.
But he murdered the right person :)
Yes so is capital punishment.
Fuck capital punishment.
Absolutely but in extremes of cases maybe it is justified.
He was a mass murderer so in this case IMHO it is justified.
It was necessary, because he was not going to see punishment otherwise.
In a just society, he’d be in jail forever. Once again, Fuck the Capital Punishment, even in extreme Cases.
Put him in jail forever and make him pay for his confinement. I don’t think he should b a burden on the people he exploited.
I don’t think capital punishment (murdering a helpless person in custody) is ever justified. It’s just cruelty for the sake of cruelty.
What we have here could be an act of societal self-defense, where the target was in the process of actively harming millions of people, and the legal system wasn’t doing anything to stop it. Whether or not it was self-defense or just a pre-paid hit for some other reason I can’t say, and neither can I judge whether it was justified or not. I just think it’s categorically different from capital punishment.
Capital punishment is state sanctioned, that is the only difference in my eyes.
I can think of some cases where I would rather spend money on something better than housing criminals and just end their life.
That’s not what happened. He was murdered unjustly.
What is your basis behind the belief that his murder was unjust.
He didn’t do anything to deserve murder.
After someone’s responsible for the deaths of thousands, and suffering of millions more? Even beyond what he did or didn’t “deserve,” it was simply a practical choice to put him down and prevent him from hurting anyone else.
He didn’t kill anyone.
You’re saying that anyone who works at any company should be killed. (Including yourself assuming you actually have a job.)
United healthcare has the highest denial rate the in country. He’s absolutely killed thousands, and would’ve killed many more.
I’m not saying anyone should be killed. But anyone who makes a living on the deaths of others certainly deserves it. For example, even assembly line workers for manufacturing white phosphorus or cluster bombs. There are some types of income that are unjustifiable.
That’s like saying George w bush didn’t kill anyone. Fucking CLOWN.
Prove this claim.
An argument could be made for “yes”, and with nuance, the justification gets stronger the higher up the food chain you go.
Sounds like you just might be the CEO of Aetna or some shit.
He is a mass murderer.
People would say he was personally responsible for death and destruction of millions by making up reasons to deny them the necessary care for life and health of them and their loved ones. For me there is minimal difference between him and Hitler, Stalin, Putin.
Do I condone murdering them like they murdered others, no. But at the same time I can’t condemn anyone who has done it nor feel bad for the dead.
If I could get in the jury I would absolutely say ‘not guilty’ and just not be moved.
I dunno, I think it might be a suicide.
A self defense murder, which is a legal type of murder.
Oh neat…look a downvote. Here, you should have it.