When a person or entity is responsible for the untimely deaths of literally thousands of American citizens, the question should be whether or not this was a justifiable homicide. Is a police officer put on trial for shooting and killing a gunman mowing down children at a school? Why is this case different?
- is a police officer put on trial for killing a baby?
  
  It would ultimately depend on the context but sure. "Innocent" Germans were put on trial post WW2 for enabling the system that resulted in the murder of millions of people, how is this any different?
  
  I think you're misinterpreting the comment. Police officers in the US are regularly not put on trial even for egregious killings. They're getting trial more often after the BLM protests, but they're still usually getting found not guilty because we're inundated with copaganda.
  
  True. Worth noting as bad as police are most countries outside of America actually have civilian oversight of the police. You can argue the effectiveness of it but it's lightyears ahead of the lack of training and corruption that America faces.
- If they went with justifiable homicide they could have gotten an easy conviction. Instead they went with terrorism and Murder 1, both of which there is too much sympathy for.
  
  justifiable homicide
  
  Is that a thing in court??
  
  No, but they sometimes undercharge as manslaughter, negligent discharge of a firearm, or assault.
  
  Yes, basically it's what they evaluate for a self-defense homicide or homicide in the defense of another person, such as if you shoot someone who is raping or murdering another person, for example.
- I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment but legally speaking that's a completely different situation. The main difference is the immediacy and nature of anticipated harm.
  
  Again, not challenging your take on it, just highlighting that the law doesn't see it that way.
  
  It was immediate; that CEO was killing people every day.
  
  Again, I appreciate the sentiment but that's not really what 'immediate' means in this context.
  
  If I was a juror I wouldn't buy that for a second. That CEO was actively killing people.
  
  Again, not disagreeing with the sentiment, but legally he WASN'T actively killing people. Nobody was in any immediate danger. That means physically and temporally immediate. That means the defences and laws that are relevant are entirely different. That's just how it works and how the law is set up.
  
  Sure but the law includes interpretation by jurors too, and in reality he was an immediate threat. I'm not going to put a man in prison because of a definition that's clearly wrong.
  
  The jurors have discretion, yes, but that doesn't kick in at the jury vetting stage. Again, I get the sentiment, but that's just the way it works.
  
  I'm sorry if I implied that jurors interpreting the law "kicks in" during jury vetting. I'm not actually sure what that means.
  
  I mean it's true that jury nullification is a thing, but that relates to decisions made in the jury room. Jury vetting is a completely separate matter that takes place before the trial starts proper.

You've viewed 275 comments.