Whether or not he is a murderer depends on whether the DA can meet their burden of proving he committed the acts necessary to satisfy the elements of NYS definition of whatever degree of murder the Grand Jury indicts (if that happens) AND he is not able to establish the affirmative defense of justification.
None of these determinations have been made yet.
I gotta ask, are you a time traveler or a boot licker?
You’re using the legal definition, and there is no legal justification for what he did. I do believe there’s a moral one, though.
Also I was unaware that the taking of a life with justification in the law is not considered murder.
Whether there is a legal justification depends on a jury. Sorry you don’t like it but it’s how the law works. I suggest you try to learn about the things you have opinions on.
Then blame the monsters who ignore human rights for sake of profit, and their enablers. Not the person who saved lives by giving the billionaires a reality check. Yes, it was an unlawful killing. But if the law protects mass murder by denial of life saving care, then how should people change something?
it is unfortunate that someone had to be killed. the argument is that there is no other way to accomplish change. and I would probably agree with that.
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention as defined by the law in a specific jurisdiction.
Justification is a defense in a criminal case, by which a defendant who committed the acts asserts that because what they did meets certain legal standards, they are not criminally culpable for the acts which would otherwise be criminal.
NYS Penal Law SECTION 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person
Whether or not he is a murderer depends on whether the DA can meet their burden of proving he committed the acts necessary to satisfy the elements of NYS definition of whatever degree of murder the Grand Jury indicts (if that happens) AND he is not able to establish the affirmative defense of justification.
None of these determinations have been made yet.
I gotta ask, are you a time traveler or a boot licker?
You’re using the legal definition, and there is no legal justification for what he did. I do believe there’s a moral one, though. Also I was unaware that the taking of a life with justification in the law is not considered murder.
Whether there is a legal justification depends on a jury. Sorry you don’t like it but it’s how the law works. I suggest you try to learn about the things you have opinions on.
Corporate greed is not justification. I doubt you believe that the US of all places would rule out in favour of a CEO killer.
Am I a bootlicker simply because I don’t agree with a killing?
I’m not in any way saying the CEO was not a total shitbag who was the effective cause of many deaths.
I just don’t like that murder was seemingly what needed to happen to give people a voice.
Unfortunately yes, peaceful protest isn’t working nowadays
Never has.
Then blame the monsters who ignore human rights for sake of profit, and their enablers. Not the person who saved lives by giving the billionaires a reality check. Yes, it was an unlawful killing. But if the law protects mass murder by denial of life saving care, then how should people change something?
I do blame the monstrous predators of our fucked up healthcare system that ruin and end people’s lives to make a profit.
I also don’t like that someone had to be killed in response.
I don’t blame the guy, but I also believe that killing is wrong.
it is unfortunate that someone had to be killed. the argument is that there is no other way to accomplish change. and I would probably agree with that.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Why does not wanting people killed mean I’m a centrist?
Well, can you explain why you don’t agree with the killing? He was killed, yes, but you haven’t explained why that’s a bad thing.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod