this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
280 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2577 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A man who attempted to vote twice in Virginia’s 2023 election was acquitted of attempted illegal voting on Monday, following his claims in court that he had been testing the system for voter fraud.

A Nelson County jury found 67-year-old Richardson Carter Bell Jr. not guilty of attempting to vote more than once in the same election. According to the Washington Post, Bell, a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump, admitted voting early at his local registrar’s office only to also show up at a nearby polling place on Election Day.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 47 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Wtf, meanwhile you can go to prison for a sting operation where a victim does not exist or the illegal item/items you are buying do not actually exist

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Rob a liquor store with an unloaded gun but someone present has a heart attack? Murder.

Rob a liquor store with an unloaded gun but the guy behind the counter pulls out a loaded one and kills your accomplise? Also murder.

Buy some heroin for you and your partner to use, leading you both to overdose, but you survive? Believe it or not, also murder.

e; Whether or not you think these make sense is beside the point, it's an obvious double standard when the lack of intent doesn't matter for these crimes but it gets this guy a walk

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The first one I can kind of agree with tbh.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The second one too. If you're committing a crime and someone dies as a direct result of that crime, it's on you.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The hard part is that “direct” is subjective and up to interpretation of the court.

Depends on the state. In mine it doesn't matter. If someone dies while you're committing a crime, you're responsible regardless.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I would say the person doing the crime himself is to blame for his own death. I think there's a difference between an accomplice and an innocent dying.

But its a fine line, I agree, and also depends on other variables. If I start applying it to other examples:

If you are trespassing in a train tunnel doing graffiti, the train comes and you get out but your buddy gets hit, is it murder? I'd say not really.

If you're racing and your buddy hits a tree, it's not really murder either yet he wouldn't of been racing alone. It's a two player sport so I'd tend to say guilty.

Would your buddy have stayed home instead of robbing the store if you weren't there to help him, it's hard to say but I'd tend to go not guilty.

It also seems a bit vindictive but like I said, I understand the sentiment.

Usually the line is when someone dies in the commission of a felony.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No, because it isn't proportional.

A homeless man stealing a bottle of water with a security guard shooting up half the store due to bad aim as a result should not be charged for murder.

Besides, murder should always require intent to kill. Robbery - including armed robbery - does not usually imply this.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Those are two separate crime scenarios. The homeless person couldn't be charged with murder.

What if we alter the scenario slightly?

The homeless man ran "aggressively" through the checkouts (without paying for the water bottle of course) and the police "believed" he had a knife to force his way through. Water bottles sure look like knifes sometimes after all.

I'm fairly certain the homeless man would be charged with felony murder if the police shot bystanders (and the homeless man survived).

Someone should argue that every arrest made by undercover officers pretending to be prostitutes should be thrown out under this.

Just because you said yes, or even paid, doesn't mean you would have actually had sex, so you in reality could have just paid to "test" if the prostitute would actually agree.