News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Looked up this story in the local paper for a bit more context
Unsure how this happens in a self defense situation. Imo if you were threatened and under duress you're gonna do what you have to do, but he was 80 years old
The reasoning behind the Trump-appointed judge's dissent:
In the surface that's pretty reasonable, but the issue is the planted informant being encouraged to further incriminate the defendant:
If the evidence was so good, why did the prosecution fabricate a witness? ... Your explanation glosses over this key fact.
And also, people can protect themselves and later make crazy decisions. That is definitely possible. Likely, even, if they are on hard drugs. So the shocking evidence, well, it isn't so easy to interpret. Which is why a jury has to deal with it, not that Trump judge, and not you and me.
That's the thing. It does not and should not matter if she did the deed. Using corrupt means to convict her invalidates the entire process. And that's because if they used corrupt means on her then they can use them on you. Prosecutors and police doing that are trying to usurp the role of the court.
That said SCOTUS will rule that she should be immediately executed in the most inhumane way possible.
It absolutely should matter if she did the deed, as that makes her a murderer, but I will concede that if they used corrupt means to convict her it does invalidate the whole process.
There is a very fine balance to be struck here that I don't think I can do justice.
There is not a fine balance.
Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution did not do a legal and lawful job of getting a conviction, so right now she's innocent. In other words, if you're trying to do reasoning based on "what if she's a murderer", then we already have that answer sitting in front of us.
That's the basic premise of the legal system. Now, if you are some omniscient being, then you might be able to do other types of reasoning. But we aren't, and we never will be, so we can't.
In other words, there is no fine balance. The prosecution decided their case wasn't good enough to be presented fairly, and they somehow got away with their evil actions for the past 27 years.
Ethically it certainly matters. But systems wise we cannot incentivize it. Which is why corrupt prosecutions are legally supposed to result in removing the conviction. She's certainly not magically a good person. And iirc most states allow another trial.