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
Hope the rest of the trial goes with as much sense as this
That's huge. That was a big charge and the prosecutors really wanted it.
Hell yes. Now the guy just has to keep them from proving he did it. Honestly feels doable
I mean it's super super tenuous that he did it in the first place. Again they ethier got him through illegal means or just framed a guy and both feel equally likely in this case with how hard the prosecution keeps dropping the ball.
It's been fishy from the start.
I for one was marathoning Mario Party with him that morning. All the best people are saying it!
That's a great idea. Mario Kart drive me to freedom
It's good to see things simmer back down to reality after all the inflammatory politically-motivated accusations. Everyone deserves a fair trial.
I understand why they tried to throw those charges in, but I don’t like the inconsistency of doing so.
I agree this is a sensible outcome.
Because the Justice department is being run by headlines and idiots.
The emphasis on "intimidate and coerce a civilian population" is interesting. Seems to imply billionaires are not considered part of the civilian population. As they shouldn't be.
That is not how I read it. If he had shot and left a note saying "fuck billionaires" or "fuck CEOs" then it would be terrorism because he would be threatening them. But his problem was just this guy. It was plain murder / revenge.
The internet made him a champion of "anti billionaires" against his will
Yep. Maybe this is irelevant to US law, but I'm in Romania (European Union member) at the moment and here discriminating against someone based on wealth (wealthy/poor) is a hate crime (as is discriminating based on gender, age, orientation, etc). So at the most it'd be a hate crime. The terrorism charges were politically motivated.
Sometimes you take the hero you get, whether they want to be or not.
Before we go giving the legal system a pat on the back for that, that's not really what's happening. The law is written with a high level of provable intent in mind, and that's the only way it could possibly pass 1st Amendment muster. It's really, really hard to prove anyone intended to intimidate anyone.
Is it normal for judges to make comments that are worded like the defendant is guilty?
Right? I thought that was odd, too.
They should have said something like, "The prosecution hasn't established a motive for the crime to justify a terrorism charge," or something similar.
But I'm not a lawyer, so it's possible (maybe probable) that it's fine to reference the defendant's motives in reference to the prosecution's claims.
Amen - thank you, yes!
The only people without such animus either work for the industry or are shareholders.