No it isn’t, don’t be dense… In fact, Eco-Fasicm is the answer! Let’s speed-run this human extinction, as we are a truly the worst and most evil species on this planet… Death penalty for mankind, pronto!
In most countries, it is lawful for a citizen to repel violence with violence to protect someone’s life or destruction of property.[3]
The scope of self-defense varies; some jurisdictions have a duty to retreat rule that disallows this defense if it was safe to flee from potential violence. In some jurisdictions, the castle doctrine allows the use of deadly force in self-defense against an intruder in one’s home. Other jurisdictions have stand-your-ground laws that allow use of deadly force in self-defense in a vehicle or in public, without a duty to retreat.
Not saying it’s perfect, but it’s likely the defense he’ll use if not denying he pulled the trigger.
They’d just have to convince a jury that denying healthcare which causes injury and death to a shit ton of Americans is a use of imment force and this action would have lessened it.
If they show that after the shooting less claims were denied…
It probably won’t work, but that’s the path to jury nullification without saying jury nullification is our defense.
Under the New York Penal Law Article 35, you may use physical force upon another person when and to the extent you reasonably believe such to be necessary to defend yourself or a third person from what you reasonably believe to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
Tilem & Associates points out in an article that the term “reasonably” is used twice in the law mentioned above. Both your belief that force is being used or about to be used and your belief that your use of physical force is necessary to stop the attack must be reasonable under the circumstances if you want to successfully use the defense of justification.
reasonably believe to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
Unfortunately, the CEO’s threat to life is lawful which would preclude this defence. Not saying I don’t support Luigi. Just that it is a good thing nullification exists.
you may use physical force upon another person when and to the extent you reasonably believe such to be necessary to defend yourself or a third person from what you reasonably believe to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
Luigi can claim he believes it’s unlawful…
It doesn’t have to actually be unlawful.
His lawyers can start talking about why it’s lawful for insurance companies to decline claims based onnshitty AI.
Opening up a huge can of worms because records disclosed in this can be used for civil trials later…
Especially class actions for people the AI denied wrongly.
Like, dude allegedly executed a CEO in broad daylight, why wouldn’t he want to try and steer this court case towards that stuff?
Murder is always wrong, of course. This was simply an imperfect self-defense.
No it isn’t, don’t be dense… In fact, Eco-Fasicm is the answer! Let’s speed-run this human extinction, as we are a truly the worst and most evil species on this planet… Death penalty for mankind, pronto!
It’s actually not always wrong…
Legally speaking:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide
Not saying it’s perfect, but it’s likely the defense he’ll use if not denying he pulled the trigger.
They’d just have to convince a jury that denying healthcare which causes injury and death to a shit ton of Americans is a use of imment force and this action would have lessened it.
If they show that after the shooting less claims were denied…
It probably won’t work, but that’s the path to jury nullification without saying jury nullification is our defense.
https://documentedny.com/2023/07/27/new-york-self-defense-laws-stand-your-ground/
It’s a sound legal defense, and as far as I know it’s his only option.
But as always: IANAL
I don’t see the Judge allowing any evidence about UHC’s practices to be admitted, unfortunately
Unfortunately, the CEO’s threat to life is lawful which would preclude this defence. Not saying I don’t support Luigi. Just that it is a good thing nullification exists.
Devils advocate:
Luigi can claim he believes it’s unlawful…
It doesn’t have to actually be unlawful.
His lawyers can start talking about why it’s lawful for insurance companies to decline claims based onnshitty AI.
Opening up a huge can of worms because records disclosed in this can be used for civil trials later…
Especially class actions for people the AI denied wrongly.
Like, dude allegedly executed a CEO in broad daylight, why wouldn’t he want to try and steer this court case towards that stuff?
Not true. Not only was Luigi never insured with UnitedHealth, but the CEO he killed was on the path to reforming what he thought was a negative system. Go watch the Dateline Tonight episode on Luigi. The facts, when assembled, challenge the validity and true agenda of Luigi’s support.