Comment’s still up after an hour, yup, looks like the mods here are pretty good. I like this place. Over in /c/news the modlog is insane, looks like it’d be easier to just remove themselves from the Fediverse rather than try and remove all the comments that might hint at “celebrating violence”.

The NPR article right now on this guy is disgusting

Thoughts and prayers to the victims of the victim.

Love the name

In reality it is probably just a guy whose wife’s cancer treatment was denied.

saw someone post about how the post that is mourning the CEO in facebook got ratio’d hard by laughing emojis, a platform that is largely conservative boomers.

even though conservatives don’t like socialized healthcare, they seemed to hate private insurances more.

NOTHING will make them give up their guns

All these doubting replies don’t know how the rich responded to the Black Panthers.

I’ll take “Things that won’t happen” for 100, Alex.

Shooter wasn’t black

Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity, or a perverse verdict, is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury’s reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

1. Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.

2. In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense.

A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the law. Such a pattern may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment. It may also happen that a jury convicts a defendant even if no law was broken, although such a conviction may be overturned on appeal. Nullification can also occur in civil trials; unlike in criminal trials, if the jury renders a not liable verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or order a new trial.

Doesn’t look like anything to me.

Propaganda of the Deed is coming back baby

I don’t know, maybe we should ask the author, Phil Mckraken.

I never wished for the death of another human being

Neat. I’ll bet Brian didn’t either.

The policies under his leadership caused the deaths of many human beings, and prolonged the suffering of many more. Not because he hated them or wished them death, he’d have to care enough to know their names for that, but because denying their valid, good faith claims on buried technicalities as a matter of policy made him and his profiteer shareholders moar profit for their ego score hoards.

Capitalists don’t kill out of hate, their victims are just nameless speed bumps to glorious profit. They kill with a sociopathic shrug, in volume. Their piles of corpses labeled “externalities,” aka everyone else’s problem but theirs.

Not having sympathy for the death of another/Saying karma bit them in the ass != Wishing for another’s dearh

You’ve never wished for the death of serial killers? Rapists? Pedophiles? Dictators? Animal abusers? The odd mime?

Somehow, I don’t believe you. But, on the off chance that you’re telling the truth… this is for you:

Well aren’t you pious

I’m ready to go out and celebrate with some drinks over this fucking asshole getting what he deserved. How many millions have him and his ilk killed by denying them healthcare?

Fuck him and fuck all his bootlickers.

But those who think that they are virtuous have no problem celebrating this guy being killed calling it karma. And this comment will be totally downvoted because how dare someone point out their hypocrisy.

“Virtue” is a relative thing. What is virtuous to one person might not be virtuous to another. You, for example, seem to believe that celebrating the death of someone is unvirtuous, even if that person was a monster. This is pure speculation on my part, but I’m also guessing that you hold the belief that nobody deserves to die.

These beliefs are not universal. While you would be a hypocrite for violating your own strongly held beliefs, it would not be accurate to apply that label to someone who doesn’t hold those beliefs. For example, I believe that death is the worst punishment you can give to a person. I also believe that some people absolutely deserve it. I would not find it virtuous to falsely pretend otherwise. I have no moral qualms with celebrating the death of someone who I think deserves it. Similarly, I have no qualms about celebrating good things that happen to a person who I think deserves them. In both cases, I consider those things to be the universe working out as it should.

And who are you that we should give any shits about your call-out?

I think callus indifference is apropos

Celebrating someone death does not mean you cant be virtuous. Even killing someone can be considered virtuous in many different cases. Killing out of mercy, to protect others, or to change things for the better can be considered virtuous in many way. Revenge, jealousy and hatred are bad, but a murder comitted over revenge doesnt mean it cannot be celebrated as an opportunity for change or awareness… Victim murder may be wrong even if he was a shitstain for the society, but from his murder maybe good things may happen, maybe its successor may think twice on deciding on the balance between profit and client wellness…