In a written decision, Judge Gregory Carro said that although there is no doubt that the killing was not an ordinary street crime, New York law doesn’t consider something terrorism simply because it was motivated by ideology.
“While the defendant was clearly expressing an animus toward UHC, and the health care industry generally, it does not follow that his goal was to ‘intimidate and coerce a civilian population,’ and indeed, there was no evidence presented of such a goal,” Carro wrote.
Hope the rest of the trial goes with as much sense as this
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.
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.
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.
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.