Re: Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner
John Newman
jnn at synfin.org
Thu Aug 31 19:21:24 PDT 2017
> On Aug 31, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.buff at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:03 PM, John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Razer <g2s at riseup.net> wrote:
>> On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote:
> <snip>
>> Further, the jury is going to want to know why somebody in the crowd struck
>> the vehicle. Malice?
>>
>> If you hit my vehicle... with a car or object, you ARE NOT entitled to run
>> me over, maliciously or in 'perceived self-defense'. Case closed. Guilty of
>> vehicular homicide. Intent unproven sans admission.
>>
>> So, what is your theory as to how a jury could convict the driver? Seems to
>> me, the jury would want to convict the person who struck the car.
>>
>> Are you fucking serious ?
>>
>> Even if someone hits your car with a baseball bat,
>> plowing into a group of people and killing someone is NOT
>> an appropriate response. This nazi-murder-by-car apologetics
>> is fucking head-scratching, to say the bare minimum.
>
> Defense Lawyer:
> "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - The defendant was in his vehicle,
> unarmed and surrounded by hostile actors, and someone started
> pounding on his vehicle. The defendant, believed that he was about
> to have his windows smashed and himself dragged out of the vehicle
> and beaten or even killed.
>
> "He panicked, and performed the only action he could come up with
> to save his skin - he advanced at a high rate of speed to clear the way.
> Unfortunately, someone died as a result. This is tragic, but he was clearly
> acting in self defense."
>
> Jury:
> "???"
>
> I haven't seen the videos (the site that Jim Bell referenced make
Then why chime in?
> reference to Trump as the God Emperor, which makes me itch something
Gives me hives as well ;)
> fierce - I couldn't stay on that site long enough to watch them), but
> just suppose that the videos show that the car was indeed surrounded,
> and that at least one person did start banging on it with some
> implement or other.
>
> How do you think a jury would vote in that case?
I don't know. Juries get it wrong all the time. That doesn't account for
or otherwise exculpate the murder by car, except in the eyes of a
really twisted American gulag.
> It's not out of the realm of possibility that a reasonable jury would
> vote Not Guilty - self defense.
>
> Kurt
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list