> In closing arguments, prosecutor Binu Palal told jurors to take Davis at his word and find him guilty. > For years, he argued, Davis had been telling people "that he is responsible for Tupac Shakur's murder" through documentaries, his memoir, podcasts and a police interview. > Throughout the trial, Davis' defence team tried to persuade jurors that his comments were fiction - bravado and exaggeration intended to sel…
People are easily disgusted by violent acts and yet they often only harm a single individual directly and few indirectly. People that commit fraud are more welcoming to the public but they are the ones that harm the most people. Example: Brett Farve, a millionaire, is still likable while at the same time he stole from a welfare system that was designed to help the poorest in the state of Mississippi. He is directly r…
Violence ripples out. It’s never just one person. Living in a violent society has huge costs on all of us.
When health insurance companies withhold care and cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people, that certainly ripples out.
When profits of insurance are more important than people being able to get care, that directly leads to the situations that lead to violence. Poor, desperate people commit crimes, especially violent ones at a higher rate.
> In closing arguments, prosecutor Binu Palal told jurors to take Davis at his word and find him guilty. > For years, he argued, Davis had been telling people "that he is responsible for Tupac Shakur's murder" through documentaries, his memoir, podcasts and a police interview. > Throughout the trial, Davis' defence team tried to persuade jurors that his comments were fiction - bravado and exaggeration intended to sel…
People are easily disgusted by violent acts and yet they often only harm a single individual directly and few indirectly. People that commit fraud are more welcoming to the public but they are the ones that harm the most people. Example: Brett Farve, a millionaire, is still likable while at the same time he stole from a welfare system that was designed to help the poorest in the state of Mississippi. He is directly r…
So what do you think we should do if we catch a murderer? Should we let them go? I just don’t get the angle here at all. It sounds a bit like we’re talking about apples and you’re telling people we should care about motorcycles. Sure we can like or dislike both, but’s what’s the connection though?
People are easily disgusted by violent acts and yet they often only harm a single individual directly and few indirectly. People that commit fraud are more welcoming to the public but they are the ones that harm the most people. Example: Brett Farve, a millionaire, is still likable while at the same time he stole from a welfare system that was designed to help the poorest in the state of Mississippi. He is directly r…
So what do you think we should do if we catch a murderer? Should we let them go? I just don’t get the angle here at all. It sounds a bit like we’re talking about apples and you’re telling people we should care about motorcycles. Sure we can like or dislike both, but’s what’s the connection though?
I don't necessarily agree with the parent comment, but I think the angle might be one of utilitarianism, i.e: when caught, both should be put on trial and punished if found guilty, but the current focus of society to put more energy into catching one type over another is misguided as far as what will be best for society in general.
Again, not saying I agree with that philosophy, but the logic is valid.
People are easily disgusted by violent acts and yet they often only harm a single individual directly and few indirectly. People that commit fraud are more welcoming to the public but they are the ones that harm the most people. Example: Brett Farve, a millionaire, is still likable while at the same time he stole from a welfare system that was designed to help the poorest in the state of Mississippi. He is directly r…
This is literal whattaboutism. We can be disgusted by violent acts and fraud. This post reads like you're trying to excuse the violece.
what the person is criticizing is that fraud gets way less recognition as being disgusting than one-on-one violent crime. not trying to excuse the violence
30 years later, and he's still got appeals to go? Fascinating. Not familiar with these processes, but when he's finally away to prison how old will he be? He's in his sixties now.
He's being held without bail now and will be sentenced in October. His appeals will be litigated while he is serving his time. So unless he find success with one of those appeals he will never be a free man again.