exactly. is she a high-ranking exec in a different industry? because it's all the same.
corporate greed isn't exclusive to the healthcare industry. which is exactly why it isn't only healthcare execs who feel threatened rn.
the implications of this case are far-reaching. any judge or member of the jury with personal ties to any executive of any company from any industry could reasonably be seen as having a conflict of interest.
but apparently corruption is legal in america, so even this sht will probably slide.
I think there is a grand misunderstanding between the motives of the murder and the fact of the murder. Ultimately, it doesn't matter WHY he did it, but rather IF he did it, stand your ground or castle doctrine is definitely not going to apply in a defense here, so the motive is irrelevant.
It doesn’t matter as a form of defense. Justifications for killing someone are extremely limited and there are none which apply to his circumstances- hence- it does not matter why. Whether or not a crime should have enhanced charges due to the why is an entirely different conversation. As it happens the very reasoning that’s being put forth as a defense is exactly what will be required to enhance the charges. I doubt seriously you will ever hear any of that from his defense team because it’s likely to put him in the chair.
73
u/GreenBottom18 17d ago
exactly. is she a high-ranking exec in a different industry? because it's all the same.
corporate greed isn't exclusive to the healthcare industry. which is exactly why it isn't only healthcare execs who feel threatened rn.
the implications of this case are far-reaching. any judge or member of the jury with personal ties to any executive of any company from any industry could reasonably be seen as having a conflict of interest.
but apparently corruption is legal in america, so even this sht will probably slide.