Again, not disagreeing with the sentiment, but legally he WASN’T actively killing people. Nobody was in any immediate danger. That means physically and temporally immediate. That means the defences and laws that are relevant are entirely different. That’s just how it works and how the law is set up.
Sure but the law includes interpretation by jurors too, and in reality he was an immediate threat. I’m not going to put a man in prison because of a definition that’s clearly wrong.
I mean it’s true that jury nullification is a thing, but that relates to decisions made in the jury room. Jury vetting is a completely separate matter that takes place before the trial starts proper.
Again, I appreciate the sentiment but that’s not really what ‘immediate’ means in this context.
If I was a juror I wouldn’t buy that for a second. That CEO was actively killing people.
Again, not disagreeing with the sentiment, but legally he WASN’T actively killing people. Nobody was in any immediate danger. That means physically and temporally immediate. That means the defences and laws that are relevant are entirely different. That’s just how it works and how the law is set up.
Sure but the law includes interpretation by jurors too, and in reality he was an immediate threat. I’m not going to put a man in prison because of a definition that’s clearly wrong.
The jurors have discretion, yes, but that doesn’t kick in at the jury vetting stage. Again, I get the sentiment, but that’s just the way it works.
I’m sorry if I implied that jurors interpreting the law “kicks in” during jury vetting. I’m not actually sure what that means.
I mean it’s true that jury nullification is a thing, but that relates to decisions made in the jury room. Jury vetting is a completely separate matter that takes place before the trial starts proper.