• SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I doubt the defense would go that route but I’m really curious how it would turn out. Like you’re allowed to use deadly force to save a life, and it could be reasonably argued that hundreds, maybe thousands of lives were saved in the aftermath of the shooting.

    Realistically there’s no way that can be allowed to be a legal precident, but it would be funny to try.

    • ThunderQueen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      My grandfather was about to be kicked out of his nursing home by united. Then the shooting happened amd they “noticed” that his care was actually still covered.

    • rarsamx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      So, you really think that a new CEO will act any differently? No lives were saved. The problem is the system. Not an individual CEO.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 hours ago

        In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, insurance companies knee jerk approved a shitload of claims they would have normally denied. Even if that’s been “fixed,” the positive effect happened and was not negligible.

    • SippyCup@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      Jury nullification doesn’t require a reason and isn’t usually cited as precedent.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I meant specifically a not guilty verdict on the grounds of defense. That would be wild. Obviously nullification or some technicality of law is going to be the best bet.