> 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.
Having a guy write lyrics about a killing is one thing.
Having enough evidence to take to a grand jury, get an indictment, and convince a petit jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and survive appeals is another.
> 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 sell books and make money.
I feel like there's a song about this... [1]
Gangsters telling on themselves can be almost funny from a distance, but that violence and lack of justice is real. It's hard not to feel sick to your stomach when you see a case like the Nathan Leigh shooting, where a Toronto gangster did broad daylight execution (attempted) on camera, beat the case, and has been rapping about the crime for years later [2].
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 responsible for harm enumerable number of people.
I am more disgusted by the fraudsters of the world than people like Luigi Mangione. I wish more people would realize that corrupt wealthy individuals cause the most harm against humanity than those that commit singular violent acts.
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.
That statement can be made about fraud too. More people are hurt via fraud than violent crime because it can reach into generations of people. It can escalate to whole communities.
The only time whole communities are harm via violence is mainly during a war or ethnic cleansing.
Yes, obviously the statement can be made about fraud, because you already made it. I was pointing out that the effects of violence are not as simple as hurting one person as you said. Then you replied by repeating yourself. I am so tired of talking to people like you.
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
How is this whataboutism? Whataboutism tries to turn two wrongs into a right.
I've notice more people lack optics with one vs the other. One is easy to understand the other is hard, takes more time, and does more damage which takes more time to see the effects.
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.
I never said that. Only was pointing out that society treats those that harm more will less punishment. How many people are being harmed with fraud like crypto-currency scams or stock pump and dumps or wage theft vs violence?
If society believed stabbings and other close personal attacks were the only real acts of a murderous personality you would be OK with a sniper who kills hundreds getting probation as a normal person who just lost their way because that's like apples to motorcycles?
Odd you should pick Favre. How about Elizabeth Warren, who cheated deserving minorities out of benefits, then going on to be fabulously wealthy as a modestly paid public servant? Does she trip your rage trigger as well?
He's pretty close to that particular police chief of staff or whatever he was. So this is probably just one of those things where if you have connections, then sometimes you take someone on vacation or fly them private and it turns out they give you some documents, rule in your favour in a case, pardon you.
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.
A few decades ago, I heard a story (and it is apparently true) of a court case for second-degree manslaughter. The defendant had a normal legal name, but his rap moniker was "Bloody Badass".
The prosecution obtained permission from the judge so that they could refer to the defendant throughout the trial, not by his legal name, but the name he took for himself: "Bloody Badass". The defense considered this a rather bad idea and attempted to overturn the case on appeal.
Now it seems that plenty of concrete evidence was provided, and a person's name does not directly convict of any crime at all, except against good taste. But can you imagine the mood in that courtroom as the jury and witnesses were repeatedly exposed, all day long, to the prosecution calling him by a name he wished to be known by?
cocacola1 | 6 days ago
I wonder if they’ll find Biggie’s killer next.
bigmattystyles | 6 days ago
ChrisArchitect | 6 days ago
ganjatech | 6 days ago
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
"Do you see the perpetrator?" "Yeah, I'm right here"
Fuck around, get the whole label sent up for years
edoceo | 6 days ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gQtKJbptcns
iscrewyou | 6 days ago
e40 | 6 days ago
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 | 6 days ago
edoceo | 6 days ago
Like GunRack from K&P https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPPSQhUVss
ares623 | 6 days ago
> 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.
He'd fit quite well in Silicon Valley.
dralley | 6 days ago
hackernud3s | 6 days ago
lenerdenator | 6 days ago
Having enough evidence to take to a grand jury, get an indictment, and convince a petit jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and survive appeals is another.
m463 | 6 days ago
wardriving og
Rendello | 6 days ago
> 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 sell books and make money.
I feel like there's a song about this... [1]
Gangsters telling on themselves can be almost funny from a distance, but that violence and lack of justice is real. It's hard not to feel sick to your stomach when you see a case like the Nathan Leigh shooting, where a Toronto gangster did broad daylight execution (attempted) on camera, beat the case, and has been rapping about the crime for years later [2].
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KIhEbellKI
2. https://youtu.be/TGmDLJ5wp4I?t=310
yndoendo | 6 days ago
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 responsible for harm enumerable number of people.
I am more disgusted by the fraudsters of the world than people like Luigi Mangione. I wish more people would realize that corrupt wealthy individuals cause the most harm against humanity than those that commit singular violent acts.
ailun | 6 days ago
wredcoll | 6 days ago
It's not just the literal stealing, it is, as you point out, the ripple effects of destroying trust in society/government/etc.
rexpop | 6 days ago
worthless-trash | 6 days ago
Lets just cull the bottom 2% of offenders this decade, and see its long term effects.
mfru | 6 days ago
ryan_lane | 6 days ago
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.
yndoendo | 6 days ago
The only time whole communities are harm via violence is mainly during a war or ethnic cleansing.
ailun | 6 days ago
stickfigure | 6 days ago
mfru | 6 days ago
yndoendo | 6 days ago
I've notice more people lack optics with one vs the other. One is easy to understand the other is hard, takes more time, and does more damage which takes more time to see the effects.
rdtsc | 6 days ago
placebo | 6 days ago
yndoendo | 6 days ago
hojofpoj | 6 days ago
RickJWagner | 6 days ago
yndoendo | 6 days ago
credit_guy | 5 days ago
yndoendo | 5 days ago
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes
nvme0n1p1 | 6 days ago
amacneil | 6 days ago
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cUOTL8meN5I
frenchtoast8 | 6 days ago
arjie | 6 days ago
See https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/08/ben-horowitzs-cozy-relatio...
arjie | 6 days ago
djriley | 6 days ago
pinkmuffinere | 6 days ago
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3uoB8zvLdI
edit: just watched the youtube video in full, and it isn't an admission. It's just discussing the shooting in general, and he puts blame on others.
ButlerianJihad | 6 days ago
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ny-supreme-court/1281054.h...
The prosecution obtained permission from the judge so that they could refer to the defendant throughout the trial, not by his legal name, but the name he took for himself: "Bloody Badass". The defense considered this a rather bad idea and attempted to overturn the case on appeal.
Now it seems that plenty of concrete evidence was provided, and a person's name does not directly convict of any crime at all, except against good taste. But can you imagine the mood in that courtroom as the jury and witnesses were repeatedly exposed, all day long, to the prosecution calling him by a name he wished to be known by?
mingus88 | 6 days ago