• 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
        ·
        4 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
        ·
        4 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
          ·
          4 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
        ·
        24 hours ago

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

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 hours 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.