> 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 is real and it's hard not to feel sick to your stomach when a gangster can do a broad daylight execution on camera, beat the case, and then rap about the crime for years later (à la WhyG) [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.
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 of take 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 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?
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?
38 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 6.9 ms ] threadI wonder if they’ll find Biggie’s killer next.
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
Like GunRack from K&P https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPPSQhUVss
> 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.
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.
wardriving og
> 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 is real and it's hard not to feel sick to your stomach when a gangster can do a broad daylight execution on camera, beat the case, and then rap about the crime for years later (à la WhyG) [2].
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KIhEbellKI
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGmDLJ5wp4I
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.
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 of take time to see the effects.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes
He’s writing 100k lines of code per day he didn’t even notice the verdict
Garry lemme get a few bars if you read this
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cUOTL8meN5I
[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.
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?