this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
722 points (95.5% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
2744 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I admit I'm kinda disappointed. He pulled out almost perfect assassination that looked well thought out, managed to get away with only a few hickups in his plan as far as his face is considered, and then walks around with a murder weapon and a manifesto in his bag? Shame, really. All he needed was to lay low for a while, grow a beard and he'd probably be OK.
Don't be disappointed. I guessed he was going to do this, and for good reason. His options were to either, live a life in fear, worrying that one day he would be caught, or, to basically give him self up, and elect for a Jury trial. Jury nullification is one os the most powerful tools available to the average, non-rich american. If he goes through the trial and gets acquited (which only takes 1 juror), then hes a free man, a folk hero, and he sets the precident that killing rich murderers isn't an automatic crime.
What he's doing is the smartest available option, please donate to his legal defense fund.
Unfortunately this is not true. 1 juror alone can hang the jury, but they'd have to convince all the other jurors to actually render a verdict of not guilty to avoid a mistrial
Have you ever been on a jury? In my experience it’s 2-4 strong personalities and a bunch of people confused by lawyer speak (because two confident authority figures are telling them to believe e two different things and they can’t reconcile the contradiction) and people who just want to go home and thus go along with the strong personalities.
Isn't it always said that jurys are made up of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Some jobs give you your work day wage for jury duty as a benefit. Why not go? Get paid by work to take a break from work and watch live court drama.
There’s value in knowing how it works.
If your job doesn’t pay you, the $15/day, or whatever ridiculous amount, won’t pay your bills so yes, get out of it.
... Right, so therefore
a court case also draws out media coverage, possibly more than an extended search would
I almost want to believe this guy saw how similar he was to the photos and how famous the shooter was getting and decided to take the fall by wandering around in public with some incriminating circumstantial evidence until someone reported him so he could take the credit.
You're supposed to grow the beard before and shave it off after. Its much faster to shave it off than grow it back
As a girl, shit.
No worries gurl, you can still use a wig and fake beard
You don't understand.
The fact that he wrote a manifesto meant he wanted to get caught. The taking the murder weapon and the manifesto to the McDonald's was his way of saying he had gotten bored waiting for the cops to catch him. He pretty much turned himself in.
For sure this has not been planted at all.
Only a bit more subtle than Russians https://www.vice.com/en/article/russia-sims-3/
The gun is planted. They just found a crazy guy in order to convince everyone that they actually found the culprit.
To my knowledge, he claimed specifically the money in his bag was planted. Specifically they said there was US and foreign cash in his bag. The fact that Luigi is denying the cash but admitting to the gun and manifesto. To me I think he knew he was going down... but I would be far from supprised if the money was planted either to raise it up to 1st degree murder... or while I'm very far from legally qualified... if they could try and claim he was doing a job for an enemy of the US, could they buypass the trial?
I find that kind of unlikely. If they wanted to frame someone just to have a killer, they wouldn't be talking about a "3D printed ghost gun", but just use a regular gun. I, for one, haven't known that it's possible to 3D print a pretty well working, and silenced, gun. And that might inspire someone - acquiring weapons is the harder part of any such murder, assuming you don't want to get caught, and the fact that you can get it without anyone knowing about it makes it way easier.
They know the guy is a engineer. They came up with the 3D printed gun because it fits with the character, and gives politician an excuse to ban 3D printers all together, "for our safety!".
I'm speculating and being a conspiracy theory, but in theory this could make sense. Nobody will ever find out the truth, I'm afraid.
People misunderstand 3d printed guns. We use mostly normal gun parts bought anywhere, but legally the pistol handle is considered the gun, and the most popular commercial ones have been plastic for decades. So 3d print that glock frame and put a glock slide on it and you've got a cheap glock (and outside of like 3 States, that's totally legal).
There's fairly large 3d printing gun communities, mostly because it's just fun to build things.
3d printed silencers are much more rare / fragile because those are illegal to make without ATF approval and silencers need to withstand heat and pressure, so the typical plastic can't withstand prolonged use.
Just yesterday this video of Mike Shake popped in my feed: https://youtu.be/tHzuz09l41U
Essentially a sniper rifle with compressed air able to propel a 3d-printed bullet at sub-sonic speeds able to break a simulated skull. And it penetrated hard enough to for sure cause major complication for the target. Not to mention that lead slugs can easily be made DIY without much complications and skill. Lead can be melted pretty easily so lol.
Not much to do besides being able to cut a pipe, make a release mechanism and compile it all with a projectile to shoot. Done is your makeshift weapon.
If they did that and the real killer killed again, what would that achieve? Or is this a one-and-done thing?
Not that I'm fully on board with the theory, but you might be surprised how often "solving" a high profile case is placed above actually getting the right man.
This is a publicity nightmare for the police, and getting someone in custody "achieves" placating the public and key stakeholders.
Repeating things about this kids views on the Uni-bomber and referring to his writings as a manifesto "achieves" diminishing his status as a folk hero.
So while I won't endorse any particular theory until more evidence comes out, it wouldn't be the first time putting a scapegoat in jail was deemed more important than letting people think the "perp" got away. Even if the hypothetical real shooter kills again, controlling the narrative can be it's own goal in cases like this.
More dead CEOs, I guess. I'm down with that.
I doubt you will be when the costs of everything go up due to all the corporations hiring massive security teams.
Something that doesn't seem to occur to so many of you and something most of you have no response to. In fact, the only response I occasionally get is that it's worth the cost, which seems to go against the whole reason for the assassination in the first place.
How much do you think it costs to hire a security detail? I'm pretty sure security for the entire C-suite would be a tiny drop in the bucket for most mega-corporations.
Whether it costs a dollar or a billion dollars, who do you think is going to pay for it?
If they could squeeze out an extra dollar then they would already do so. They don't need to justify it as "increased security costs".
When have they ever rased rates without giving a justification? Please show me.
Nah, I'm good. Clearly our opinions differ. It's of no interest to me to collate a bunch of sources just for you to dismiss in bad faith.
Feel free to find sources to support your own argument though if you like.
In other words, you can't show me because you can't back up your claim. Got it.
Dude, you're the one asserting that healthcare costs will rise due to increased security requirements.
I don't quite follow why the onus is on me to backup my retort.
Because you said they don't need to justify raising rates. Do I really need to show you that insurance companies give reasons for raising rates?
No, neither of us need to do anything.
But only one of us has said that they won't back up their claim. I just said I would if you needed me to. Maybe because you can't.
You're a very strange person.
I'm sure you find it strange that people dare to suggest you back up your claims in case you might be wrong, but I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that you're not always right.
I think this is why there's a common narrative on the internet that this "evidence" was planted to frame a random dude.
It's fair to call that a conspiracy theory at this point, but hopefully due process will reveal the truth.