“Sentence Luigi for crime-ing illegally, and change the laws and boot the lobbyists and make necessary changes in accordance with what Luigi stands for so that one day it’s illegal to be a guy like Brian”
“Defending” the actual person who did technically violate a big law is kinda tough. I do hope, though, Luigi’s lawyers defend him and historical legal precedents are set in such a big way that we never need violence again (ya I’m an optimist ok)
Defending the idea of him, for sure - stop killing patients with pens just because nobody’s incentivized to stop you / you paid off anyone who would’ve stopped you!
well 1. he could be defended legally – it’s still not certain that he is even the shooter. The police and media have worked together and released lots of information on their side framing him as the criminal, but – not unlike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell – trial by media is not a verdict. Does the evidence hold up? All we have seen are pictures of the person of interest, pictures of Luigi, and statements that certain items were received. Without actual footage of the scenario, testimony, etc. it’s totally possible that things aren’t what they seem.
Seems to me a matter of arguing that, a person put in a circumstance in which they endure immense and sustained, sometimes chronic pain, or loss; who is full aware that they are gatekept from a medicine, procedure or healthcare service which drastically ameliorates or outright prevents that suffering, in seeing the unneccesary cruelty for sake of some rich monster getting another yacht, and under immense anguisu, or grief may suffer a form of fugue state in which they cannot be considered to have acted of their own sound mind, but instead induced by the actor who by the pen created their suffering.
How should he be defended?
I can see:
“Sentence Luigi for crime-ing illegally, and change the laws and boot the lobbyists and make necessary changes in accordance with what Luigi stands for so that one day it’s illegal to be a guy like Brian”
“Defending” the actual person who did technically violate a big law is kinda tough. I do hope, though, Luigi’s lawyers defend him and historical legal precedents are set in such a big way that we never need violence again (ya I’m an optimist ok)
Defending the idea of him, for sure - stop killing patients with pens just because nobody’s incentivized to stop you / you paid off anyone who would’ve stopped you!
well 1. he could be defended legally – it’s still not certain that he is even the shooter. The police and media have worked together and released lots of information on their side framing him as the criminal, but – not unlike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell – trial by media is not a verdict. Does the evidence hold up? All we have seen are pictures of the person of interest, pictures of Luigi, and statements that certain items were received. Without actual footage of the scenario, testimony, etc. it’s totally possible that things aren’t what they seem.
Major footnote yes!
Seems to me a matter of arguing that, a person put in a circumstance in which they endure immense and sustained, sometimes chronic pain, or loss; who is full aware that they are gatekept from a medicine, procedure or healthcare service which drastically ameliorates or outright prevents that suffering, in seeing the unneccesary cruelty for sake of some rich monster getting another yacht, and under immense anguisu, or grief may suffer a form of fugue state in which they cannot be considered to have acted of their own sound mind, but instead induced by the actor who by the pen created their suffering.