> 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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].
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KIhEbellKI
2. https://youtu.be/TGmDLJ5wp4I?t=310
I thought for sure the song was going to be this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14WE3A0PwVs
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.
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.
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?
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?
Violence ripples out. It’s never just one person. Living in a violent society has huge costs on all of us.
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.
You're right, but that doesn't discount the point about fraud, especially the "mega"fraudsters like favre and trump and friends.
It's not just the literal stealing, it is, as you point out, the ripple effects of destroying trust in society/government/etc.
"Civil" violence also ripples out.
There is already a named concept for it, you were probably looking for "social murder"
Right, so we need to utterly destroy people doing civil violence, or it'll ripple out quicker.
Lets just cull the bottom 2% of offenders this decade, and see its long term effects.
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.
This is literal whattaboutism. We can be disgusted by violent acts and fraud. This post reads like you're trying to excuse the violece.
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.
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?
Favre was picked because he did not receive any jail time. Elizabeth Warren did receive at least some. Both are harmful to a civil society.
Elizabeth Warren is a US senator. Never received any jail time, nor is anyone thinking that she will, ever.
Sorry, my brain shorted to Elizabeth Holmes, another fraudster. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes
He got got because he couldn't shut up. If you come at the king, better not miss is true. Don't talk about it after!
Like GunRack from K&P https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPPSQhUVss
Wildest part about this whole story is Ben Horowitz of A16z's role:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cUOTL8meN5I
Assuming this story is true, is it normal that some rich guy can just ask to see police documents over dinner without any FOIA request or anything?
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.
See https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/08/ben-horowitzs-cozy-relatio...
Wild. Never expected this. Guess it wasn’t Suge, which is the biggest surprise.
I wonder if they’ll find Biggie’s killer next.
Almost 30 years to the day (Sept 7, 1996), wild indeed.
I mean Suge was driving the car and Tupac in the passenger seat. Seems risky.
[flagged]
Wow, it sounds like he admitted to it on a talk show at least 7 years ago, and wrote about it in a book [0]! Can't believe it took this long.
[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.
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.
Rap snitches, telling all their business
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
MF Doom for those not in the loop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gQtKJbptcns
MF DOOM. Just remember all caps when you spell the man name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapp_Snitch_Knishes
— MF DOOM feat. Mr. Fantastik
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".
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?
> 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.
He'd fit quite well in Silicon Valley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14WE3A0PwVs
what used to be a crime becomes a business model.
wardriving og
Is it just me or does it seem like they should have caught this guy sooner?
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.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Gotta love how political posts critical of the tech right get flagged immediately yet 90s hip hop cold cases stand