舊電腦 發表評論於 2024-12-20 10:21:29
可以參考一下恐怖主義的定義，“the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve political or ideological goals, usually against non-combatants”。大概沒人會認為槍手是無罪的，隻是希望這場審判能讓大家思考，如何能避免這種悲劇再次發生。
==================================
認為無罪的都是底層、不懂法律、沒啥見識的，類似於民科，他們隻能在網上瞎嚷嚷，最終判決和這些人的看法沒有任何關係
可以參考一下恐怖主義的定義，“the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve political or ideological goals, usually against non-combatants”。大概沒人會認為槍手是無罪的，隻是希望這場審判能讓大家思考，如何能避免這種悲劇再次發生。
每天美國發生多少起謀殺案件？哪件不恐怖？為什麽殺死大量無辜平民的拉斯維加斯大屠殺不是恐怖主義？為什麽多次校園屠殺兒童的槍擊案不是恐怖主義？在沒有旁人的地方隻殺了一個CEO就成了恐怖主義了？
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very good question!!!
The DA has a very high wager in this case that can determine his political career.
Even when there is no death penalty in NY, 1st degree murder may be difficult to pass jury. Because there can be no double jeopardies, he has to make a decision whether to pursue a safer charge.
法國大革命前夜