Not The Onion

11616 readers

1615 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

279

Paul Pelosi attacker offers apology in emotional testimony: ‘He was never my target’ (thehill.com)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"I never meant to hurt him, only kidnap and potentially murder his wife!"

In his defense, the article does a much better job of explaining the apology than the headline

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 114 points 9 months ago (1 children)

DePape said Tuesday he went to the couple’s home to talk to the former Speaker about alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 election, and that he planned to wear a costume and post his interrogation of her online. He claimed he was looking for the former Speaker and other targets to confess to their corruption.
...
DePape’s attorneys have argued the charges do not fit as he was not trying to go after Nancy Pelosi because of her official duties.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this guy's attorneys are wrong.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Adversarial process at work. Each side works against each other as hard as they can within the bounds of law and the jury (or just judge, depending) decides.

It's ridiculous, but the defense attorney working as hard as possible against the prosecution. If there's even a tiny hope of it working it's worth trying.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They're still wrong because criminal law has the concept of transferred intent.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Just had to google that, but it’s astounding that needs to be spelled out into law. Before that was inked out could you just call a mulligan if you killed the wrong person?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago

This is why we need a scientific system and not an adversarial one. We need the truth regardless of who is harmed by it.