In season 2, the cringe comedy is really just how Nathan convinced HBO to give him a blank check. It’s a really minor part of the show, and in s2e1 he even talks about how he’s trying to do something really serious and impactful, but he has a contract with HBO to make a comedy show, so he’s going to have to throw some comedy in to fulfill his contract. But that’s really not the point of the show at all.

So instead we assume he’s being framed despite no evidence being provided?

And, to be clear, there has been evidence provided that he did it. It’s very questionable evidence from an even more questionable source, but it’s not no evidence.

Compared to no evidence or even a claim from Luigi or his lawyers that he’s being framed.

I mean, we (the public, not the justice system) treat people who plead not guilty as if they did it all the time. How many times have we seen videos of police violence, for example, and known the guy did it regardless of what the court says?

I’m not talking about whether he should be criminally convicted. Even if he had filmed the entire thing and that was in the public, I’d still be pushing for jury nullification. That’s not my purpose here.

I’m solely trying to answer this one question:

Why do so many people seem so certain Luigi is being framed by the state when nobody connected to the defense in the case is acting like it is or have said that it is?

So you didn’t read what I wrote at all, did you?

I’m not trying to determine guilt. I’m trying to find out why so many people seem absolutely certain he was framed when nobody connected to the case on the defense side are acting like it is.

And if I were a judge or on the jury, I’d be looking for definitive evidence. But that doesn’t really matter for the question I’m asking. Regardless whether Luigi did it or someone else did, it wouldn’t change my opinion of Luigi or the crime.

I’m not trying to adjudicate guilt or innocence here. I’m trying to find out if there’s something I’m not aware of. Has Luigi or his lawyer actually denied that Luigi did it? I know they’ve pushed back against the evidence, but have they come out and said “Luigi didn’t do it, this is where he was when it happened, this is why we know it wasn’t him?”

Fighting the evidence on procedural grounds and trying to discredit the prosecution is what a good lawyer does when they know they can’t prove their client’s innocence. They try to introduce doubt for the prosecution’s case. But if they could prove he didn’t do it, they’d just do that.

Again, I’m not trying to decide whether Luigi is a good guy or whether I should support him. If I were on the jury and Luigi got up there and swore up and down he did it and produced documentary footage of him doing it, I’d still be pushing for jury nullification. That’s not my point here. I’m trying to understand why so many people online seem so absolutely certain that this is a frameup when, as far as I can see, nobody connected to the case on the defense side is acting like it is…

I’m not a judge and this isn’t a court of law. People assume guilt or innocence for themselves all the time. Obviously if I were a judge or on a jury I’d want a lot more evidence. Hell, if I were on a jury, I’d be pushing for jury nullification. I don’t see anything wrong with that CEO getting got.

Tainted evidence, media portrayal, dirty cops, this is all standard for the criminal justice system. That’s how loads of cases work, and we don’t all jump to immediately assume the state is framing every single person they accuse of anything.

My question is, if Luigi really is just some person completely unrelated to the crime who is being framed for it, why is there no pushback from him, his lawyers, or people who know him? If there were reason to believe he was being framed, with as much public support as he has, I’d assume we’d have an alibi showing where he was at the time of the shooting, or people talking about how they don’t believe he could have done it.

Everyone personally or directly connected to Luigi himself are acting exactly as I would expect them to act if he had actually done it.

I ultimately don’t really care whether or not Luigi personally was the guy who did it or not. Regardless, it wouldn’t change my opinion of Luigi or the murder. I’m just trying to find out if there’s something I haven’t heard about. Some reason or alibi or explanation to believe he’s being framed beyond “we like what he is accused of doing and he seems like a pretty good guy.”

So, just speculation? I mean, the way the media is reporting on Luigi isn’t really surprising or different than the way they report on everything.

Is there anything beyond just speculation? Any statements from friends or family? Any attempt to present an alibi where he was at the time of the killing? Any statement from his lawyers denying he did it?

I see this sentiment expressed, but is there any evidence to support it? If he were really being framed, I’d expect his family, friends, lawyers, etc to be trying to spread that message as much as possible and publicly show that he couldn’t have done it. Like publicly present his alibi or something?

I have no problem with killing the CEO. Even if there were 100% irrefutable evidence Luigi did it, I’d still think Luigi was a good guy.

Why do people think he’s being framed?

I did read your comments. I lost any and all respect I could have ever possibly had for you when you used AI to formulate a comment.

You were the one using AI, goober. Stop.

Yes, it was easier for just anyone to buy a car. Now do the rest of the stuff in that post. None of it was accessible to someone who wasn’t a upper-middle class cishet white dude in the late 60s.

I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m saying a lot of the things in the post were only accessible to people with privilege.

Being 20 in the US in 1969 and not getting drafted into Vietnam? Summer of 69 being more defined by Woodstock than the racial justice uprising that swept across black communities virtually every summer of the 60s (including 69)? Finding a woman who grew up in a super tiny town and her NOT being super racist against you? Getting a well-paying job with no qualifications? Not getting redlined out of being allowed to buy a decent house, let alone being allowed to buy 10 acres?

None of that was accessible to people of color, poor people, or women, let alone openly lgbtq people.

This post describes an upper-middle class cishet white dude, and that’s it.

If you were not upper-middle class (or higher) and white, these really weren’t realistic options to avoid the draft.

No, that would absolutely ruin Lemmy. If I learned that any sizeable portion of the accounts were bots, I’d quit.

Only losers and goobers use AI to make their argument for them. Try thinking like a real human.

If the writers want to tell a story focused on inter-personal relationships, that’s perfectly fine. There are PLENTY of people who enjoy that kind of thing. They just don’t tend to be the same type of people who enjoy post-apocalyptic sci-fi puzzle-box shows. I don’t know why you go through all the trouble of creating this expansive world and lore only to focus your show on character dynamics that aren’t centered around the conceit of the show.

If you’re going to build this complex world, let us explore that world!

Not a movie, but a TV show. Revolution.

A sci-fi post-apocalypse show where the premise is that all of a sudden all technology (specifically anything that uses electricity) just stops working and nobody knows why. The show takes place 15 years into the apocalypse. The US has Balkanized into various regional states (although you don’t learn this until later). Some regions have devolved into chaos while others have basically reverted to a steam-punk type of society. Since all modern ships use electricity, they’ve begun to revive large ships from the age of sail. The remnants of the US military at Guantanamo Bay eventually return to the mainland and try to reestablish a much more explicitly authoritarian control over the US. You eventually learn that what caused the global blackout was the creation of a self-replication nanotech which rapidly spread across the planet and shut off all electricity.

Great premise, but it got too much into the soap-opera CW-style of writing and didn’t last more than 2 seasons.

That is an apt criticism of TFA and TRoS, but not TLJ at all.

Try printing the email to a pdf?

I’d definitely take that document to a local lawyer (preferably one that specializes in labor cases) and ask if there’s anything there.

By chance, you aren’t in a union, are you? If so, take this to your union rep, too. You’re union will have lawyers who will deal with this sort of thing.