Hello comrades. In the interest of upholding our code of conduct - specifically, rule 1 (providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all) - we felt it appropriate to make a statement regarding the lionization of Luigi Mangione, the alleged United Healthcare CEO shooter, also known as "The Adjuster."
In the day or so since the alleged shooter's identity became known to the public, the whole world has had the chance to dig though his personal social media accounts and attempt to decipher his political ideology and motives. What we have learned may shock you. He is not one of us. He is a "typical" American with largely incoherent, and in many cases reactionary politics. For the most part, what is remarkable about the man himself is that he chose to take out his anger on a genuine enemy of the proletariat, instead of an elementary school.
This is a situation where the art must be separated from the artist. We do not condemn the attack, but as a role model, Luigi Mangione falls short. We do not expect perfection from revolutionary figures either, but we expect a modicum of revolutionary discipline. We expect them not simply to identify an unpopular element of society 
, but to clearly illuminate the causes of oppression and the means by which they are overcome. When we canonize revolutionary figures, we are holding them up as an example to be followed.
This is where things come back to rule 1. Mangione has a long social media history bearing a spectrum of reactionary viewpoints, and interacting positively with many powerful reactionary figures. While some commenters have referred to this as "nothing malicious," by lionizing this man we effectively deem this behavior acceptable, or at the very least, safe to ignore. This is the type of tailism which opens the door to making a space unsafe for marginalized people.
We're going to be more strict on moderating posts which do little more than lionize the shooter. There is plenty to be said about the unfolding events, the remarkably positive public reaction, how public reactions to "propaganda of the deed" may have changed since the historical epoch of its conception (and how the strategic hazards might not have), and many other aspects of the news without canonizing this man specifically. We can still dance on the graves of our enemies and celebrate their rediscovered fear and vulnerability without the vulgar revisionism needed to pretend this man is some sort of example of Marxist or Anarchist practice.
Serious question: Is discussing the concept of jury nullification, or even saying that the jury should be nullified in his case allowed?
Every morning I wake up, brush my teeth, look in the mirror, and say "I didn't see nothing"
the first rule of jury nullification is you just do jury nullification without acknowledging it is as a concept
Do not mention jury nullification when you are questioned, do not mention it to other jurors (snitches are everywhere, even unintentional ones) and just do it during deliberations
"The guy has an honest face"
"I don't think they provided enough evidence"
"It just doesn't make sense that they would do that"
This is what you say when you're deliberating, you don't even need to do a 12 Angry Men thing, just vote not guilty no matter what
"His eye-talian eyebrows don't match what's on the tape bro.^[1]^"
[1] Apparently, the nerds, snitches, and feds at R*ddit have said that the eyebrows didn't appear in the security camera footage because of compression artifacts, but the jurors don't have to know that.
If the video is compressed enough to make someone look completely different, it's not good evidence
My own shaky understanding of the legal system is that if you hold out and refuse to vote guilty, and everyone else disagrees, that will eventually result in a hung jury and then the whole trial starts over again with a different jury. I think you actually need to convince the other 11 jurors and the only way i think you could do that specifically in this case is actually bring up jury deliberations (but not before).
It depends on if the judge thinks there's a good chance the next jury will convict (i.e they think the prosecutor and defense fucked up while selecting this particular jury).
There probably would be a second trial with far stricter evidentiary rules and jury selection, but if they once again fail to reach a verdict I can't imagine them going for a third because by that point the series of very public mistrials would themselves be pointing the next jury to acquittal.
this isn't reddit.world