A man who attempted to vote twice in Virginia's 2023 election was acquitted of attempted illegal voting on Monday, following his claims in court that he had been testing the the system for voter fraud.

A man who attempted to vote twice in Virginia’s 2023 election was acquitted of attempted illegal voting on Monday, following his claims in court that he had been testing the system for voter fraud.

A Nelson County jury found 67-year-old Richardson Carter Bell Jr. not guilty of attempting to vote more than once in the same election. According to the Washington Post, Bell, a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump, admitted voting early at his local registrar’s office only to also show up at a nearby polling place on Election Day.

  • BigFig@lemmy.worldEnglish
    41·
    9 hours ago

    Wtf, meanwhile you can go to prison for a sting operation where a victim does not exist or the illegal item/items you are buying do not actually exist

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      2·
      4 hours ago

      Someone should argue that every arrest made by undercover officers pretending to be prostitutes should be thrown out under this.

      Just because you said yes, or even paid, doesn’t mean you would have actually had sex, so you in reality could have just paid to “test” if the prostitute would actually agree.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      17·
      8 hours ago

      Rob a liquor store with an unloaded gun but someone present has a heart attack? Murder.

      Rob a liquor store with an unloaded gun but the guy behind the counter pulls out a loaded one and kills your accomplise? Also murder.

      Buy some heroin for you and your partner to use, leading you both to overdose, but you survive? Believe it or not, also murder.

          • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
            2·
            4 hours ago

            No, because it isn’t proportional.

            A homeless man stealing a bottle of water with a security guard shooting up half the store due to bad aim as a result should not be charged for murder.

            Besides, murder should always require intent to kill. Robbery - including armed robbery - does not usually imply this.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            1·
            5 hours ago

            I would say the person doing the crime himself is to blame for his own death. I think there’s a difference between an accomplice and an innocent dying.

            But its a fine line, I agree, and also depends on other variables. If I start applying it to other examples:

            If you are trespassing in a train tunnel doing graffiti, the train comes and you get out but your buddy gets hit, is it murder? I’d say not really.

            If you’re racing and your buddy hits a tree, it’s not really murder either yet he wouldn’t of been racing alone. It’s a two player sport so I’d tend to say guilty.

            Would your buddy have stayed home instead of robbing the store if you weren’t there to help him, it’s hard to say but I’d tend to go not guilty.

            It also seems a bit vindictive but like I said, I understand the sentiment.

          • Pennomi@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            8 hours ago

            The hard part is that “direct” is subjective and up to interpretation of the court.