Just my 2 cents, and echoing some of the sentiment in this thread.
IMO, if he's buying Telsa stock, it doesn't make your buddy a Nazi, or even a Nazi sympathizer. He's just a guy making money in a capitalist system. It is what it is, and I'm not going to blame anyone for trying to make money where they can. I have friends in the same situation, making money off Telsa, and also despising Elon as a person. I don't hold it against them, everyone needs to find a way to support themselves. You aren't going to sewer your own financials just to be morally superior, because that's going to be a net loss, and it's pissing into the wind in terms of fighting the system.
If he's overtly supporting Elon himself, that's a different story, but it sounds like he just is making bank off the stock, will ride it out as it's in his best interest, and there isn't much cause for concern.
Again, like other commenters have said, just talk to him. Make him aware you understand he likes Tesla, but ask him if he supports Elon politically/ethically. Make your decisions based off of that. A lot can be accomplished with just a casual conversation. I wouldn't recommend talking to him with an accusatory or defensive standpoint. I would be pretty casual about it to see where he sits.
Good luck friend. It's nasty out there.
You're missing the point, especially if you think a fair and just system even exists within the US. If you want to take the stance that "murder is illegal", sure, what he did was illegal. Jury nullification is a way we peons can still hold an iota of power. It's spitting in the face of unjust systems.
Let me ask you this. Would you prefer a situation in which Luigi was convicted for murder, sentenced to life in prison, and the system never changes? Or would you prefer a situation in which exceptions are given in exceptional circumstances in an attempt to change a fundamentally broken system?
If your answer is the former, you might just want to apply at United and work your way up.
I'm going to copy WoodScientist's post. Don't know how to tag, sorry, but credit goes to him for this.
"I would say that jury nullification isn't just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.
Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn't "juror" a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it's one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!
No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don't even consider to be crimes.
The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.
THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.
Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It's the entire reason we have juries in the first place."
That's just like, your opinion, man.
In all seriousness though, Michael Waltz being informed the bombs had dropped and responding with "ππΊπΈπ₯" seemed the opposite of presentable to me. That's something my retired tradesman father would text me if his football team won the Superbowl, not something that is appropriate or presentable to the eyes of the American populace after killing a bunch of brown people in Yemen.