He should just get nominated to become presisent. Every penalty, accisation and conviction will go away - just like magic.
Only if he runs for the GOP
Seems highly unlikely but we’ll see.
I mean I’m pretty sure the evidence for his arrest was flimsy as fuck. As long as he has a competent lawyer (which he should have) he should be able to get the judge to throw out the case. I think.
Edit: Turns out I’m wrong, see this.
I mean I’m pretty sure the evidence for his arrest was flimsy as fuck.
What makes you say that?
I mean he was arrested based on low-quality security camera pictures that barely, if at all, looked like him. And the evidence seemed too obvious unless he intended to be arrested. The officers who arrested him also said something like “I saw him and just knew it was him”, which does not inspire confidence. There’s a not insignificant chance the evidence they did “find” on him was planted.
By those standards, most convictions are based on evidence that’s “flimsy as fuck”.
They really are.
It’s kind of scary.I mean most convictions (I’d hope) are based on evidence that makes sense. I guess what I’m saying is: If we discount the possibility of intentional martyrdom, then it doesn’t make sense that someone would walk around with that much incriminating evidence right after committing a crime that would get the whole nation hot on their tail. Not saying he definitively didn’t do it, but I won’t discount the possibility of the contents of his bag being planted.
The public does not know the evidence against him, yet. The prosecution has that under lock and key. We only know the relatively small handful of photos that surfaced in the media, and we don’t even know if the prosecution will use those.
Watching carefully here, and I have my own personal opinion and hope for the trial outcome will be, but let’s not hyperbolically jump to “we know what the evidence is” (or isn’t)
I hope Luigi gets the jury nullification and walks free. But let’s not pretend that he’s falsly accused or was illegally detained/arrested.
The police can completely detain someone based only on a passing resemblance to a grainy security cam image of a suspect. They can detain someone off even a vague description or sketch. They only need reasonable suspicion to detain someone, and that is a very low bar.
In order to arrest, they need the higher standard of probable cause. They have to have some sort of evidence that leads them to believe that you have, are, or were about to commit a crime, or observe you in said commission of a crime. I don’t have all the details from the arrest, but it sounds like he was identified visually, yes, but also that he provided them the same fake id which was also used to check into the hostel in Manhattan where the security cam footage came from. That is enough to connect him to the crime and gain probable cause for the arrest. Actually, even independent of the shooting, providing false identification to the police during there investigation is itself an arrestable crime in Pennsylvania, too.
And even if you think that the evidence that was on his person at the McDonald’s in Pittsburgh was wholly or partially planted, it is not the only evidence they have. For example, they have a water bottle and protein bar wrapper found near the shooting that the shooter left behind. Both have Luigi’s fingerprints on them.
Luigi did it. That much seems apparent. Now whether that makes him “guilty”… that’s another question.
To be clear, we have no idea what evidence they have, except for what has been sworn to under oath. And that evidence may or may not be reliable.
Don’t assume any press release contained any facts.
Why should we care if he does go free?
An unelected nobody probably did more to spark discussion of class issues than any politician (even Bernie, and I love Bernie) during our lifetimes. Hmm, I wonder why people like him.
We’ve been talking about healthcare coverage for decades, most of us stopped talking about luigi a month ago.
We need to release him so he can work on Elon next.
Defense of others. He acted to prevent the deaths of millions at the hands of a monster.
Except nothing stopped so thats a pretty shit defence.
idk it stopped a few of them from implementing some even worse shit for a few months
If you’re talking about Anthem’s anesthesia coverage, that reversal was announced before the assassination.
He stopped a mass murderer
He didn’t though. UHC is still in operation along with the rest of the for-profit healthcare system. If anything, UHC has gotten even worse based on recent stories.
I wish he had done that, I do. I sympathize with why he did it.
But no matter how much people want this to be the case, you cannot assassinate your way out of capitalism. You simply can’t.
Not with that attitude.
deleted by creator
I’m not attempting to know anything about him. The person I talked to said that he stopped a mass murderer. He didn’t because the mass murderer is UHC. He cut the toenail off a mass murderer and UHC is still around and doing exactly what they had been doing.
“Maybe possibly the serial killer will be stopped if we just make people aware they exist” is nonsense.
And I have no idea how people can live in a capitalist system all of their lives and not understand that everyone in a corporation is expendable, from top to bottom.
This has nothing to do with his motivations and everything to do with all the people thinking that somehow if enough CEOs are murdered, the Republican-dominated government will embrace socialism. It’s ridiculous.
Didn’t their stock value drop by tens of billions? I would say that’s something, awareness at the very least. But it’s just a beginning. Certainly his Intent was to prevent mass murder.
If their stocks drop they can still use the difference in buy and sale values to deduct taxable income, meaning it will always be worth roughly 37% to the CEOs even if it becomes near worthless.
Plus they can just buy it back and wait for a rebound if they want to. It doesnt affect their normal operation.
They probably loaned their own stocks out to short sell and made profits.
I agree. I think that was his intent. I just don’t think it was successful. Even if UHC loses value (and the value it lost was actually negligible compared to its revenue even though it sounds like a lot), how many other insurance companies are out there making money hand over fist?
I’m just wondering if, in a few years when insurance companies are still raising premiums and still denying dying people care that people are still going to act like this is all it takes.
This is such a silly take… This is like saying killing a Nazi officer in World War 2 does zero good.
Sure, the Nazi’s could use the death of their officer to spin up propaganda, and do terrible things. But a dead Nazi is a dead Nazi.
In this case, a previously untouchable, evil elite was cut down on the public stage. He was an evil man that hid behind success at all costs as a vehicle to praise and validation… And some random nobody stood up and said “no, I don’t respect your success, you’re evil.” and shot him.
This isn’t how capitalism ends, it’s how justice and the end of invulnerable elites begins. This is how we end one of the most destructive societal values America still holds. Not with bullets, but with open, brutal contempt for those that reap rewards off the suffering of others.
look at you lefty, calling everyone you don’t like a Nazi again. don’t you know this is why people become Nazis? just because he was filling the trains to the death camps doesn’t make him a bad person, in fact he most likely grew up on a farm, so he’s actually a working class hero.
Poe’s Law, some people actually believe what you’re saying.
/s exists for a reason on the internet, where toneless text reigns supreme.
I need you to take a step back and realise in that comment you’re calling for open warfare in the USA against Republicans and independents.
If the Healthcare CEO is a nazi officer then the federal government is high command and the voters are the grunts.
You’re saving 0 lives with a civil war. Thats just begging for the start of World War 3.
I would agree in the sense that Labor affects capitalism more than attrition. The machine can always replace a meatbag here and there, but something like a strike, or a mass payment freeze is much harder as that hits the bottom line.
Mobilizing the amount of people required though in today’s world would take something BIG to break through the constant noise and call people to action.
Yes he did. He stopped ONE mass murderer. On to the next….
No. He did not. He stopped someone helping to facilitate that murder who was easily replaced and the murder continued unabated, if not gotten worse.
Yet again, I sympathize with him. I wish this was anywhere near enough. People seem to think this will be the end of capitalist medicine and they will be waiting for that end to happen for a very long time under Trump.
Why people have the idea that Republicans are going to be like, “oh, you’re killing CEOs? We better give everyone free healthcare!” I don’t know. That does not jibe with the entire history of them and their policies. What they do is circle the wagons and double down. That should be obvious by now.
He says that most of us despise insurance companies and have had bad experiences with them, but that doesn’t mean we think people should be going around killing insurance executives in the street.
Don’t be so sure.
This take seems in stark contrast to the overwhelming support he got from all sides of politics in the US.
Plenty of people feel his actions were justified.
Violence is only acceptable against the poors.
I remain genuinely surprised nobody tried anything at the inauguration.
Inside the Capitol? Would not have been feasible.
Yeah that place is impenetrable.
There’s an entire industrial complex for preventing it.
Theoretically low level officers would make better targets as it would drastically increase security costs to try and protect them.
Thats because the people who actually go around killing people are mostly on his side.
And whomever killed the CEO, or people like them, clearly planned it out well enough to succeed. They would take one look at the inauguration and realize that’s an impossible task.
A President has lots of security. You can’t just jump him on the street and sneak away.
I think people are dissuaded by a few factors.
The first is obviously it’s very difficult.
The second is you’re almost certainly going to be caught. All the resources in the country will be spent finding you.
Also, and I think this is potentially the most important, is the result isn’t worth it. It’s not a “cut off the head of the snake” situation. Trump isn’t the end of this. Hell, Vance might be even worse. If Trump is murdered he becomes a martyr. That’s not what you want to happen.
It’s not going to improve anything, so why throw your life away attempting to do something nearly impossible?
I think the only option for killing Trump that has a good outcome is someone in his cabinet or in a senior position in the military does it to stop him from doing something. Anything else probably strengthens his base.
Oh, I was thinking less about Trump specifically and more about Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg all in the same place at one time. Also, Cook and Pichai though I think those two are less generally loathed.
A lot of people on Lemmy seem to think it would be morally just to acquit this man, even if it can be proven he actually did murder the United Healthcare CEO, because said CEO was contributing to the deaths of many people by denying them essential medical treatments.
I think those lemmings have a deficient understanding or appreciation of the necessity for the rule of law. More likely, I think they’re just running on their own emotions, which is bad thinking.
If he is indeed guilty of the crime, what Mangione did is execute vigilante justice. While some might feel that what he did was justified, what’s not justified is the act of vigilante justice itself; that is, the decision to take the law into your own hands. That is morally wrong on its own and constitutes a major threat to society.
If he did it, he should absolutely not go free; no matter how much I or anyone else approves of the fate his target met, the fact of the matter is that he should have met that fate at the end of a fair trial, not an assassin’s bullet. If you open the door for vigilante justice in one case, you open it up in mall cases. It is categorically incompatible with any justice system.
I’m not gonna bother reading all that nonsense, because only one thing matters in this, or any case. He is innocent until proven guilty. If the jury refuses to convict, then he is still innocent of any crime. That’s how things work, and how they have always worked.
deleted by creator
A lot of people in France seem to think it would be morally just to support resistance fighters, even if it can be proven they actually did murder Nazis, because said Nazis were contributing to the deaths of many people by fighting for the German war machine and Nazism.
I think those French people have a deficient understanding or appreciation of the necessity for the rule of law. More likely, I think they’re just running on their own emotions, which is bad thinking.
If Nazis are indeed guilty of these crimes, what the resistance fighters did is execute vigilante justice. While some might feel that what they did was justified, what’s not justified is the act of vigilante justice itself; that is, the decision to take the law into your own hands. That is morally wrong on its own and constitutes a major threat to society.
If they did it, they should absolutely not go free; no matter how much I or anyone else approves of the fate their targets met, the fact of the matter is that they should have met that fate at the end of a fair trial, not a resistance fighter’s bullet. If you open the door for vigilante justice in one case, you open it up in all cases. It is categorically incompatible with any justice system.
I’m all for having strong personal ideals, and a healthy respect for democracy and justice, but you subscribe to many illusions about our system that make your beliefs pretty idealist. Not that people who call what Luigi did “the will of the people” don’t, but there is a dearth of false consciousness to go around.
We don’t have democracy, justice, civility for all, we have it for a dwindling few. Luigi’s vigilantism is a sign of the utter failure of all the systems you note “should have” taken care of these things.
This is the problem with morality vs ethics. Morality doesn’t require one to understand their own beliefs, or worry about where they came from; only to follow them. What we call democracy is a form of class domination. We deserve more.
a deficient understanding or appreciation of the necessity for the rule of law.
If the rule of law had been properly applied to restrain the powerful and wealthy, Luigi would have had no reason to PVP a CEO.
deleted by creator
I think those lemmings have a deficient understanding or appreciation of the necessity for the rule of law.
When the necessity for the rule of law is extended to the president of the united states and our rising oligarch class, I’ll clutch my pearls about circumventing it for Luigi Mangione.
I dunno, your argument is built on democracy and the rule of law being the arbiters of what is right. Democratic systems can be weak, and in the case of US healthcare democracy has failed. At that point, how can vigilante justice be wrong if it represents the will of the people?
I’d argue that the will of the people has no correlation with what is moral. The will of the people can be just as immoral as the will of an autocrat. Tyranny of the majority is no better than tyranny of the few when it’s your neck the boot presses down on.
If the CEO was black, he would be free and receiving offers to appear on FOX.
Jury nullification is literally the entire reason to have juries composed of everyday citizens instead of legal professionals. The final safeguard against injustice is a jury’s ability to acquit regardless of the law.
I agree with you but to highlight how different people see that statement I just want to say that some people believe the jury is the final safeguard against courts victimizing people who didn’t commit crimes. And others believe that safeguard goes even to what can be considered a crime.
When the legal system is rigged to allow corporations to exploit and extort the average citizen this is the one of the few avenues we have left. If I kill a person, I go to jail. If a healthcare CEO generates record profits by denying care to people who have paid into the system, he’s protected from his actions by corporate law, and even rewarded with large sums of money.
I understand your point, but it’s based on the false assumption that we live in a just, single tiered justice system
I actually make the same point above. I’m just trying to explain alternate viewpoints of the same sentence here. The system is so broken the jury is our last line of defense in some of this stuff.
This would make sense if there was some semblance of the rule of law before. That clearly isn’t the case, so it’s not a useful theoretical to bring up.
This is an eternal debate in a jury system. And while I respect your position I think you are wrong here. Strict adherence to the law works when the law works. However we have police officers who are functionally immune from prosecution; judges using medieval church law to restrict our rights; and laws protecting the right of the wealthy to kill us for profit. (Healthcare is only one example)
The system is broken and jury nullification is a moral response to that.
Every major decision in this country seems to end up going the way the wealthy want.
They definitely want this to have maximum punishment to deter copycats.
This will never happen. You won’t find a jury in the country that will unanimously give a not guilty verdict. Best case is a hung jury twice in a row leading to a mistrial. Worst case they find one of the loopholes that lets the judge decide or they unanimously declare him guilty.
They don’t worry about all the school shootings because their kids go to private school which is a big reason why nothing is done (24 private school shootings vs 392 public school shootings for the past 25 years or so.) The working class families are the victims, so nobody in power really cares beyond lip service.
Hey. That 24 vs 392 number, what’s the percentages? Like how many private schools VS public are we talking about?
Cause that number without context seems extremely misleading. Not trying to start shit. I just don’t know where you got those numbers or where I’d get the totals to compare.
Indeed, numbers on their own are meaningless. Based on this graph, private schools make up 10% of the enrollments. Public schools are 83% and charter schools make up the remaining 7%.
I have no idea where the charter schools are counted when it comes to school shootings though. If they are counted as public we get
Private: 24/10 = 2.4 shootings per percent of enrollment Public: 392/(83+7) = 4.36 shootings per percent of enrollmentand if they are counted as private we get
Private: 24/(10+7) = 1.41 shootings per percent of enrollment Public: 392/83 = 4.72 shootings per percent of enrollmentSo either way the public schools have more shootings by almost a factor 2 at least.
Cheers. Not as extreme as the bare numbers hint at, still a big difference.
I wonder why that is? Surely rich children have access to guns, (more than average access?) so is it the security at the school? Or is it mental health care? It is that being rich doesn’t make you as miserable and desperate as a kid? Hmmm.
They don’t suffer from economic instability, they have solid access to health care, and have a stable home.
If Kyle Rittenhouse can walk free, so can Luigi. FREE LUIGI!
Technically Kyles gun was properly documented if not legally obtained, so Luigi’s homemade firearm is still a harder case to win.
It’s completely legal to make your own firearms. I have a few guns made from 80% lowers.
Not in NYS, unfortunately. To even touch a pistol, legally, you need a permit here. Even if you made it.
The only exception is black powder pistols, unless you have powder and shot as well.
But you didn’t 3D print your lower like Luigi did. As I understand the lower is legally “the gun”.
I milled the lower out of a block of aluminum. It’s 100% legal to make your own firearms in this country. Stop talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about.
For a pistol, it’s the fire control assy that’s “The gun”.
Nope. I’m not who you replied to, but you’re misunderstanding.
When people talk about “80 percent” in this context, they mean the firearm. For an AR, it is the lower receiver. Whether it was 3D printed has no legal bearing, federally. I could carve one out of wood or styrofoam, or fashion one from modeling clay, it doesn’t change the law.
Federally, and in most states, it is legal (for anyone who is otherwise allowed to own guns) to manufacture a firearm. Period. No paperwork, no serial number, no background check. Nada. This is how the law currently works.
The media likes to refer to these as “ghost guns” because it sounds spooky.
In California and Connecticut, it needs a serial number permanently marked on it even as an 80% lower. 13 other States also have laws which touch on this.
It is my understanding that Mangione employed an 80% pistol, so it was likely a Glock-compatible copycat.
Luigi’s issue is the non NFA registered suppressor plus all those NY gun laws he broke (in addition to the homicide).
homicide*executionAnd to clarify I don’t normally believe in vigilante justice but these people removed themselves from the justice system so why should they be protected by it?
Homicide isn’t just a legal term. See also fratricide, sororicide, patricide, matricide, suicide, regicide, etc.
What the fuck. How did journalism get this utterly fucked?
Experts point to a phenomenon called jury nullification, which occurs when a jury votes to acquit a defendant even though they may believe they committed a crime.
No, there is no “may”! It is jury nullification only when the jury believes the defendant committed a crime. There is no “may” about it.
Fucking so afraid to actually write something they will insert this uncertain language everywhere to the point it doesn’t even make sense.
What is the point in reading your article, when even you don’t seem to believe what you are writing is correct?!
Yeah, the “may” totally changes it. If the jury thinks the defendant is not guilty, then it’s just a not guilty verdict, not jury nullification. For it to be jury nullification, the jury has to think the defendant is guilty.
“Phenomenon called Jury Nullification.”
Disgusting langauge, it makes it sound like a newfangled perversion of the justice system instead of an actual right that people have.
Here’s the thing: this is an Indian article and they specifically don’t have jury trials or nullification as a right.
nullification as a right
Neither does US recognize it as a right. No matter whether you believe jury nullification is a perversion of justice or irreplaceable bulwark against tyranny, it’s origin can’t be disputed. Jury nullification is not a right that was ever recognized explicitly, but an unintended side-effect of other rights (right to jury trial and jury verdicts being final).
The Constitution says that it is not spelling out all the rights just the ones that it has listed.
And those rights are human rights. They are not granted by the Constitution but merely recognized in a document.
Wake up. A piece of parchment did not create human rights. They exist because we are humans.
Every time someone posits “outcome might not be terrible” hypotheticals about the US “justice” system, I turn into Hawkeye, and not the Alan Alda one…
What’s up with these news sources from India? They keep turning up in my Google News feed and they’re often obvious bullshit
Pakistan: “First time?”
There’s always somebody winning at SEO and gaming the algorithm, and there are few tactics more effective than “Exciting and Wrong”
No evidence linking him to the crime?
My question that I keep coming back to, but I have yet to hear answered:
Where is Luigi’s workshop?
Imagine if they had held a trial for the people who cut off the heads of the royalty and the court in France.
Technically, yes, it’s murder. But it was the only way out for the vast population to earn their feeedom from their oppressors. Because this is a response and legitimate defence against the institutionalized violence that the population had been facing.
They weave and dodge all accountability, demonstrating how untouchable they are by anything other than outright violence.
He could just get elected president
