Moments after Luigi Mangione was handcuffed at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s, a police officer searching his backpack found a loaded gun magazine wrapped in a pair of underwear.
The discovery, recounted in court Monday as Mangione fights to keep evidence out of his New York murder case, convinced police in Altoona, Pennsylvania, that he was the man wanted in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan five days earlier.
Bullets, a gun, $20,000 cash, the same outfit, the files on his computer where he designed and printed the gun mod used to shoot brian thompson, a history of book reviews where he says protests are not enough including one review of the book Deny Delay Defend which mirrors the words carved on the bullet casings at the murder scene of Brian Thompson, and the fact that he was travelling discreetly by bus across multiple states despite having a cushy six figure tech job and being the direct heir to the Mangione small fortune.
We all know he did it.
If he didn’t do it, he needs to be set free.
If he did do it, he needs to be set free and a statue of him should be placed on the sidewalk where it happened to commemorate the event.
Cool! So where you do suppose we draw the line where people are allowed to straight up murder people on the street in cold blood because we don’t like them or what they do?
Because a WHOLE new set of laws need to be in place or this shit turns into the purge.
Why was the ceo allowed to have people murdered in cold blood by not providing treatment?
Denying treatment isn’t murder. Has no one explained to you what murder means?
It’s not that he just denied treatment. He ordered his company to deny treatment FOR COVERED ITEMS according to the insurance plan. This caused people to not get life saving care, die, and no longer be a “burden” on their bottom line. That IS murder. Premeditated.
That’s like seeing someone hanging from a ledge of a cliff because they fell and, instead of helping, they stomped on their fingers so they plunged to their death at the bottom.
The CEO was responsible for more death than his alleged killer by a several tens of thousands fold ratio.
And sadly, despite how horrific it is- at the end of the day, it is legal. He didn’t hunt these people down and end them. He denied them coverage.
This needs to change, but vigilantism clearly isn’t going to do it, and this is evident in the fact that it’s still happening. In fact, I believe it’s even worse now.
But- let’s say we bring the anger to the streets anyway, and full on gun down every CEO that we don’t like. What is stopping us from stopping at CEOs? Why not end regional managers we disagree with? Local managers? What about shift leaders?
Hell… Why even stop at our own places of work? Neighbors? Bad service providers? Anyone is a mark!
Where do we draw the line where murder isn’t okay just because we don’t like what someone does?
There is a reason we have laws in place to stop slippery slopes like this from happening. And we are better than these assholes. They got to do what they do using our system of law- so we will need to use that system of law to stop them.
Murder isn’t the way this is done. This is just how you escalate them putting the military in every city.
I don’t even necessarily disagree, but how do you say the exact name of the fallacy you are invoking without seeing the problem in what you’re saying?
There can be clear start and stop points. Why would this ever lead to regional managers as you describe? Why would it ever lead to people you simply disagree with? To argue in good faith, you need to take the point as it stands, clearly stopping at a level of someone who is “responsible for far more death.” That is the argument that the above commenter posted, and there’s not a good reason to extend that any further.
Now, I’m going to step away from the context of homicide, but this is at a base an incredibly gullible point. Virtually every civil rights movement has been accomplished through breaking laws, called civil disobedience.
“an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.” - MLK
I’ll simplify:
When we start killing people we don’t like, the line gets drawn closer and closer to home.
“Of all the arguments against voluntary euthanasia, the most influential is the ‘slippery slope’: once we allow doctors to kill patients, we will not be able to limit the killing to those who want to die” ~ Peter Singer
“Once you put human life in human hands, you have started on a slippery slope that knows no boundaries.” ~ Leon Lass
In the aftermath of the killings, approval of claims skyrocketed. If CEOs kept getting deleted for their horrifically immoral actions, then I’ve no doubt we’d have a different healthcare system right now. Your bootlicking is exactly what they rely on to literally keep killing people. You are enabling them to kill people.
It’s a trolly car problem. If I’m confronted with this moral dilemma, I’m choosing the lever that kills the CEO to save millions of lives.
In this case, this person was so vile, so directly contributing to the misery of society, the slope aint slippery at all.
The reason is that law enforcement is a tool to protect capital. The police and politicians will never step in for this issue, because they are captured by the capitalist class. Nothing you can do (well…) can change that fact, and they want you to waste your time on performative protests and attempts at legal reform.
If Luigi had killed his health insurance claim worker instead, you’d never even have known his name. You don’t need to remind me that I’m better than CEOs. I’m completely certain of it. Because I don’t make my daily work harvesting money via the suffering of millions of people.
Enters the trolly problem, exits me. I’m done. lol.
Look up depraved heart murder.
It’s a real legal tool used by prosecutors all over the country. The idea is that if someone actively chooses to take actions so incredibly dangerous in pursuit of their own interests that it is likely to cause people to die, that indifference to human life can be treated as malice aforethought (intent to kill) and they can be charged with 2nd degree murder for any deaths resulting from thise actions. The classic example would be knowingly selling tainted food or medicine for profit.
And it’s not just a US law. China literally executed executives for signing off on the sale of tainted baby formula.
Brian Thompson intentionally ordered the increased rejection of pre-authorizations for covered procedures and medications in order to drive up profit, resulting in a great deal of injury and death.
Is random people shooting execs in the street my preferred choice for how society handles these issues? No. But when official justice is denied, the inevitable result is people deciding to act on it themselves.
Johnson is dead because he was shot, yes. But more than that, he’s dead because the justice system refuses to hold people like him accountable for their illegal actions.
You really need to know how it works before you argue it. I get that one of you looked this up one day- and the rest of lemmy all piled on thinking that it’s a one-and-done legal defense after only just reading about it, but…
Proof of INTENT TO KILL means he’d have to know without question that they would have died, and that they had NO OTHER MEANS to acquire the procedure. This is nearly impossible to prove and the entire defense could rest on this notion alone.
For the record, I’m not agreeing with this shit-
I’m simply pointing out why it’s not so fucking simple as it seems. Everyone here seems to think the easiest solution is the best solution without ever questioning why the easiest solution seems so easy, yet no one has tried it.
Hope this helps:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1337&context=dlj
That’s literally not how depraved heart murder works.
The CEO of a Waterpark (schlitterbahn) was arrested for murder after a child died by decapitation on a slide because he’d paid off people who were hurt on it previously to keep quiet so they wouldn’t have to shut down the ride. He didn’t know for sure that particular child would die, or whether anyone would die at all. But he was so indifferent to the known danger that it counted as motive.
Johnson ordered his people to deny millions of medical procedures the patients were entitled to. He absolutely knew people would die, even if he didn’t know any specific person would.
Two entirely different scenarios won’t equate to the same outcome regardless of how much you’d like them to.
One is an illegal payoff that implies an acknowledgement of guilt- the other is a denial of non-mandated service that caused death.
In the US, you are not required by federal law to have Health Insurance. Therefore, denying health insurance services is NOT illegal! So whichever one of you ignorantly tried to tie a Deprived Heart Murder (aka: “reckless endangerment”) to the CEO of a health insurance company, needs to learn how criminal law works, and also should have looked to see if there’s even precedence in a case such as this.
(Yeah… There isn’t by the way)
Now, I’m done arguing this with you. You’re forcing an outcome based on an emotional response, and I’m logically trying to lead you to what is factually true, despite it being something you don’t want to accept.
You want to deny reality- be my guest, but know that bad faith comparisons to force an inaccurate outcome waste time and dilute the water of reasonable discussion.
Fiiiine manslaughter
Removed by mod
lol….
His rights were violated when he was arrested. Full stop. A string of coincidences and atypical behavior does not a murderer make
I’m so torn by this one… assuming he did it, if it wasn’t about killing the very assuming asshole that got shot, he should not get free because of a technicality. I mean if it was another rando that committed a crime against a lambda not one would cheer about a criminal escaping justice due to a technicality. Or so I hope. But since the guy who was shot down was feasting on misery it’s a very tempting thing to wish for. Personally I would rather that we got the jury thingy where they all agree that no crime was committed instead or something along those lines I don’t remember the specifics about nullification.
That “technicality” is a critical part of our criminal justice system. I’d much rather a criminal be set free than set the precedent that due process is optional
Allowing exceptions here would open the door to all sorts of corruption. What would then stop the president from treating all his political opponents the same way? Have them all raided without cause and “find” all sorts of evidence
By the way, the jury thing is jury nullification. The basic concept is that if a juror feels a law is unjust (or any other reason), they can vote not to convict even if the burden of proof was met for a conviction. The courts can’t tell the jury their verdict is incorrect. The only recourse is an appeal (which can’t happen in an acquittal due to double jeopardy)
Jury nullification was used quite a bit in the North before the Civil War. Many Northern juries chose to acquit violations of the Fugitive Slave Act because they felt the law was unjust
Let’s say that the most generous past examples are followed and the evidence found on his person and statements he made following his arrests are off the table as evidence. There is still his history, lack of alibi, clothing, and the gun mod he printed. He’s still guilty.
Exactly. In the past few decades there have been many examples of falsely accused prisoners being exonerated by new evidence or corrupt convictions. Not to mention those that were executed before they could be found innocent.
That’s why it’s crucial that we hold our justice system to the highest standard. Not only because we want to find the perpetrator, but to ensure that we’re not convicting an innocent person. If the price of that is a few criminals get to escape justice, so be it.
I think the “risks” of letting a potential killer go free are reduced if the chances of any sort of repeat crime are distant.
I remember a sitcom spy-hero type show had a dilemma like this. A bad guy offers the good guys a large sum of money they can use to help unfortunate people he victimized, in exchange for them leaving him alone. He’s retired, has no plans, or even means, to continue any horrible acts, so it’s entirely down to whether they seek retribution for the bad stuff he’s done rather than use the opportunity to help and protect people.
I feel like the risks of Mangione killing again after being literally worshipped for killing the first replaceable suit are quite high. His innocent plea is telling that he is not at all repentant.
Personally, I’d say there’s another layer to it. You touched on it earlier, but consider also the risk this man poses to your average member of society. To do that, assuming he did it, you need to consider his motives—which is protest, at the core of it. There’s who the victim was, absolutely, but there’s also his motive. Based on the context we have, I don’t see him as a threat.
Jury nullification isn’t that they agreed crime wasn’t committed, but rather that they refuse to agree on a guilty verdict because they don’t agree with the law. It’s sort of a natural loophole in jury responsibility and enforcement.
See that’s kind of the trap you fall into with it. People treat jury nullification as a third option, but at the end of the day they give the verdict “not guilty” in those exact words despite how they feel about him doing the crime. If they announce “guilty but we don’t mind it” then the verdict is going to be guilty and the judge will be in charge of sentencing.
Right, it’s not really a 3rd option. It’s more like a negative value option. It exists, but it’s not really in the options list. It’s closer to “the only winning move is not to play”
But here’s what doesn’t make sense to me. The guy is fucking smart, smart enough that he can literally shoot someone in broad daylight and escape the city. And then he turns up in a fucking McDonald’s with a backpack full of evidence. Those two things do not jive together. If he was that smart, the gun (or more specifically, all the parts that make up the gun disassembled) and everything else he had with him, including clothing would be in random trash cans and dumpsters all over the state by the time they caught him. Or burned. You aren’t smart enough to evade the entire American law enforcement apparatus for over a day, while also being dumb enough to walk around in public with a slam dunk conviction in your bag. Unless you want to be caught.
Point is, the whole thing stinks a bit to me.
Everyone has to eat, travel can be very exhausting.
I wouldn’t really call him smart.
I’m not saying he’s dumb for eating. I’m saying he’s dumb for walking around days later with a ‘convict me kit’ on his back. That’s what doesn’t make sense to me.
Well he was fleeing the entire time. If he had a safehouse in the city or a nearby stop he would just end up trapped inside of it.
Which would have been a fantastic idea. Hang out at that place, ideally have a few weeks of groceries stocked up, so you can just hang out there and watch TV and not have to leave or be seen. Then you basically don’t leave for a few weeks, at which point a lot of the hoopla will have blown over and your surveillance photo won’t be on every TV screen.
Or if he wants more distance, get rid of the freaking evidence. Makes no sense that he would have such a good escape plan, and yet not have thought through what might happen if someone recognized him a.
Has that idea ever worked?
Well. I guess if it had then we wouldn’t hear about it.
Play it out with your mind.
Police arrest a guy who matches the picture but without the backpack full of evidence have no proof that he is the guy. After 3 days his lawyer demands they let him go. End of story.
A guy who travelled discreetly by bus for three days without rest away from his lifelong home despite being the heir to a fortune, meaning he could have taken a plane or drove a car, for no apparent reason to travel at all, no alibi for the time of the murder, and the files to print the gun mod used to kill Thompson on his computer.
Still guilty.
Or do you mean he ditched the evidence at the hypothetical safehouse? If so it still exists.
As long as you’re making things up, why not just say he confessed? Much stronger argument
Also WTF does his job have to do with taking the bus? I work in tech and take the bus too. I’d take trains, but American trains are lacking. Better arrest me too since riding the bus is proof of murder now
“Bitch I might!”
–American Law Enforcement
Which part are you accusing of being made up? All of it? Everything here is fake? There were no words carved into the bullet casings, he isn’t the son of the head of Mangione Enterprises, and 3D printers don’t even exist?
Careful with that nuance around here. It’s been know to hurt people.
I am going to be intentionally clumsy in this China shop.
I don’t know shit. I’m just a guy on the internet, and this is exactly why there is a justice system and not mob rule. It could be likely, it could be circumstancial. Let it play out, facts on the table and let his peers judge him for the crime he is alleged to have committed.
Pointing a finger from random anecdotes you’ve heard/seen or hearsay, or even potentially malicious prosecutors looking for a scapegoat and not actual answers. This could as likely be an inside job/false flag to stir the pot as it being a lone wolf with an agenda.
Show me the receipts, then we can talk about it.