Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record
I mean, ol’ boy is def guilty of murder.
I think the question is how much was it justified (i.e. what degree of murder charges should he receive) and what’s a reasonable punishment for what he did.
Hahaha, hadn’t considered the opportunity to take an argument like that. I doubt the jury will believe it, but I wish him luck in the effort either way.
Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record
Genuine curiosity, but is there really any other conclusion that the jury could come to?
I suppose there’s the “it wasn’t Luigi in that video” argument, and jury nullification is technically on the table, but jury nullification still doesn’t feel the same as “he didn’t do it”.
I’m not a frequenter of this Community, but is popular sentiment here that it’ll play any other way?
This has to be assuming that his “manifesto” or whatever the hell you want to call it is fake right? I mean that thing alone puts him in a very tricky spot. Surely not enough to convict on alone on but that’s a super strong piece of evidence linking him directly to the incident.
He was also apprehended with matching clothes and a matching weapon. His social media stuff corroborates a motive as well. Unless all of that is fake or planted as well which I figure is the entire purpose of the not guilty plea. Not so much a “I didn’t do it,” but more so “prove I did it.”
Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record.
Naw, and I def agree we’re all just armchair lawyering until the case actually hits court.
But I’ve seen the video camera footage. Someone definitely shot and killed the United Health CEO. It seems a logical conclusion (based on what’s come out PLUS LUIGI PLEADING GUILTY) that Luigi did the act.
To argue that it wasn’t him in that video feels the same as arguing that the guy we need to be supporting is still at large (and thusly the supportive sentiment online should be sent to someone else).
I feel like there’s a logical gap here. Either he did it and deserves support for taking out a petty oligarch, or he didn’t do it and there’s a hero still out there in hiding. It doesn’t seem.like this community is arguing for that latter option.
Am I missing something here?
Edit: just saw your down thread comment. So it sounds like you’re thinking this was some kind of glowie op? I’ve actually not heard anything to that effect. Can you explain how you think that all came together? I’m genuinely curious.
Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record.
I mean, he was caught on camera doing it. There’s a bunch of other evidence, which is (as i understand it) largely circumstantial. But then he plead guilty.
Like, someone definitely killed the United Health CEO. I guess I could see an argument that it wasn’t Luigi Mangione, but if it wasn’t him, then shouldn’t the rally of support be towards the actual killer? Isn’t arguing Luigi wasn’t the killer the same as arguing “we’re supporting the wrong guy”?
It seems like assuming Luigi was the killer is a safe assumption and thusly the support for him is correct. At that point, it seems the only thing to sort out is which degree of murder this counts as. Lol, unless someone is trying to argue the killing was accidental, but even then, that’s just differentiating between murder and manslaughter.
Caught on camera is not a strong argument, especially not in this day and age. Further, the outfit that the shooter was wearing is so non descript that it might as well have been background noise. You can walk the streets of NY right now and find 200 people dressed like that.
The man needs to be given a strong defence especially when it is in the interest of the prosecution to speed through to a guilty verdict just to avoid too much media coverage.
Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record
Def support him getting the money for a strong defense. Justice is a process, and the prosecution needs to be held to accounts if they try to sidestep any rules / try to rush this through.
I’d buy the most of the rest of the evidence being circumstantial, but, man, the guy plead guilty.
But even if it wasn’t Luigi that shot that CEO, doesnt this change him from a Folk Hero to just some guy who was falsely accused?
Like, it feels like some people in this thread are saying “he’s a hero of the people for disposing a petty oligarch” and also “he didn’t actually kill anyone; the guy in the video could’ve been anyone”. Those two statements don’t seem to logically follow.
I don‘t think you‘re missing much, except that someone is able to want to support both the perpetrator and anyone who might be falsely accused of being him. So far we don‘t know and he did plead NOT guilty.
I‘ll try to explain my viewpoint further, I‘m against innocent people being convicted in a public court of opinion by media ahead of the trials and paraded around by police. In that case he needs the money for defense and I hope it all comes out.
I’m also against mass murder of people by for profit healthcare. I‘m not cheery about it having come to violence, it is tragic, but it seems like there is little hope for change left in broken US political system where lobbying money decides policy. Personally I don’t think hero fits, maybe antihero.
Anyway, I‘ll still hope for the best possible outcome for him in that scenario, even if he is convicted of all that at least with the donations he might afford to fight it for a while and spread some more awareness on the issue.
Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record
I mean, ol’ boy is def guilty of murder.
I think the question is how much was it justified (i.e. what degree of murder charges should he receive) and what’s a reasonable punishment for what he did.
Nah man, he was at my house that night.
Hahaha, hadn’t considered the opportunity to take an argument like that. I doubt the jury will believe it, but I wish him luck in the effort either way.
That’s for the jury to decide. But we do appreciate your opinion here.
Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record
Genuine curiosity, but is there really any other conclusion that the jury could come to?
I suppose there’s the “it wasn’t Luigi in that video” argument, and jury nullification is technically on the table, but jury nullification still doesn’t feel the same as “he didn’t do it”.
I’m not a frequenter of this Community, but is popular sentiment here that it’ll play any other way?
We don’t know if he did it or not. The teevee surely tries to paint like he did it and I don’t trust the teevee…
I need to see what they will actually say in court where they can’t just lielie since there are some rules.
Your entire write up blindly accepts what teevee told you, why?
This has to be assuming that his “manifesto” or whatever the hell you want to call it is fake right? I mean that thing alone puts him in a very tricky spot. Surely not enough to convict on alone on but that’s a super strong piece of evidence linking him directly to the incident.
He was also apprehended with matching clothes and a matching weapon. His social media stuff corroborates a motive as well. Unless all of that is fake or planted as well which I figure is the entire purpose of the not guilty plea. Not so much a “I didn’t do it,” but more so “prove I did it.”
I just find odd that he was apprehended with the entire “starter package for a murder conviction”
Until I see all this evidence admitted in court, I don’t buy the state’s propaganda spreer.
They have every incentive to convict somebody, they don’t care if it is the right guy.
Quick acknowledge on this comment. Just saw it after posting my other comment. Gonna make an edit to that one just to keep the discussion linear.
Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record.
Naw, and I def agree we’re all just armchair lawyering until the case actually hits court.
But I’ve seen the video camera footage. Someone definitely shot and killed the United Health CEO. It seems a logical conclusion (based on what’s come out PLUS LUIGI PLEADING GUILTY) that Luigi did the act.
To argue that it wasn’t him in that video feels the same as arguing that the guy we need to be supporting is still at large (and thusly the supportive sentiment online should be sent to someone else).
I feel like there’s a logical gap here. Either he did it and deserves support for taking out a petty oligarch, or he didn’t do it and there’s a hero still out there in hiding. It doesn’t seem.like this community is arguing for that latter option.
Am I missing something here?
Edit: just saw your down thread comment. So it sounds like you’re thinking this was some kind of glowie op? I’ve actually not heard anything to that effect. Can you explain how you think that all came together? I’m genuinely curious.
He pleaded NOT guilty.
…how tf did I hear that wrong. Wow, thats my bad.
The regime is unreasonable… Plebs can be unreasonable too.
Mkay. I don’t agree with the “he didn’t do it” sentiment, but definitely sympathize with the “he did nothing wrong” side.
Suppose we’ll see how the courts play it. I’m confident it won’t be a happy time if they throw the book at him.
I forgot you were there that night and saw him do it.
Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record.
I mean, he was caught on camera doing it. There’s a bunch of other evidence, which is (as i understand it) largely circumstantial. But then he plead guilty.
Like, someone definitely killed the United Health CEO. I guess I could see an argument that it wasn’t Luigi Mangione, but if it wasn’t him, then shouldn’t the rally of support be towards the actual killer? Isn’t arguing Luigi wasn’t the killer the same as arguing “we’re supporting the wrong guy”?
It seems like assuming Luigi was the killer is a safe assumption and thusly the support for him is correct. At that point, it seems the only thing to sort out is which degree of murder this counts as. Lol, unless someone is trying to argue the killing was accidental, but even then, that’s just differentiating between murder and manslaughter.
Second comment I’ve seen with the guilty plea. He pleaded NOT guilty. I even just searched it to make sure I wasn’t crazy.
Caught on camera is not a strong argument, especially not in this day and age. Further, the outfit that the shooter was wearing is so non descript that it might as well have been background noise. You can walk the streets of NY right now and find 200 people dressed like that.
The man needs to be given a strong defence especially when it is in the interest of the prosecution to speed through to a guilty verdict just to avoid too much media coverage.
Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record
Def support him getting the money for a strong defense. Justice is a process, and the prosecution needs to be held to accounts if they try to sidestep any rules / try to rush this through.
I’d buy the most of the rest of the evidence being circumstantial, but, man, the guy plead guilty.
But even if it wasn’t Luigi that shot that CEO, doesnt this change him from a Folk Hero to just some guy who was falsely accused?
Like, it feels like some people in this thread are saying “he’s a hero of the people for disposing a petty oligarch” and also “he didn’t actually kill anyone; the guy in the video could’ve been anyone”. Those two statements don’t seem to logically follow.
Am I missing something here?
I don‘t think you‘re missing much, except that someone is able to want to support both the perpetrator and anyone who might be falsely accused of being him. So far we don‘t know and he did plead NOT guilty.
I‘ll try to explain my viewpoint further, I‘m against innocent people being convicted in a public court of opinion by media ahead of the trials and paraded around by police. In that case he needs the money for defense and I hope it all comes out.
I’m also against mass murder of people by for profit healthcare. I‘m not cheery about it having come to violence, it is tragic, but it seems like there is little hope for change left in broken US political system where lobbying money decides policy. Personally I don’t think hero fits, maybe antihero. Anyway, I‘ll still hope for the best possible outcome for him in that scenario, even if he is convicted of all that at least with the donations he might afford to fight it for a while and spread some more awareness on the issue.
Three comments on this post say he pleaded guilty. This is false. Assuming it’s not intentional misinformation, where are people getting this from?
I saw that too… not sure since my re collection is that he pled NOT GUILTY