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.
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.