I mean last I counted he had like 200000 alibis so…
His lawyer made a great point about how law enforcement and the media threw “alleged” out the window and just insisted he did it…
What’s disappointing is it’s apparently working because when I do see and “allegedly” thrown in, people are down voting it like it’s a conspiracy.
People always want to act like propaganda can’t effect them, but the whole country immediately accepted that he was guilty because of a tiny change in reporting from the norm.
But especially with the wrinkle that someone brought it up to the McD’s worker and then she snitched…
I think the cop’s have a reason they’re sure, it’s just they got that reason illegally thru means we’re not supposed to know they have. Which explains a lot of shit.
Frankly I still question if he’s a lookalike scapegoat so the police can save face and try to put it to bed. May also explain the odd “planted” evidence that is being mentioned.
Eh, if he was a real random fall guy, they wouldn’t have picked a rich handsome guy in his mid 20s.
Like, it’s almost most definitely him…
But fuck the cops, fuck the wealthy, and fuck the healthcare industry. They need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt and all those groups are habitual liars.
So if I was on the jury, they’d need a lot of evidence and need to be able to explain how they got it. They used some illegal spy tech shit because it’s a rich victim? Then all evidence gained after gets thrown out.
Yeah, and NYPD wouldn’t have gone so far out of state so quickly. If I was trying to grab a fall guy as fast as possible, I would have picked up the nearest criminal I knew that looked vaguely like him and might have had motive.
This conspiracy theory doesn’t make any sense to me. All the “real killer” would have to do would be to kill someone else and the entire deception would fail.
“So Luigi has a copycat eh? This is why the people who idolize Mangione are the problem! Never forget Bob Thomas or whatever that fucker’s name was.”
I feel like people want it to be him because they want to know who did it, not because they’re angry but because they want someone to identify with.
Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy nut, the evidence against him is too convenient. I mean sure he probably did it, but who plans the murder of a high-profile target, escapes the initial manhunt, and then walks around carrying the murder weapon, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto basically confessing to it? And if you’re the type of person to write a manifesto and expect to be caught, why would you run away in the first place?
Yeah, the whole thing doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. He went through all that effort to not get caught in the first place, but then just kept the murder weapon, backpack, same outfit, and everything? Unless he wanted to get caught, but then why did he run at all?
I’ve been noticing this on NPR, but they’re weirdly cagey about it. Kind of like if a shitty editor went over the script and added “allegedly” to where it needs to, but only in places that are phrased in a specific way (not saying they’re doing that).
Yeah the only reason I think he did it is I was already pretty sure they would catch him. When I first heard about it I knew there were probably already hundreds of FBI agents just looking for the one guy. The mcdonalds story is hinky as shit but I almost guarantee they got the right guy. They just don’t want to have to be honest about whatever weird backdoor they’ve got installed on all of our technology a) because they don’t want to give up their strategy but also b) its probably super illegal and not even remotely admissible in court.
Yea we got the guy! And he had the same kind of weapon on him so we know how he did it! And he had the same fake id! And a hand written manifesto! He just takes all that stuff to breakfast at mcdonalds. Totally normal thing to do
Is he even claiming they got the wrong guy? I feel like if he had a different story or an alibi, we’d have heard it by now. He did it.
That said, if I’m on the jury (hypothetically. I can’t be.) I’m voting not guilty. I wouldn’t convict any of the soldiers who went after Osama. Same thing. You’ve got an enemy who has killed thousands of Americans and is conventionally untouchable. So someone took him out. That’s a hero, not a criminal.
They want to idolize him, it’s hard to idolize the falsely accused.
Yet I’d say the fact that they’re just saying “He did it!” at the first guy who fit the description… Is even more proof that the system is fucked and highlights the very thing Brian was rightfully slain over.
Speaking to CBS, the BBC’s US partner, on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said that the online rhetoric has been “extraordinarily alarming”.
“It speaks of what is really bubbling here in this country,” he said. “And unfortunately we see that manifested in violence, the domestic violent extremism that exists.”
Did he care about the domestic violent extremism before it started to affect the wealthy? What about the domestic terrorists who go after the queer community, POC communities, women, doctors providing reproductive healthcare…the list goes on.
Violent extremism isn’t new here. It’s just that this one affects people with power.
Yeah, the rules of society say they won and they think all the losers beneath them just have to accept it. The social order and status quo are great for them. That something would violate it is extremely disturbing to them and provokes an emotional response.
I think that’s why they seem to be so clumsily overreacting to the murder. Maybe it’s working in segments of the population I don’t see, but everyone in my social network is either outright happy it happened or at least get why it happened. Some will have perfunctory “murder is wrong” statements, but the thrust is about what a corrupt and evil business health insurance is. That’s all the way up to the boomers and crosses political boundaries.
Things like the perp walk, excessive charges, and corporate comedy pretending everyone just thinks Mangione is a bad guy just highlights the us vs. them of class war rather than trying to somehow quell or redirect the bubbling unrest. I think they’re doing this because their peers and masters are emotionally demanding a visible and recognizable show of power and obedience. If they knew what was good for them they’d be triple-timing it to make some token effort to reform the system, but even a token effort in response to the killing of a rich person would infuriate them, so clumsy performances it is.
When my usually “civil” boomer dad said he gets why he did it and wasn’t outright condemning him, I knew the ruling class wasn’t in control of the narrative as per usual this time.
My 75 year old Canadian aunt laughed when I showed her this
Everyone hates these people except the people who want to be these people.
They’re worried if they give that we’ll go all the way and demand total equality and they’ll have to be plebs with real jobs. Boo fucking hoo assholes I’d make you do my job but you’re not good enough. Also you’ve hurt my patients enough already.
What about the domestic terrorist corporations who assassinate whistleblowers? Or are there so many hands involved there that it’s not worth the trouble to dismantle those terrorist organizations?
You’ve got far right militias blowing up America’s electric grid infrastructure, threatening politicians, having standoffs on federal property, and patrolling hurricane impacted areas trying to capture federal employees that are there helping, and I’ve never heard those people referred to as terrorists.
Did he care about the domestic violent extremism before it started to affect the wealthy?
No, not at all. They’re only mad because for the first time, the elite feel mortal.
You ever heard of the “less dead”, well, Brian Thompson is “more dead”
And for those who haven’t “Less Dead” is a saying used to describe people who’s deaths the police don’t look into because they’re “not important enough”
Many serial killers get away with their crimes simply because they’re smart enough to only kill those who would be deemed “less dead”
Holy shit. Do his lawyers believe he can beat these charges?? What’s going on
Yeah, the absurd terrorism charges are probably possible to beat, so no reason to plead guilty to them. They are probably not questioning the murder charges, but that’s beside the point.
NYC residents:
If you are picked for a jury, I know it can be annoying and take time out of your busy life. But honestly, it is the last purely democratic area of our life. The jury has the power to ensure the laws are fairly and equally applied.
Remember that your job as jury is to not only find the facts of the case but also to make sure that the charges fit the crime.
There is one more job you have: is the law correct in this specific crime?
Judges won’t tell you this. Prosecutors will make you leave this choice outside the courthouse. But you have it.
The responsibility of the jury is protected so that you cannot be held accountable or even questioned (in an official setting anyway) as to why you voted the way you did. You have the power to view the facts, know that the defendant is guilty, but vote to acquit because you believe the law is wrong in his case.
Don’t let prosecutors or the judge trick you.
All in Minecraft, of course.
The evidence against him appears to be that the guy who murdered the CEO might have similar eyebrows to Luigi Mangione, but it’s hard to tell from the security video. There’s nothing else that puts him at the scene. They can say it’s him all they want, but they’ll have to reveal some better evidence if they want us to believe it.
Didn’t he have the burner gun still on him? Honestly asking, I know a lot of disinformation tends to go out early, and I haven’t followed up on verified facts.
They said he had a gun, but a) I’m not convinced of the accuracy of techniques like striation matching which are used to determine whether a bullet was fired by a specific gun, and b) it could have been planted by the police, even if it was the murder weapon (they might have found it in NYC, lied about not finding it, and then planted it on their preferred suspect to construct an evidentiary link where none existed).
Guilty or not, always plead not guilty at the start. You’ll often have a chance to accept a better plea deal before trial if you want. Or you can go to trial.
Unless you are looking forward to serving time (free food, warm bed, access to healthcare).
If you’re going to court for any criminal charge, you plead not guilty. The DA is going to have laid the strongest charges they believe they can get a conviction on, but there is always risk in going to trial. The prosecution generally cares a lot more about getting a conviction than what charge that conviction is on, or what penalty that conviction carries.
So. You’re caught dead to rights, charged with a crime. If you plead guilty, you are also waiving your right to trial, and taking whatever conviction and (probably) penalty the prosecution advises the judge.
On the other hand, if you plead not guilty, now you have the opportunity to accept a plea deal from the prosecution - changing your plea to guilty - which would include what charge and what penalty. Depending on what you’ve done, this can save you a lot of money, reduce or eliminate probation or incarceration time, or take the death penalty off the table.
You can always change your plea from not guilty to guilty. You can’t do that the other way around. Whenever you see headlines about “So-and-so pleads not guilty,” that doesn’t (in most cases) mean they intend to beat the charge. It’s just what you do.
Another huge, important, but subtle distinction to make here is that the trial is not to decide whether you did the thing. It’s not always a mystery who perpetrated an alleged crime. Even if you pull out a gun and shoot somebody on the 50-yard-line at the Super Bowl, and 300 million people see it, they can’t just take you off to prison for murder. They have to give you a trial to determine whether you violated the law.
There’s a thing called an affirmative defense, as in, “yes, I did the thing, but it wasn’t a crime, because…” If you can, say, convince a jury that you’re a time traveler, the ref was going to make a bad call in the 4th quarter that cost your team the Super Bowl win, and that justified shooting him, well, then it wasn’t a crime. That’s what a jury is ultimately charged with deciding.
This is not to say that Magione’s attorney plans to present an affirmative defense, just that there are a number of good reasons to plead not guilty, even if it’s 100% certain you did the thing.
(Edit: Typo.)
The terrorism “charges” are laughably flimsy and clearly contrived. Trumped Up, you might say.
