Luigi Mangione is accused of stalking United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson and shooting him to death on Dec. 4, 2024.
Luigi is a hero. But not because he killed a CEO, or anyone. Because he was framed by the government, dragged through the mud, humiliated publicly, and held his head high standing 10 feet tall. Not guilty plea is nothing less than I expected. We should all take note of his example. They can’t beat us all if we resist.
Well, that settles it then. Better release him for the sake of Government Efficiency and all that.
Seeing the way Luigi was carrying himself, and his facial expressions, makes me wonder. Does he actually have a cast-iron allibi just waiting to be revealed?
I have not seen genuine evidence it was actually him. This wouldn’t even be the first or last time evidence was planted on someone to paint a narrative.
The way I see it, they needed a scapegoat. Because how do you just lose a murderer in broad daylight?
There’s no way someone smart enough to do all that somehow gets hungry and loafs around at a McDonald’s? The real killer collected his bounty and is living on a remote island by now.
They needed to do anything to stop copycats from popping up, and they did an okay job at doing so.
The picture they showed and Luigi… looks like two different people.
I hope his lawyers is using the Chewbacca defense.
They needed to do anything to stop copycats from popping up, and they did an okay job at doing so.
Though I wonder if that will remain the case if Luigi actually does come up with an alibi he had all along, waiting to reveal it all this time just to really rub it in how law enforcement screwed this up. And with all the spotlight on him all the time, the real killer could be anywhere in the world at this point, completely unknown and unreachable. Not exactly a scenario that scares people off
Well a lot of people who are willing to take things this far don’t really care about the consequences of their actions anyway, so in a way I’m kind of surprised there are so many mass shootings involving innocent people, yet so few targeted attacks on scumbags like the CEO of United Healthcare.
For many who are pushed far enough to carry out something like this, achieving their objective is more important than their own life.
Unfortunately, the victims are so often people who don’t deserve it.
That kid didn’t do it. They are railroading him too hard and committing too many procedural violations for it to be anything but a setup.
Any normal case a judge would throw everything out for how prejudicial the state has behaved.
The face they don’t care how blatantly prejudicial they are shows they don’t care if he did it or not.
He didn’t do it.
The CEOs wife had hmm killed for meeting his side piece there.
The assassin was from El Salvador or something.
All the photos look exactly like him tho… I mean is there is substantial evidence he didn’t do it? I fully support him, but I think it’s a stretch to say he was framed and the photos look nothing alike
Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
The misuse of evidence and the lead detective and mayor sharing evidence his lawyer hasn’t seen in a media campaign to impugn the man.
There’s reasonable doubt in their earnest attempt at seeking justice here. They seem hellbent on violating his constitutional rights.
I doubt they have the right guy. Reasonably
Excellent explanation, I too doubt that it was him and would vote not guilty
Are any of the photos from the crime scene?
Because if you find a guy who matches “photo of guy getting coffee”, you still don’t have evidence that he’s a killer. You have evidence that he got some coffee.
Dude has a familiar face. There are tons of people that look “just like” those fuzzy videos and pics
Could those photos be ai generated?
The only way we can be reasonably sure they are not is if we believe the prosecution is honoring their commitment to the constitution and acting in good faith.
I do not believe they are acting in good faith.
This means I have reasonable doubt on their entire effort.
Justice is dead.
There shouldn’t need to be evidence of his innocence, there should need to be an overwhelming amount of evidence proving he’s guilty. That’s part of the foundation for justice that courts are meant to uphold.
Edit: mistype for spelling
I think most of the people are pretty sure he did it. It’s just that the “it wasn’t him” defense is popular amongst the people that think vigilante justice should allow for legalized murder.
If he actually did it, he should rot in jail like any other murderer. If it can be proven that he didn’t, he didn’t he should walk free. That’s how it should be. That is how civilized people work.
And the people that think he should walk even if he did kill a man- just because of who that man is, they have become the very thing they hate.
If only they would take a moment to understand this.
If he actually did it, he should rot in jail like any other murderer. If it can be proven that he didn’t, he didn’t he should walk free. That’s how it should be. That is how civilized people work.
I think you got it a little mixed up. The state needs to have it proven that he did in fact commit that murder, and not leave any doubt about it. It’s really not his job to prove anything, let alone that you can’t prove innocence in a lot of cases.
Either way it doesn’t matter. The point is- if it is proven that he did it, he should rot. If it is found that he didn’t, he should walk.
That’s how a justice system is supposed to work.
We don’t decide who’s guilty or not based on how we feel about the victim.
By your very own argument, you are highlighting the important part that you are missing. What if the justice system finds out it doesn’t know. Justice is not boolean.
IF HE DID IT, HE SHOULD ROT. IF HE DIDN’T, HE SHOULD WALK.
Does every concept of every idea need to be explained around here? It’s a given in the above statement that if he can’t be found guilty- he should walk. Why does this need to be argued?
My fucking god people need everything spelled out around here. For fuck’s sake.
If the state can prove that he undoubtedly did it, he should be punished.
If the state’s case is weak enough to leave some lingering doubts, he should walk.
The defense doesn’t have to prove anything. Their job is to cast doubt on whatever the state claims.
That’s how our justice system works.
Either way it doesn’t matter. If he did it, he should rot. If he didn’t- He should walk.
Why is this difficult for you to understand.
Kyle Rittenhouse has entered the chat.
So from-
We don’t decide who’s guilty or not based on how we feel about the victim.
Your take is that I’m Rittenhouse.
LOL…
Solidarity aside, whenever you are arraigned, any lawyer worth their salt will advise you to plead not guilty, because entering a guilty plea means it’s over, move on to sentencing, where you have no leverage at all.
You can always change a not guilty plea to a guilty plea later, if a plea deal offered by the prosecution is acceptable to you. This is especially relevant in a case where the death penalty is on the table, but also applies to the possibility of reduced charges or penalties in any case.
I’ll also add that this case could well end up with an Alford plea. In short, where the defendant asserts innocence, does not admit to the criminal act, but accepts the sentence because they believe that a jury would find them guilty based on the evidence. Again, this is definitely related to a case where the death penalty is on the table.
I’d be very disappointed in any jury who found him guilty
Having been on a jury,
People are dumb and have no empathy
Having been on a juryPeople are dumb and have no empathy
I was on a grand jury some years ago in NYC. It really did a number on my faith in people and the legal system.
Now, a grand jury is different than a regular (petit) jury in a few key ways. First, you only need simple majority to move forward with an indictment. You can’t 12-angry-men hang a grand jury. Second, as I learned later, even if you do convince a majority to not indict, the prosecutor can just try again. So all those times the police didn’t get indicted for murder and the prosecutor just gave up? They could have tried again. They didn’t, because they didn’t want to.
All of that said, the cases were largely about drugs. People selling weed and heroin and the like. No violence. I suggested to the jury that we maybe just say no, and don’t ruin people’s lives over marijuana. You don’t have to show your work. You can just say whatever. The whole rest of the jury was like “are you insane?” Some of them were just anti-drug, full stop no context. Some of them were like “We have to do what they tell us” very obedient. Some of them just wanted to go home, and thought an indictment would be the fastest way.
They all voted to indict on every charge. The guy who was sleeping, and the lawyers and cops laughed at him snoring, also voted to indict.
I asked the little old white lady sitting behind me a hypothetical. I asked if she was on a jury in the 60s, and the charge was a black man eating at an all white’s diner, if she would indict. She was like, “Hmmm maybe.”
I tried. One of the cases the cops said they found a gun in the man’s house, so they charged him with intent to use it in a violent crime, or something. I was like, they didn’t even try to prove it was his or that he was going to use it. Everyone voted to indict. I’m just like, why do you have to make it easier for the police?
People might not have empathy, but even less people are going to want to side with an insurance company
also heard the smart ones get out of jury duty. i had a former colleague in an old job said she was chosen because she wouldnt speak for herself.
Realistically they’ll try arrange one that will. They’re going to try secure a guilty verdict by any means necessary to make an example out of him.
That would be the worst thing for them to do, but they’re not the brightest.
Ideally, a jury’s responsibility is to weigh the evidence and find whether the evidence supports a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
There has been no jury selection yet, let alone presentation of evidence. I would guess that any jury nullification would depend on a defense tactic of “Yes, my client committed this act, and his motive was to prevent UHC from directly causing the deaths of their customers by refusing to honor legitimate claims or by delaying payment of claims.” There might be something there, especially since UHC changed its stance on something (I forget exactly what right now) in the wake of their CEO being killed.
But that would be a really difficult defense to mount. You’d basically be admitting to the act and hoping that at least one person on the jury would A) agree with your defense, and B) be willing to hold out over it, and C) not be replaced by an alternate for “failure to follow jury instructions” or some such thing.
Again, since a jury has not even been selected, I won’t speculate on what evidence gets presented and what evidence (if any) ends up being excluded. By extension, I cannot agree with your above comment.
Please note that I am also not saying “He’s guilty, he should hang”, because that would also entail speculating on evidence.
They don’t have to say outright that the guy was scum and got what he deserved, just question why the federal charges are being brought while there’s a state case and ask questions about how many other people would have a good reason to want this health insurance executive dead. You can introduce the message without abandoning all other defense and saying it explicitly.
“The man who saves his country breaks no laws” isn’t that right DoJ?
They’ll find 12 angry rich white women and its over for him. You know it, I know it. Dude martyrd himself from the beginning and I bet he knew it
they will more than likely choose 12 retirees, and people that dont read the news that much plus any pushovers. thats how they choose these are the most easily manipulated juror types out there. ive been in different forums about juror duties, its almost always these people.
on reddit people speculated they will probably choose one where thier own insurance hasnt screwed them over, so it creates a bias for the prosecution.
The problem is he definitely killed the guy. In a sane world the defense would walk in, state directly to the jury “jury nullification is a thing”, and that would be the end of it.
They have engineered a system where the only recourse the common man has is violence, and I have no qualms about saying this CEO, like many others, deserved to die.
Prosecutor: Could you find defendant guilty?
Potential juror: I could.
Narrator: They couldn’t.
I don’t think jury nullification will be needed. I legit think that Luigi didn’t do it. Meaning a simple acquittal is all what is needed.
As for the real killer? I hope he lives a long and quiet life.
This is 100% the approach I’m betting the defense will take. “Yeah he did it but he deserved it” would be a great story but an absolute dipshit defense to take. Court of law is separate from court of public opinion, and unless they can prove he did it without reasonable doubt then not guilty is the way to go.
Flushing a toilet isn’t a crime.
“He who saves his country commits no crime “
Watch out, fascists love that motto
If the eyebrows don’t fit, you must acquit.
World needs fewer Elons and more Luigis
The world needs no Elons at all
Without the elons there likely would be no luigis
We’d still have Luigi, he’d just be doing more QA work for Civ or going surfing instead of being dragged around for this show trial.
I didn’t necessarily mean Luigi himself 😉
But that’s also true
I believe him.
He couldn’t have done it! He was having a couple beers with me at the time that CEO died
I remember that night! He was buying rounds for the whole bar, what a great guy!
I was at that bar too, great guy. I’ll testify under oath.
Yo, guy… Did you kill that CEO?
We all killed that
CEOleech, on this blessed day
Good, honestly we don’t even know if he’s the person who did the crime.
yay!
Free Luigi, he did it and I stand with him.
Where’s your evidence he is guilty?
*If
Luigi Mangione is a hero of the people.
Nah he was just framed as one
For no reason at all.
