Excerpt:
Prosecutors highlighted “about $10,000 — $8,000 in U.S. dollars and then $2,000 in foreign currency that was found on his person,” CNN correspondent Danny Freeman said following the court hearing.
“Also they said that he had a Faraday bag,” which blocks cell signals, a move that prosecutors alleged marked “an indication of criminal sophistication and reason they should hold him on bail,” Freeman continued.
After prosecutors made the claims, Mangione said he would like to “correct two things.”
“I don’t know where any of that money came from — I’m not sure if it was planted. And also, that bag was waterproof, so I don’t know about criminal sophistication,” the suspect said in a statement that suggested police framed him.
So alls they got is a faraday bag, he likes playing computer games, and a recently used gun? Oh yeah…hundred percent this is the guy.
/s
My Christmas cookies from Costco come in a Faraday Cage… I’m so criminal right now!
The more they keep fuxking with the facts, the more this makes sense.
I just hope tomorrow a video alibi comes out of him jerking off on camera in Philly at 7am that Wednesday
The whole character will crumble and the working class will see what they really do to us.
Jerking off in front of a street camera at 7am on a Wednesday does sound like a Philly activity.
“The Gang Cranks One Out”
“The gang executes a CEO”
Remind me to backdate an OnlyFans broadcast as an alaby for my next crime. This is great, thanks
deleted by creator
Luigi needs to shut the everloving fark up and let his lawyer do the talking for him. The cops are trolling him with fake evidence and he’s falling for it.
“The gun WASN’T a 32 caliber, it was a 22 rimfire!” etc, etc.
While this is generally good advice, it doesn’t apply to public spectacle.
There’s countless cases in the US where public pressure forced the government to drop charges or at least reduce sentences.
This guy has support from 99% of the people. Keeping that support is important to his defense.
This is the correct answer. If you are arrested by police for ANY REASON, the only word in your vocabulary is now “lawyer”. Remember kids, anything you say or do will be used against you.
“I invoke my right to remain silent and have a lawyer.”
It sucks, but sometimes you have to explicitly state you are exercising your rights. Just staying silent doesn’t mean they won’t stop pestering you with questions. Make it clear and concise that that you are demanding your lawyer be present and any further questioning done should be in violation of that right. But you have to make it clear you are invoking it.
Not sometimes, but ALWAYS state that you are invoking your right to remain silent.
Doesn’t matter if it’s one of the states that presumes you are invoking your right, because you might be the court case that decides otherwise this time.
Glad to see this here. In many jurisdictions, if the law doesn’t say it previous rulings do: you must invoke the rights to silence and to counsel.
It sucks but plenty of judges want to give the police every chance they can get, like those dickheads who OK’d forcing people to unlock their phones because “you already gave police your fingerprint”.
I think he wants to go to prison, why else be so sloppy in the final stretch?
Unless the gun was in the backpack Muad’dib ditched, and the cops just chose a random guy to scapegoat with the evidence they hid.
the NYPD are lying about everything. Luigi seems like a cool dude but he’s not the shooter.
Yeah, prosecutors are really trying to smear this guy to look dangerous. Try harder. An RF-blocking bag is just to prevent theft, hacking and protect privacy. I’m a bit confident he’s the guy but I can’t say beyond a reasonable doubt given the circumstances and how the police are incentivised to frame anyone.
Since news reports keep jumping around between a McDonald’s customer and a McDonald’s employee offering the tip, every inconsistency will only bolster this guy’s case. I can make guesses that this guy wanted to get caught or was a little sloppy, but if he says otherwise then finding everything including the gun is a little suspicious. Get him the best lawyer in the biz, I’m sure crowdfunding will cover it many times over.
I’m sure someone would do it Pro bono.
I’m sure crowdfunding will cover it many times over
I could be OOTL, but I’m a bit puzzled this isn’t happening at a massive scale given the overwhelming support. Anybody got his official Crowd Funding page or whatever you kids use these days?
The usual platforms have been racing to remove any crowdfunding pages for him.
I still don’t understand how there can be any question, they caught him writing his memoir “How i totally killed that guy and why” by Luigi Mangione (an autographed copy). Open and shut case
If the police did this, that’s not surprising, but they are really stupid.
This case is going to be under a microscope like an inverted OJ trial, and every bit of police misconduct is ammunition for his lawyers
Imagine the uproar if this guy gets away on a technicality… it would be a national celebration, lol.
Yeah if he gets convicted, many court houses and police stations will get burned down
Imagine the uproar if this guy gets away on a technicality
Stop it, don’t get my hopes up! 🤞
A computer programmer with a common cyber security countermeasure you can buy on Amazon indicates criminal sophistication?
Sure Jan.
I don’t believe this guy is guilty. He doesn’t even look like the guy in the photo, whose jacket isn’t even the same color as the shooter, not that it even means anything. That shit’s mass produced just like almost everything else.
I’ve got a Faraday bag and foreign currency as well lol
A lot of people on all platforms trying to explain why he kept his gun, why he was caught so easily, and most coming up with easy explanations that fit their conspiracy theories.
The simple explanation is, he might be smarter than most, but maybe not enough to outsmart the whole NYPD police department. Maybe he kept his gun because he didn’t want to leave a trace. Maybe he wanted to get caught peacefully in a McD rather than dying in a shooting.
Also, to those who still don’t believe he’s the killer: he is. Police don’t go capture a random dude and then plant every evidence on him “because they need a scapegoat”. There’s a whole judicial process that goes on after the arrest, and if he’s found not to be the killer, the police will have to go back to square one on a cold trail. They usually don’t want that.
Of course the police plant evidence on people. There’s plenty of evidence of that occurring.
I know they do, but they usually keep it somewhat subtle because the goal is to reinforce the bad guy image of someone they already know is guilty (but can’t prove). Planting the main piece of evidence such as a gun is risky.
Police don’t go capture a random dude and then plant every evidence on him “because they need a scapegoat"
Yikes, how cringe. And in the most public way possible. Hope you recover from this huge mistake someday soon.
Don’t worry. Just like every other bootlicker on the Internet, the PTB have seen their loyalty, and shall lift them on high to live out their halcyon days in Valhalla.
Well I guess that’ll teach me to try to have a rational and respectful discussion with a random stranger on the internet.
Calm down, smoke a bowl, read books on critical thinking and question the narrative even when if fits your worldview.
Also, to those who still don’t believe he’s the killer: he is. Police don’t go capture a random dude and then plant every evidence on him “because they need a scapegoat”.
How long have you lived in America? Have you ever heard of the Innocence Project? I mean we literally just executed a black man in Sept that was very likely innocent of the crime he was convicted of. Even the prosecutor wanted to stop the execution.
How is this related to the police planting evidence on suspects?
You’re questioning how innocent people being imprisoned or executed is related to false evidence? OK, here one that’s specific to planting evidence.
I like the example you chose because the facts reported support what I’m saying: eventually, if cops get too comfy planting evidence everywhere, someone down the line is going to notice and the judge will dismiss the case.
Jesus fuck, this is what Disney did to people’s minds. You’ll believe anything, as long as it ends with “…and they all lived happy ever after.”
Police don’t go capture a random dude and then plant every evidence on him “because they need a scapegoat”.
Google: Robert Lee Stinson
Some dude got convicted of nothing but a “teeth mark” psudoscience BS.
That was a low-profile case. This is a high-profile case, which has higher incentives to find a scapegoat.
High-profile case also means more scrutiny from everyone, which means there’s a bigger risk someone finds out what they did.
He DID outsmart the whole NYPD. The only reason he was caught was a couple of randos in a Pennsylvania McDonalds.
Remember this bit from the Mayor?
"When asked by a reporter if police had the suspect’s name, Adams said, “We don’t want to release that now. If you do, you’re basically giving a tip to the person we are fine with seeking, and we do not want to give him an upper hand at all. Let him continue to believe he can hide behind a mask.” "
Yeah, turns out, they had no clue.
Police don’t go capture a random dude and then plant every evidence on him “because they need a scapegoat”.
Hahaha oh man i needed a good laugh today. https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/4692-cops-planting-evidence.
You have entirely all too much faith in the US policing system and the sheer amount of money pressure bearing down on it at this very second to make an example out of this man.
From the article:
Although a host of eyewitness accounts and video camera footage recorded Mangione’s movements before and after Thompson was killed in New York City on Wednesday, police said they were unable to locate him until a McDonald’s employee identified the suspect at a Pennsylvania franchise nearly a week later.
They should have said “the suspect’s movements” or “the shooter’s movements”. Not “Mangione’s movements”. They are already presuming guilt by saying it was Mangione who was recorded. Newspapers used to be careful about doing this. I think they can be sued for defamation for this, can’t they?
It seems kinda grey because they’re not saying he committed a crime they are saying that he was in certain camera frames and the police were looking for him. If the police announced a name then the news would be reporting fact. The camera bit could be debatable I think. If they were speaking more about the actions of the crime they’d have to alledge, which they did alledge about his “type” of bookbag.
I could be wrong I just found your comment interesting.
Yeah but by stating as a fact that it was Mangione who was witnessed and recorded they are stating as a fact that he is the killer, which we don’t know yet. That is-- or used to be – a big no no in reporting. But times have changed. Here is a link I found explaining how they are probably opening themselves up to a libel charge with this kind of language.
I think they’re saying it definitely was Mangione who was recorded at the hotel, which if he was checking in/out is pretty easy to prove. From there they lost track of him because they didn’t know his route or he just didn’t show up on any other cameras.
I agree that the wording is likely intentional to imply guilt, but is loose enough that they could claim that isn’t what they were doing.
Maybe Luigi can sue them with all the money people on GoFundMe are desperate to give him.
I mean, if they want to go and taint every potential juror in the country they can go for it.
It’s an American newspaper, so it’s up to the victim. Canada and EU have much stricter rules.
Fuck Chomsky.
Curious as to why you think this?
I’ve heard he’s a meany, but that’s all I know
They said with no support…
Are you the CEO of a news corporation, bud?
He took Russia’s side in their invasion of Ukraine, which I don’t agree with, but truth if truth wnd he accurately describes how the media sways public opinion without outright lying.
Can you back up that claim with a link?
I only read Chomsky saying:
- Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a crime.
- The US + Britain have committed far worse atrocities in war (e.g. Iraq, Lebanon, Indochina) than Russia in Ukraine.
- It would be better to attempt de-escalation of the Russia-Ukraine war than to strengthen NATO and continue a proxy war with Russia.
I mean, by your own comment, those aren’t great things. 2 is a whataboutism and 3 is the same as giving concessions to the Nazis and lead to WWII. Concessions have already been given to Russia in regards to their previous invasions of Georgia and Crimea. Give an inch and they’ll take a mile.
Regardless of Chomsky’s stance on Russia and NATO though, he still describes media manipulation acutely. He just has a huge blind spot for when Russia is doing it
NATO has expanded significantly towards Russia since the SU fell. No nation would be fine with this. Imagine if China started a “defense agreement” with latin American countries. What do you think the US reaction would be to Mexico joining in? Or for a more real and historic example have a look at the Cuban missile crisis.
This does not justify Putins invasion, but comparing this to the appeasement politics towards Hitler doesn’t work, as Hitler wasn’t threatened by British and American troops stationed in Czechoslovakia or Austria.
For a bettet explanation i highly recommend watching some talks of John Mearsheimer, who forsaw a war in Eastern Europe as the result of the security architecture built by the US in the 90s and 2000s.
I don’t think it’s fair to say 2 is strictly whataboutism, because Chomsky has a founded fear that strengthening NATO as a military power through conflict escalation will lead to worse outcomes in the long run. That’s why it’s relevant to point out NATO war crimes.
As for 3, that’s a fair point, and I would press Chomsky to provide an option for de-escalation that doesn’t involve allowing Russia to keep any Ukrainian soil.
Sure, but I think you’d understand that I can’t just take pure speculation though. Could you please source your claim so I can consider what you’re saying when you say he “took Russia’s side”.
Would also be curious of the state he was in while saying that if true, as he’s nearly 100 years old at this point if I recall? Even our heroes get frail and wither, not necessarily representative of their true core positions.
Was it an employee or a bystander/customer? I’m confused.
Ah yes, Sacco and Vanzetti for the modern age.
Well this is Luigi, and I hope the next guy to assassinate a CEO is named Mario.
