- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s like asking us to feel bad that Osama Bin Laden was killed. Or that Charles Manson died. Why are they trying to generate sympathy for a serial killer? Deciding on who does and doesn’t get health care makes you just as much a murderer as Mangione. So why should I care?
Now is a good time for all Americans to learn about Juror Nullification
Knowing about Horror Nullification makes you ineligible to be on Jury Duty
Good.
Everyone simply knows he is not guilty.
He’s 100% guilty. He crossed state lines to stalk and shoot his victim dead. He even wrote a mini manifesto where he admitted the crime.
The issue is that his victim was a piece of shit and so there is a great deal of sympathy with the killer who appears to have suffered his own health issues. It must be hard to find jurors who haven’t been personally negatively impacted by United Health or else know someone who has.
That means in a jury of 12 it might be impossible to ensure the verdict is unanimous. I am sure the defence will also try to make the trial about private health insurance and will be leaning hard into things like the victim and his company’s culpability in so much pain, suffering & death.
So far we have not seen any evidence of his guilt. We have opened an investigation with the IDF to check whether he is guilty and we will come back to that in the future.
He was literally caught with a written confession.
To the Feds, I’ll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.
That is something we will discuss with the Israeli government and we will get back to you. In the mean time we cannot draw any conclusions.
WTF does Israel have to do with it?
Watch this 5 minute video to get the joke https://youtu.be/dHn-3TOeXx0
Everything!
liable* guilty is reserved for criminal cases and killing parasites isn’t a crime.
Eveyone is the parasite of someone else. Think of it before spitting nazi shit next time.
Nah, he’s guilty, but I wouldn’t convict him.
Don’t know what you’re talking about. They clearly have the wrong guy.
Just some other random guy with weapons and a manifesto admitting to killing a health exec
He’s pleading not guilty, claiming that the cops planted that shit.
And the cops routinely lie and plant evidence, so it’s not out of the question.
If the cops did indeed plant evidence then happy days for the defence since it should be easy to disprove. e.g. by simple handwriting analysis or other such means. But this is fantasy wishful thinking since he did write the words. So stick to the reality here. He shot the guy and confessed to it. Lord knows what else he said during interviews with the cops but probably lots. His defense team will attempt to disqualify evidence and diminish his culpability while transforming the trial into one about private health care. They only need one not guilty and that’s what they’ll do their best to achieve.
Know what?
I’m thinking you might be right. Walking that confidently? The show of police presence? The assuredness of the police? The publicly shared evidence? A guy that kinda fits the profile?
He’s also a smart dude. He sees this for what it is. He also probably understands that regardless of what happens, the public will probably obtain justice.
We’re all furious with the state of things. We’re furious over the lack of police accountability, the laws for the poor and not the elite. We’re furious that they can look at what health insurance can do to make profit, and let it be completely legal to let people die.
It doesn’t matter if he did or did not do the crime at this point. The elite showed their hand too early, the public is calling it. He’s probably scared shitless, but he knows. He knows that regardless of what the outcome is, the people have rallied to him. He knows they can’t risk making him a martyr, and an acquittal would be devastating. The entire Spirit of the Constitution (regardless of it’s interpretation by the Supreme Court) and the people is behind him.
He knows justice is coming.
That’s what I said as soon as they nabbed Luigi. Does not look like the original shooters profile.
Guilty of what? Caring too much?
Murder is murder no matter how much the victim had it coming.
The word murder has a specific meaning in law: The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Given that the whole point of the act was that the CEO and his company were indifferent to human life, one could argue that the shooter valued the life and dignity of his fellow beings far more than his target. Furthermore, the tens of thousands of deaths attributed to the vile strategies of this company in particular would seem to offer a very significant justification and excuse. Of course, malice aforethought is inherent to an assassination, so I guess they have him there.
In the end, though, the jury will be under no legal obligation to follow the law and could choose to find him not guilty if they agree with his reasons for acting.
I agree, its entirely possible that a jury may find his act of killing justified.
I wonder why
It’s never “so much sympathy” for a killer cop, or genocide, but one CEO is just a step too far.
i love every bit of this
The mediua likes to downplay that the CEO had straight up killed people. Eye for an eye applies. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice to find Luigi guilty.
Luigi was not justified in the murder. If someone with a loved one endangered by UHCs policies enacted by Brian Thompson had killed him, I’d be much more conflicted. But as it stands, Luigi is just some spoiled poser who decided to try and disguise his mental illness and violent urges as internet radicalization. He’s a poser, using the proletariat’s suffering as a cloak behind which he can hide his own twisted fantasies.
👅 🥾
“poser” will balls that could make you incompatible with life, Mr armchair quarterback.
said the keyboard warrior. lmfao
Read this guy’s post history before you engage with it. Looks like a shit stirring masterpiece.
thank you. trolling is an art.
Lololol. Smol pp energy there champ … Good luck with incel life. I’m going to block you now. Have a lovely holiday.
“waaaaa, bad man not say nice things! me have last word and blok mwahaha” violently masturbates
Jesus, that guy has issues…
Probably some kid in his room who yells at his mother. Real incel vibes. Now the little shit is blocked and he can kiss my backside.
Me or Luigi? I guess it doesn’t matter because technically both have issues.
Sure thing, bootlicker.
Poser? He actually fucking did something. What have you achieved?
I’m not going to prison for life, for starters.
They will try Luigi until it sticks. It’s critical to the powerful that they send the message they are beyond reproach.
Which is exactly why people like Luigi resort to the actions he took. It can never be undone no matter what they do to him afterwards.
I’m sad I won’t get picked for the jury. I’d refuse to convict on all counts. If Trump gets no punishment for literally anything this dude should get no punishment for fighting back against an absolutely broken system. Honestly, I don’t view his actions to be something to cause a public backlash. The prosecution is what will cause the public backlash, imo.
That’s not really how jury’s work though.
You’re not there to dispense justice. You’re there to decide whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against him.
Someone will be along in a moment to tell us all about Jury Nullification, a refusal to find the defendant guilty on the grounds that it would be unjust, despite the defendant’s obvious guilt.
This pretty much reduces the court process to a popularity contest - how does the jury “feel” about the defendant, what are the “vibes” of the circumstances before them.
Jurors determine guilt, and judges determine punishments. The separation of these concerns is the best way we have found to mitigate corruption since the advent of written laws. The outcome of a specific case may be unjust, but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.
but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.
Lol…phew…omg…phew. Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh today.
The US justice system is easily one of the most corrupt in history at this point. It’s honestly kind of disturbing someone can make a statement like that with a straight face.
and how exactly is a jury deciding about someone’s fate not already a popularity contest?
Dude your last sentence was the cherry garnish in a big cup of government Kool aid.
A just system wouldn’t have 98% of its convictions arriving out of plea deals.
A just system wouldn’t jail a dude for stealing bread from a company that steals money from all of its employees. Employees that are already so underpaid, that they qualify for food stamps, that largely get spent at the same damn company.
I never said the system was just.
Merely pointing out that separating the finding of guilt from the determination of punishment is the best way we have to mitigate corruption.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better system.
60,000 Americans die every year because of the insurance industry, but how many oligarchs were brought to justice? How many oligarchs were arrested for raping children on Epstein’s island? How many oligarchs were arrested for funding Israel’s genocide of Gaza? How many oligarchs were arrested for the massive tax evasion revealed from the Panama papers???
Justice that only punches down is not justice. If our system will not hold the wealthy accountable for their crimes against humanity then our system is utterly rotten
Everything you said is true, but it doesn’t really contradict my point.
The current system is terrible, but it’s better than having a jury of laypeople make up the law based on the vibe of the case.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better judicial system.
A better judicial system, one where it implicitly illegal for those with money to receive preferential treatment. And one where victimless crimes built on abstract ideals of abstinence only moralism dont ruin the lives of marginalized people while wealthy privileged individuals engage in these same behaviors with impunity, and one where qualified immunity isn’t grossly abused to avoid consequence for a militarized police force and portray a fantasy image tjat police generally always have a pristine moral compass and aren’t just flawed human beings with a propensity to abuse their power in a system with so many unjust laws that are designed to favor those with privilege and wealth.
How about just that for starters and i will get back to you for any further improvements.
This sounds like a very just system but how can it be achieved? How would you restructure the existing system to achieve these outcomes?
The comment I originally responded to suggested that juries could just dispense justice based on the vibe of the case before them. IMO such a system would be more or less guaranteed to fail to produce any of the outcomes on your list.
Maybe they should fix the justice system if they want juries to actually act like they’re intended to.
But they won’t, billionaires, CEOs, business execs, and other parasites will continue to do what they like and harm who they like with a slap on the wrist at most.
Who is “they” and how might they “fix” the justice system ?
More than half of American voters just chose to subvert the already ineffective legal system, to install a corrupt felon as dictator.
Are you proposing that allowing a jury of peers drawn from this public ought to be able to make up the law based on the vibe of cases before them ?
Who is “they” and how might they “fix” the justice system ?
The oligarchs that own the country.
Are you proposing that allowing a jury of peers drawn from this public ought to be able to make up the law based on the vibe of cases before them ?
I’m proposing that the inherent protections the judicial system gives people be used to protect Luigi.
Justice is dead so long as billionaires can cause immeasurable death and suffering without repercussions.
You’re operating under the incorrect assumption that the public can control the law.
If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.
inherent protections the judicial system gives people
Like the right to an attorney? Sure.
Jury nullification is not an “intentional feature” of the justice process. It’s corruption.
I said inherent, not intentional.
And it’s not inherently corrupt. It can be used as a check against immoral law, or it can be used to refuse justice to just law. It’s entirely based on the case it’s used in.
They will make it slow so they can twist the knife they shove into the publics stomach to keep everyone too scared to act. Government repression is the first cousin of terrorism, and Israel has innovated this year in making repression and racist terrorism cool again.
You think?
I’d think they’d want to push him off the front page first. Then push him out a window later.
Oh, so like when it goes the other way and the public decides someone is guilty long before they go to trial and prosecutors go after him anyway.
Big deal. The jury will decide one way or another and I will be very surprised that the highest charges will stick if they get normal people on the bench.
The fact that this guy had a manhunt out for him when people are murdered every day and nearly no resources are used at all to go after them is astounding. Just shows the law is there for the rich, not the rest of us.
There was another school shooting this week, i think that’s the 80th this year and people don’t seem to care. Why would anyone care about some parasite millionaire when innocent kids are gunned down everyday and that’s just the way it is.
327th this year, according to https://k12ssdb.org/all-shootings
Wow, this is stunning data. People just lost their minds in the pandemic.
80, 327 same thing; at the end of the day these kids aren’t creating any jobs or producing any value for the share holders. So are they really even people?
Good.
That’s the jury working exactly they way it should
Right, not sure what they’re complaining about.
They’re just going to keep going through jury pools until they can find enough bootlickers, which seems to be the antithesis of the “jury of your peers” system.
His peers find his actions justifiable. The rich can get over it.
Jurors have to be approved by both the defense and the prosecution. They will not get a 100% bootlicker jury
On this particular case they will find a way. A little nudge here, a few background checks moved to the top of the queue there. I think the way it works is that lawyers have only so many chances to reject a jury candidate and then they run out of rejections. Thats what I saw on TV anyway.
No. Again, either the prosecutor or the defense can reject any juror
I agree, but isnt it true that either side only gets the opportunity to reject so many candidates before they lose the option to reject? They cant just keep on rejecting forever right?
There is no rule, only a judge that may get annoyed
I think we’re each half right, theres some nuance. I finally goiogled it like I should have from the start. Heres a law office talking about it in New York:
Juror 1: It wasn’t him. I know it in my heart…because I’ve had congenital heart disease my whole life, so I’m acutely aware of how my heart is feeling at all times. Like when my insurance company raised my premiums, I felt that in my heart. I feel this verdict in my heart, too.
Juror 2: At first, I thought it was him, but then I didn’t. Something about it made me change my mind. He just looks like a highly principled person. The media owes this man an apology.
Juror 3: This reminds me of the time I went to the ER with a severe migraine, and the insurance company denied payment for the visit because there was no proof that I had a migraine and said it could have been anxiety, which wasn’t covered in my plan. Maybe this wasn’t murder. Maybe this was assault. I guess we’ll never know now.
Juror 4: The prosecution made a good case, but the defense made one very good point: the victim has a long history of gaslighting vulnerable people. It made it hard to trust them.
Juror 5: I think it was a cover up. Maybe the “victim” killed himself and wanted to make it look like a murder so his family would get the insurance money. They seemed to know a lot about insurance loopholes and tactics.
Juror 6: I feel for the victim, but I think that considering the charges, they need a second opinion…Oh, the law states that someone can’t be tried for the same crime twice? If they think that is unjust, they could work with government to come up with a better system then. Though it is going to be a tough battle to repeal the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution since they will need approval from 38 states, but maybe they have the public’s sympathy.
Juror 7: I’m glad this trial is over. I need to get to the home to take care of my wife with cancer. The insurance company keeps giving me trouble, and she’s too weak to fight it.
Juror 8: Did you know that the defendant hadn’t even met the victim once. Who targets a random stranger for no reason at all? The prosecution wasn’t able to make a case defining the motive of the defendant.
Juror 9: In my experience, you have to be careful with insurance companies. You can never trust them. The prosecution was working for an insurance company, so it was hard to believe anything they presented.
Juror 10: As a family practice doctor, I have to deal with insurance companies that lie about denials all the time, so I can tell when they are lying, and I think they were lying in the trial.
Juror 11: NOT GUILTY. The defendant seemed to be defending others from death or serious bodily injury, which is legal according to New York Penal Law 35.15.
Juror 12: The defense made a good point. The victim had told his doctor that he smoked a cigarette once in college, and I heard that smoking cigarettes can lead to poor health. Maybe the victim would have survived if he hadn’t smoked before. We have to consider that.
There’s a McDonald’s worker able to be jury. Oh wait, he didn’t get the reward money as his claim got denied for bullshit reasons, just like insurance… Never mind.
I understand that she can only get the money if he gets convicted. They’ll probably still find some other excuse not to pay her, but still - I argue that’s a pretty big bias that should disqualify her from jurying.
Is there a source for this? Last time I heard about it, it turned out to be just a ”possibly, maybe, it could be denied”, but nothing was decided yet.
So, the reports say “might not get it” Like this report but in almost all cases reward money isn’t paid. In this case I’d think he has somewhat of a chance to get it due to public pressure, now that it’s in the media. But in most cases it is denied because of bullshit reasons. “Thanks to your tip we were able to catch the guy, but through other sources we would have found him as well, so, no” or “multiple agencies offered reward money, so they both say the other one should pay up, so none pay up” or “you didn’t follow the right procedures to get the money” or any other bullshit reason to deny payout. Often you’d have to prove you were the sole reason the person got caught, while you don’t have access to restricted case files so good luck with that.
It basically works like the health insurance system in the US. They will do anything they can to reject your claim while you will have to fight to get what you should.
Fun fact: radio stations do the same. They offer amazing prices, get loads of people to listen ‘to find the hidden clue’, have them call an expensive phone number. They pick a winner, have them on the air over the phone, everyone hears how happy they are by winning, so people will try to compete next time again. But they never get a price. Because, no one will hear they didn’t get any. Or at least, this used to be so, now with social media it’s harder to hide these shady tactics.
Not just radio stations by the way, This was recently.
Got no doubts about what you stated (also a huge wtf to that basketball charity fuckup) but I’m still convinced the snitch will get her money just as Lugi will be convicted for terrorism, although the commenter above, in his epic joury-comment wrote that the double-conviction wasn’t allowed under the state law. If it isn’t FBI or the police who pays her then it will be the some other CEOs. Maybe on a charity event.
No one cares whether the snitch will get their money. All eyes will be on the court case. And she it comes to money, everything will be done to deny a payout. It’s how big corps and the government work. Whenever there’s a desk approving a payout, there will be a desk above it questioning it and putting it on hold, finding ways to drown it in paperwork. Spending money means someone will be held responsible for losing funds, which means someone will have a bad rep concerning their career so no one wants to work towards a payout. Capitalism thrives around reducing spendings and increasing profits. That’s a major flaw of capitalism. Investing in the future, the general public or the greater good are not part of the equation.
This is the best answer ive seen thus far. Ive just being saying all sources reporting he isn’t being paid are sourcing their info from a game of telephone origination from articles speculating he might not be paid. This is much better written though thanks!
he called the wrong number to report it. u have to call a special crimenow number
Hahahaha, the corporate shill got shafted. Rip bozo, maybe you learned something.
“yeah, thank you for the golden tip, we caught the guy thanks to you. But you snitched, and we do not endorse that (with all the whistle lowers lately) so we’re not going to reward your behavior by paying you to show people it’s better to keep your mouth shut… Or we will shut it for you (again, like with all the whistle blowers). Snitches get stitches!”
Both teams will be given an opportunity to eliminate potential jurors they believe are too sympathetic to the one side or the other.
Good luck with that, you can only weed out a limited number, and there’s a fucking lot of us.
Working as intended, jury of his peers not some mindless robots.
