As a British lad, I’ve been keeping tabs on the news about this guy and the wide support he’s getting.
With so much support, surely the public will get him out of jail just to spite the bastard rich kids and their CEO baron fathers?
The Man who was shot allowed a massive corporation to dangle its strings over people’s lives, medication being pulled away which is horrifying to me who uses the NHS as my primary medical service for hearing.
What do you think? Will Luigi “The CEO Reaper” Mangione ever get out of prison?
Politics aside. The court is not going to grant bail to anyone accused of first degree murder who is a flight risk. And given the current narrative seems to be that he shot a man in NYC and was found several states away I’d say they’d consider him a flight risk.
Thank @samus12345@lem.ee who replied elsewhere:
https://toure.substack.com/p/new-reporting-luigis-hair-is-a-sign
Last I read, he has not requested bail. They wouldn’t let him out, anyway, and he’s smart enough that he knows it–he attacked the ruling class and they want to make an example of him.
I think you mean to say he allegedly attacked the ruling class. That whole pesky innocent until proven guilty thing, it’s so irritating.
The has yet to prove their case, all we got so far is some vague suggestions of evidence and heavy media narrative weaving
I’m fairly certain they set his charges without bail. If so it means no amount of money would allow him out. (For the time until his court cases)
If I’m wrong about that, please let me know someone… Because that’s what I always thought without bail meant
I was half asleep I read Luigi’s mansion.
Luigi’s Mansion: Bailout
The US is an oligarchy. Your worth as a human is directly tied to your monetary worth, starting at $1M. So no.
But, his family is worth over a 100 million
Deff owner class but the owner class calling the shots here tbh.
Luigi went straight for the king makers here
Making bail is the least of how concerns in there. He will be lucky if he doesn’t get “Epstein’d”.
If his trial starts going his way, he definitely will.
We do have an wild tradition of suicide in this country when people are causing owner class problems
His haircut and shave are signs the other prisoners are sending to the guards that this man is protected and not to fuck with him.
The only resource I can find about this phenomenon is a threads discussion about Luigi. You wouldn’t happen to have an alternate source, would you?
What?
Interesting piece on that. He might not be “protected,” but he was definitely given special treatment. Most prisoners hate the ruling class even more than the average person for obvious reasons, and even average people are cheering him on.
they better hire someone better than the guy who killed Epstein then. Should they fail enough to leave even a scent of foul play I bet the gates will open to many copycats.
nothing does more for a movement than a martyr.
The working class, no matter how much money they pull together, cannot battle the ruling class in this way. He will not be allowed bail if we even tried
Doubt it very much. Bail is for the rich. An example must be made.
The ruling class doesn’t want him martyred but they want him killed so very much.
My bets are he is given a life sentence with a groomed jury and he is extrajudicially executed in prison by an unknown agent.
groomed jury
Oh you’d be surprised. There’s a lot of people that have the “Murder is Murder” mindset, its not hard to find those and convene a jury.
Those same people conveniently refuse to consider murder with a con (pay us now for Healthcare when you inevitably get sick) and and pen (lol we were lying thanks for all the money go die now) to be murder.
What is your take then?
I think that health insurance companies are predatory and cause deaths. They are terrible, medical support should not be a for-profit market, and their existence is one of many many indicators of how incredibly broken our society often is.
However, I don’t believe individuals should be legally allowed to take matters into their own hands and execute other citizens. Regardless of their reasoning. If this man can execute the CEO of an insurance company because he believes he was wronged by that company, unfortunately the exact same argument can be used for a student to up and execute their university Dean, or a man of one religion can execute the preacher of another.
Citizens can’t choose when and where it is appropriate to kill each other based on their feelings. That’s lawlessness. As much as I hate, and I mean truly hate, these companies and everything they stand for, you can’t have people just getting shot to death by others and still be a civilized society.
“When peaceful revolution become impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable.” -President John F. Kennedy
If the system was fair, bealth insurance executives like Brian Thompson would have been indicted for his role in United Healthcare’s evil practices of arbitrarily denying claims, and would have been convicted and in prison already. There would be new laws passed to regulate health insurance companies.
But in our system, people like him get away with doing evil things, so vigilantism becomes inevitable.
So how do we move forward? I think the Luigi Mangione should face a fair, non-politicized trial, by a jury of his peers. The jury should be informed of their rights, including jury nullification, if they choose so (they currently do not get read that in their jury instructions). Hold the trial, let everyone present their arguments, let Luihi state why he did it (if he choses to speak), then let the jury decide his fate.
But moving forward, the health insurance companies have to be regulated, or we’re getting more vigilantes. Its inevitable.
Lawlessness is better than what we have, laws that serve a couple million at everyone else’s, hundreds of million’s expense with no legal recourse.
We get no say in economic policy or regulation, only the how or if to address some of the social issue symptoms of that economy through our legally bribed parties. Arguing over abortion’s legality instead of why productivity per worker has multiplied while the owner class now demands 2 breadwinners in most cases to survive, which is why most abortions happen, not enough to survive. But we don’t legislate the “free” to die in the streets alone market, so the argument becomes forced births or not. The argument should be to fundamentally change what our economy should be oriented to reward like teachers and nurses, and punish like insatiable, sociopathic, antisocial greed and vocations/investments that hurt society for individual profit.
Our system is already worse than lawlessness, our system is laws made by the wealthy (see ALEC) to extract the very lives from the poor for private profit, that the poor must simply suffer to remain lawful. It is effectively one way lawlessness from above. They can kill you with a dictate to their sycophants to deny more claims while sipping expensive bourbon on a beach, or by ignoring an expensive product safety issue, or by lowering inspection standards to save a buck and poisoning baby formula, and you and/or your baby can die quietly now that they have your money. That’s the law here and now.
Makes lawlessness seem pretty attractive given the current intransigent oligarchy killing us for profit legally…
I disagree that lawlessness is better. Lawlessness is merely a brief period between two political systems. It could be good or bad. You might get fresh Animal Farm revolution, Lord of the Flies, or whatever else. Roll the dice and hope you don’t get snake eyes.
Ok. Just keep in mind that in a system like that, you likely die. I likely die. All of us outside of that “ruling class” suffer way more than they do when people start getting killed.
I think murder is murder but that doesn’t mean that things like self defence aren’t morally justifiable.
Murder is murder in the simple scenario but it gets more complicated when the murderer is not the initial aggressor.
There are many cases where someone killed the person who murdered their loved one, and they still got convicted of murder.
This case would be seen less like revenge killing, more vigilantism. AFAIK, Luigi didn’t have someone close to him that died due to denied insurance claims. This removed the emotional factor unlike if, say, a person killing the murderer of their child to avenge their child’s death. The averge person have less sympathy to vigilantes than, a person who is avenging the death of their loved ones. Also, the bureaucracy and paperwork behind insurance denials obfuscates who is really responsible. People easily understand stabbing, or shooting someone to death, but doesn’t really make the connection of people dying, with the insurance’s claim denials. There’s no blood, no violence, just a calm and “peaceful” pull on people’s life support. It doesn’t trigger the same emotional response as shooting someone in the middle of the street.
what’s funny is that since his motive was based on Brian killing people through executive actions that will come into play for those “murder is murder” people.
If murder is murder, then why wasn’t Brian brought to justice before this unfortunate event? Also, why aren’t his accomplices in UHC not brought to justice today?
He’s still going to jail, he’s going to lose and he knows that…but the case will be streamed and Luigi and his lawyers will pose the message not to the jury, but to the public.
he lost the battle so that we can fight the war.
You got to wait for the trial. Throughout history, but especially this year, we’ve seen many famous trials where the cops blatantly lied about evidence of course in press reports as they often do but also in court on the stand under oath. Just because you heard it doesn’t mean it’s true. Just because someone told you they have evidence of something, doesn’t mean they do.
“Bail Out” Just means “Temporarily let go until court date”. It’s not a “Get out of jail free” card.
It would be a shame if a few people in NYC started posting signs on every corner with a brief description of jury nullification and a QR code with a link to explain it further until the trial is over.
Imagine if this supreme court just goes full fascist and says because NYC people are already biased, therefore, the case can be legally transferred to some rural place in upstate newyork. 🤡
Rural people hate these guys too. The guys at the mill were hopping right on the “fuck them rich assholes” train talking about egg prices last week when I was buying some animal feed.
Personally I would prefer that he get out of jail as soon as he is not considered a risk to society, since that is the only valid justification for prisons. Maybe months, probably years. And then he can consider the evilness and futility of his act.
And for all the people celebrating it here, you might consider your own hypocrisy and outright callousness at defending the indefensible. I still can’t quite get over my shock at the level of hatred and vituperation here. I thought this community would be better than that.
From a person who knew Luigi Mangione, just published in Unherd:
But while thousands reacted on social media with laughter emojis to Thompson’s murder, I was sickened. Vigilantism is always wrong. If you celebrate someone gunning down a defenceless person in the street, then you advocate for a world in which this is an acceptable thing for anyone to do. You advocate for a world in which a stranger can decide that you’re also a bad person, and gun you down in the street. In such a world, I promise you, your health insurance would cost much more.
Replace Thompson with Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.
Our celebratory reaction to Thompson being brought to justice isn’t going to lead to bad things. No, it’s the result of being on the losing end of the world we already inhabit.
Brought to justice? Is this the kind of “justice” you advocate for every transgression or are you making an exception for this one? Who decides what the penalties are? You? What if some other evil CEO committed some other nebulous “crime” but only a bit less serious, what would he deserve? Just a beating in the street? An hour in your personal torture dungeon?
In a civilized society we have institutions that dispense justice. They operate on the principle that a law must be broken first. If you don’t like the law, then you first need to get the law changed. You don’t get to decide unilaterally who gets punished how much and for what.
It’s like Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote about pornography: I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it. It was 100% warranted in this case.
With the small caveat that you are not a judge, either appointed or elected.
Neither is the President.
Get off your high horse and shut the fuck up. Were you shocked when people celebrated Kissinger or Bin Laden dying or do you only get upset at corporate America?
You advocate for a world in which a stranger can decide that you’re also a bad person, and gun you down in the street. In such a world, I promise you, your health insurance
WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE AN UNQUALIFIED STRANGER CAN DECIDE YOU DON’T DESERVE MEDICAL TREATMENT. Healthcare CEOs kill people EVERY DAY but we should draw the line when it’s a gun and not a denial letter? Get the fuck out of here with that logic.
Go point your outage at the millions of innocent people who die every day from preventable disease. Or if that’s too abstract for you, how about the people getting bombed and starved in Palestine?
Palestine? Kissinger? Completely irrelevant. You are advocating first-degree murder. Look in the mirror and start there.
The bureaucratic plumbing of American healthcare? So fix it then! Vote. Send letters. Get more involved in politics. Protest. What have you done about the problem you seem so worked up about, apart from cheer on a murderer? What?
If speaking out against vigilante murderers is “being on a high horse”, that’s fine by me and I’ll stay there.
Goddamn, you are insufferable.You’re not speaking out against vigilante murderers, you’re pearl clutching that people dare to lack empathy for someone completely devoid of it.
The “victim” attacked first by denying the killer healthcare.
Yes. How dare I have my own opinions and values that contradict yours?
Someone openly advocates murder and then talks of empathy. The hypocrisy is almost beyond words.
In a perfect world, someone with Brian’s insatiable, murderous greed disease would be put in a psychiatric hospital for public safety, along with every billionaire and hundred million plus inaire that treats society as their exploitation piggy bank, not that many people, but the sociopaths run the asylum here.
This is a class war, whether you choose to show your belly and say thank you for trading your life for their profit to your enemy or not. Brian was an enemy combatant of this class occupation.
There you go again, deliberately misinterpreting to feel superior.
For sure, I feel morally superior to anyone who openly advocates murder. Not a high bar.
What a shame that your hand-wringing is causing second hand embarrassment for everyone who reads it.
The rich and the poor came to an agreement once upon a time, a social contract if you will. That contract was - You treat us with respect and pay us our worth, or we drag you into the street. The rich have broken that contract
The world you are advocating is a very dark place indeed. In historical terms, it’s France of 1794. A bloodbath that ended, as it always has in history, with a conservative backlash and a dictatorship. You talk in grandiose terms of the social contract but you seem not to know much about history.
So the most based thing happened?
it’s France of 1794. A bloodbath that ended, as it always has in history, with a conservative backlash and a dictatorship.
It didn’t “end” with a dictatorship. Social change continued for a century, in which the people gained more and more power to the detriment of autocrats, until the establishment of today’s strong liberal democracy. The millennia-old institutions that opposed this change couldn’t be replaced in a day.
Indeed, the dictatorship was followed by a restoration of the monarchy. And, after a few more revolutions, some of them bloody, by various other forms of regime.
In parallel, other European countries (the UK most famously) skipped all the violence and ended up at roughly the same destination of “strong liberal democracy” as you put it. A handful of them are today even stronger liberal democracies than France, with even better social protections.
What a waste of blood.
Does the name Margaret Thatcher mean anything to you mate?
Ah yes, the peaceful and bloodbath free British empire.
You already (probably - assuming you are American) live in a dictatorship.
Not really a dictatorship yet. More like a “Hybrid Regime”
You’ll know its an actual dictatorship when Lemmy Instances is getting blocked.
I am not advocating for the world that we find ourselves in, which is a dark place. This is the first of many events that are going to happen due to the lack of care of the C suite that is robbing us at every chance and turning the legal system against everyone but themselves. This is a world of their making along with the consequences. Yes France was bloody due to the financial disparity between the rich and poor, all actions have consequences. The Americans also went through this with unions, where business interests murdered union reps and workers on strike, we came to a deal eventually but as always the deal was reneged. The social contract I “talk about in grandiose terms” was to keep us, rich and poor, from each others throats. It is in their hands what the population does, keep taking and not giving back, it will be taken from them.
When all other avenues fail, there is only one choice left. Most are not there yet, but more and more are getting to this point. Buckle up, it is going to be a rough ride.
all actions have consequences
Yes, they do - bad consequences for everyone. If you take the law into your own hands it always ends in tears. Either you’ll get a strongman who “alone can fix it”, or you’ll get some kind of revolutionary regime which tolerates no dissent and eventually collapses, hated by the very people it was supposed to represent. Every. Single. Time. There is no exception in history.
I am against extrajudicial cold-blooded killing, just as I am against the judicial variety (capital punishment). But this does not even need to be a moral argument: human history shows very clearly that vigilante justice is a dead end.
The only way forward is discussion, and compromise, and hard choices.
Well, there is a way out of this. They can stop the anger being rightly directed at them, but they won’t. The law is not in our hands, the law is not there to help us, and here we are.
BTW to be clear, I am not advocating violence. I am merely pointing out what many others see, we are reaching a breaking point and if compromise is not reached it will push past the point of no return leading to what you are so worried about. Which seems to be happening anyway with the far right starting to take power across the globe
Asklemmy: what do CEO boots taste like? I’m sure they will see this post
Right. Because being against vigilantism must mean you love vigilante victims.
He is a husband and a father rheeeeee
No idea, I don’t know any CEOs. I’m disappointed you seem to think that a job title disqualifies someone from the right to life, the right not to be murdered.
That CEO killed his own customers for money.
it was never about a “job title”
- the person who thinks a job title qualifies someone for the right to murder
If you’re claiming this guy (a human being with a family, and friends, and children) “murdered” people, you are either delusional or (more likely) twisting logic to breaking point in order to justify your own advocacy of cold-blooded murder.
Just because there’s a few steps between your decision and someone’s death doesn’t mean your decision didn’t cause their death.
It’s murder if it’s against the law. If you think whatever the CEO did should be against the law, maybe you should work on that instead.
Morally it’s murder either way. Just because you found a legal loophole doesn’t make it not murder morally. There tons of actions that are legal but are morally reprehensible.
Better hope nobody starts making such complex calculations about you and deciding that it’s therefore time for you to be shot dead in the street.
It’s not a complex calculation. He regularly traded other people’s lives for his own money.
The thing is, unlike that shithead CEO, I presume, neither of us have actually made decisions to kill masses of people so that we can make ourselves so rich that getting 100k every day for 30 years wouldn’t reach their wealth.
on the wishful thinking side, biden pardons. also wishful: innocent until proven guilty, and that the evidence was planted.
but yeah, we will just have to wait on how the proceedings go. UHC has already flexed money in subduing luigi awareness merch.
Wishful thinking would be if the killer struck again while Luigi was in jail.
good wishful thinking. very wishful enough!
Apparently Biden’s been running on like one cylinder for the last 3 years (who could have guessed) so I guess you’d have to hope his team of DNC operatives would pardon; which will not happen.
They’re mostly just pardoning people who defrauded Medicaid and put kids in to private prisons for kickbacks, while revoking student debt cancellation.
You know, pulling the mask off since nothing matters anymore.
Revoking student loan debt relief was the SCs fault, not Biden’s.
Thanks for the input. Yeah, DNC is just how DNC rolls.
pardoning people who defrauded Medicaid and put kids in to private prisons for kickbacks
He didn’t aim to pardon them specifically. They belonged to a class of offenses he pardoned. Just like he pardoned weed possessors. They were surely scumbags on that list as well.
Biden wouldn’t do a pardon. If his staff (who are probably filled with establishment democrats) found out he was planning to, they’d make Kamala 25th him before he ever gets a chance to sign the paper.
Apparently Biden’s been running on like one cylinder for the last 3 years
All eight cylinders fired just fine when it came to pardoning his crackhead son.
They won’t have even decided if these are state or federal charges by the time Biden is out of office. And if he’s pardoned on the federal charges, the state can still charge him
good point about the separation of federal and state charges.
oh well, that’s how far that wishful thinking goes.
Unless I’m missing something, the charges have already been made and he’s given his plea. It’s federal charges (terrorism) and it’s my understanding that the state couldn’t then charge him over the same crime, only other crimes that were significantly different.
It’s both state and federal charges; the terrorism charge is a state one
state couldn’t then charge him over the same crime
Google “Dual Sovereignty”
(Edit: Wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Dual_sovereignty_doctrine)
Even if he gets acquitted/pardoned in either the state or federal, the other can still try the case.
I’m basing this 0on the video of his lawyer yesterday, saying that the state and feds are fighting over him like a football. Maybe it’s been resolved since then.
I think he’s going to get state charges for murder, that would be the normal thing.
There is an open legal question about what happens if he has done something that could be a crime under both federal and state, because double jeopardy says he can’t be tried twice for the same crime. So if the feds brought charges and then he got pardoned, I don’t think the state can bring relatively identical charges, but apparently this is a question that legal scholars don’t know the answer to, and it would probably end up going to the appeals court if it were to happen.
Of course it’s not going to happen because Biden likes those rich assholes and the timing doesn’t really make sense anyway.
There is an open legal question about what happens if he has done something that could be a crime under both federal and state, because double jeopardy says he can’t be tried twice for the same crime.
Read about Dual Sovereignty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Dual_sovereignty_doctrine
Basically, the Federal government and State government(s) are different Sovereign entities, both can charge for the same crime, and hold separate trials. “No Double Jeopardy” clause doesn’t apply here. Even if Luigi were acquitted/pardoned by either the Federal or State government, the other can still try the case for the same crime. It’s already an established legal precedent.
It’s not double jeopardy to be tried for the same crime in two jurisdictions.
Luigi Mangione is a random person who attacked corporate America. Therefore, he is utterly fucked. Whatever anyone does to help him, ultimately his fate is already sealed.
He did the math and decided that one moment of action was worth more to him than it cost. The rich of America need to see that vast wealth inequality leads to more and more people coming to the same conclusion. That’s why they will make sure he is sentenced to death, to let us know what the cost will be. But a life lived in misery is only worth so much, and death is the worst they can do.
The thing though, once a person make this decision, they no longer fear death
That person is very dangerous
Let the self sacrifice on display be a lesson to all of us, on this most blessed birthday of the person who (allegedly) gave their life for all of us.
The capitalists are in charge, but they are also utterly fucked.
The last thing you want to do with a spartacus-type enemy is to make them a martyr. They already fucked up by parading him around with those guards while he looks like the second coming of Christ. Nailing him to the cross is not going to solve any of their problems.
I expect he will be denied bail if they can show the evidence against him is strong enough. Even if you have enough money, that’s just not a guarantee. They don’t set the bail at $50mn or something, it’s just not an option offered.
The boring but probably correct answer is he never breathes free air again, and his best case scenario is avoiding the death penalty.
Assuming he doesn’t get Epstein’d
his best case scenario is avoiding the death penalty.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but couldn’t the jury deceide not to convict him and he’d be a free man? I’ve read that in some places at least. Or is there a mechanism to prevent that?
They are gonna bribe and threaten this jury like we’ve never seen before.
They won’t need to. If the jury is not unanimous, they can keep trying the case. Infinitely.
That might happen but is very unlikely. Jury selection is done by both sides so it’s very unlikely you’d get a jury united in deciding not to convict him.
However the Supreme Court ruled that jury verdicts have to be unanimous. It is very possible that the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict if 1 or more jurors refuse to convict. If this happens it would be a mistrial, and the case would be retired with a new jury. In theory this could keep happening until either a unanimous verdict is reached by a jury or a judge decides that this should not be retried as its been tried multiple times without outcome.
Another key element will be his defense which could lead to him getting a not guilty verdict. The only real defense as a mitigation would be insanity. Otherwise it seems unlikely (albeit possible) that it’s the wrong man.
The most likely scenario is a jury unanimously convicts him in my opinion. However people may feel about the case, a jury has to make a decision on whether the facts show he committed a crime - it seems pretty clear there is enough evidence to make a decision and it’s unlikely other factors will come in to play in a jury room.
In the US, a jury can choose to ignore the facts, and they can not be punished for it.
I actually think that’s quite a nice check on judicial power
On one hand, yes. On the other hand, this has largely been used in the deep south to ensure that people who openly lynched black people evaded conviction.
Well this is the time for plebs to use their power for good!
It’s theoretically possible but it requires a justice system that is actually blind. A justice system that didn’t just assign him a judge who’s married to a dude that was a former executive at a pfizer and still holds hundreds of thousands of dollars in healthcare companies, which apparently is something that she feels doesn’t require her to recuse herself even given the stature of this case
The jury selection process will be rigorous and will ensure that the people sitting on the panel are sympathetic to capitalists
Karen Friedman Agnifilo is an absolute pro who worked in the system for 30 years, I think he’s in very capable hands and if its unduly stacked against in him, I think she will be very vocal about that. There’s no other lawyer I would trust more than her
You have a source for that connection with the judge?
Thanks
It does seem they’ll try to use his case as a deterrent to anyone thinking about following in his footsteps. I think they will be harsh and he’ll be made into a martyr. The religious imagery of Saint Luigi may be apt and more than just a meme.
Historically speaking, yes. He will be convicted and executed as a message. The message to the rich is that the justice system
they’vewe’ve bought and paid for has their back. To the rest of us it’s a message about the cost of going after the wealthy. Thing is, the more they fuck the rest of us over, the more it’s a cost worth paying. But they are trying to keep us in line.Wild how you spent time typing that out instead of engraving your brass.
