In December, Luigi Mangione was arrested for shooting health insurance executive Brian Thompson. Last week, Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, announced that she was seeking the death penalty. It’s a highly unusual announcement, since Mangione hasn’t even been indicted yet on a federal level. (He has been indicted in Manhattan.) By intervening in this high-profile case, the Trump administration has made clear that it believes that CEOs are especially important people whose deaths need to be swiftly and mercilessly avenged.
He didn’t do it.
They’re pinning some rich guy bullshit on him.
Brian Thompson was stepping out in his wife.
She hired a hitman from El Salvador to kill him so she could have all his stuff.
Luigi is just some kid swept up in police railroading.
Luigi is innocent.
if you have evidence you should send it to the court
Sigh. Yet another article assuming Mangione’s guilt. Ben Burgis didn’t even bother to say ‘allegedly’ anywhere.
Yessss…show us you fear…we feed on it.
I mean, it’s somewhat defensible, right? He did kill someone, so isn’t it symmetric if he gets killed? You can obviously make an argument against this but isn’t the tone of the article written to make it seem like this is just laughable, when it’s really not?
I’m sick of these hyperbolic headlines just to capture clicks.
No. You are fundamentally incorrect in that HE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY FOR KILLING ANYONE AT ALL AT THIS TIME. You, talking “past” the conclusion as if it is foregone–just like the fascists are, are part of the problem.
I’m sick of dipshits like YOU skipping over due process.
The state killing its own citizens is never morally defensible.
It’s even more egregious when political influence tries to exert pressure on the legal process in an effort to prejudice that verdict.
The state killing its own citizens is never morally defensible.
A citizen killing another citizen is never morally defensible, and yet, here we are.
A citizen killing another citizen is never morally defensible
That’s just plain not true. There are situations that are not just morally defensible, but legally justifiable.
For example: If an active shooter (a citizen) is killing people (or threatening to kill people), any given citizen is morally and legally justified with taking the shooter’s life to preserve the lives of others.
You’re calling him guilty. He hasn’t even been tried yet. You’ve let these hyperbolic headlines make up your mind for you and convince you of a verdict. That’s exactly what Bondi and this article is trying to do, think for you. Forget the click. You’ve already given them what they want.
Did he?
I’m completely serious, I have legitimate doubts about if Luigi is the adjuster. Everything about the arrest and (apparently illegally) collected evidence is extremely skechy.
After almost a week, the guy who escaped NYC cleanly (while leaving a backpack full of monopoly money in central park and signed bullet casings at the scene) is carrying around a signed confession and the murder weapon at McDonald’s?
There’s literally no other evidence than what they allegedly found on his person. The guy doesn’t look that much like the person/people in the videos, the way they found him (an old man reporting to a cashier that a person with only their eyes visible looked like the shooter from the security cams) is sketchy as hell, and the evidence is straight up out of a police wet dream about the perfect arrest
This guy deserves a trial, like everyone does. The state apparently has no case against him at this point too
So why does every conversation start with assuming he did it?
I don’t assume he did it. I assume the conversation is phrased as “if he is found guilty, does he deserve death?”. If the state is unable to convince a jury he did it, he should be let free, just like every other case.
He did kill someone
I don’t assume he did it
You posted both of these. One isn’t true. Did you change your mind between your original post and your second?
If he is found guilty does not mean he is guilty. That’s the problem with the death penalty. You can release someone if future evidence disproves the conviction. You can’t bring someone back to life if you give them the death penalty.
The issue is that he’s only been indicted in New York, and New York abolished the death penalty more than twenty years ago.
The Feds would need to press their own charges if they wanted to pursue the death penalty, which they have not done yet. That’s the laughable part: they’re trying to dictate sentencing before they pressed charges, gathered evidence, or secured a conviction. And the only way to get a death sentence is by unanimous jury vote during sentencing, which, let’s be honest, is going to be very difficult to get rid Luigi.
He’d became a martyr. The best chance way the ruling class could handle this is letting him go on the condition that he denies every publicity possible for a given years, even “just” imprisonment would communicate “we fear guys like this”.
Sadly I think he’s going to be a martyr like Alexi Navalny. The 1% is patient, and they know they can distract us and grind us down. We can raise hell for a moment, but they know our weakness is our stomaches.
It’s very naive of people to think that in an authoritarian dictatorship controlled by the world’s wealthiest people, that there won’t be a LOT of unjust deaths in the coming years.
I will be positively shocked if they don’t make a very public example of Mangione. It’s going to hurt and that’s what they want. They want to kill him in front of us so we feel pain. Then they’re going to do it again and again with other people whom we don’t want to see die. Remember that. This is what happens.
This is what 45% of eligible voters thought would never happen so they stayed home. Too much trouble. Too hard to figure out the truth (by googling for 30 seconds). Too many excuses to not rock the boat, and now the boat is rocking us all out.
This guy killed a patrician and now that class has totally seized controlled of government.
Prove he killed someone.
we’re not real big on justice at the moment…
Supposedly
He’s a real true America hero and a patriot! Que Viva Luigi!
So what are the odds of jury nullification on this case?
That depends on whether or not jury nullification is in favor of billionaires…which it isn’t. So it won’t happen.
Ugh, Fender Strat- you’re annoying me. I’m a Jackson Guitars kinda guy. Miss me with that single coil shit!
Jackson? Pssshhh my Yamaha Revstar would shred circles around it. Not really, but I like it
Oh yeah, tuff shred guy?!?! I’ve gotta double-locking Jackson tremolo on my Jackson Warrior XT1. Sooooo. SUCK IT lol
That’s a lot of guitar to play smoke on the water
Ugh-STRAT. LISTEN. I do neck sweeps in Drop D. Daropah- Dee. Alexi Laiho ain’t got shit on me. GOML _ Get On My Level
Okay… I have to chime in here.
I’ll say- it entirely depends on the Strat, and it entirely depends on the player. For instance, Gilmour used a strat for the Comfortably Numb solos. Tell me of a guitar/guitarist that can sing better than that!
But if I had to pick, I’d say PRS are an overall best. It’s just that Mr. Gilmour will always be the exception to ALL of the rules.
DISCLAIMER: I am a bassist of 30+ years and I’ve never owned a fender product in my life.
Stevie Ray Vaughn? Come on!
Oh what I said wasn’t to exclude anyone else at all! SRV is amazing!
just that that solo in Comfortably Numb is legendary.
I have a MIM Surf Pearl. I love it
None of this, of course, is to say that what Mangione did was justifiable or wise.
Um, fuck you? He hasn’t been convicted and the author’s assumption here, that Mangione is guilty of what he has been accused of, is part of the fucking problem.
Damn, when did Jacobin get soft?
ok but killing a millionaire is defensible
Not because they’re a millionaire. Because they’re a CEO whose policies directly resulted in unnecessary suffering and death.
Agreed, its a bit like self defense or defending others.
If you are armed and see a murder about to happen you CAN legally intervene with a firearm. You do not have to standby and let someone get killed.
UHC was killing thousands and apparently the government was/is fine with it. Thus … it was a defensive killing.
This discussion would get me banned off of Reddit (again).
Billionaires do deserve to die for being billionaires though.
You can’t amass that type of wealth without being responsible for human suffering en masse. It’s impossible.
you can’t amass that type of wealth without . . .
Sure, but that’s not for being billionaires; that’s for what they did to become billionaires and perhaps for what they are (or are not) doing to maintain their status.
Leftist messaging is plagued by the fact that what what is said literally is often something obviously wrong or stupid which is supposed to stand in (by convention, I suppose) for the point that is “actually” being made.
It makes dismissing leftist messages pretty appealingly mechanical for those who are opposed or just unfamiliar (many people, really) – they need only to point out the obvious way in which the literal meaning of the actual words the leftist has said are wrong or stupid. You can’t fault much the latter sort of person here, because there’s really not any indication that you don’t just wholesale believe the stupid thing you said.
It’s a critical problem that’s had a crippling impact on the acceptance of leftist movements in the United States. So it’s best to say what you mean. It really helps.
This. 👆
yeah I think this distinction is important. we don’t need to kill the working professionals who saved money and invested wisely throughout their careers. many of those people will eventually be millionaires, but like, ones of millions.
once you get to hundreds of millions it starts to look like there was no possible moral way to arrive at that.
We should also make a distinction for the arts and artisans. In theory, an artist can sell their work for a billion dollars, making them a billionaire. I’m fine with that, because nobody gets exploited in the process. Like if an actor or rock star charges a billion dollars for a performance, or a painter charges a billion dollars for a painting, or a carpenter charges a billion to install hardwood floors. If people are willing to pay it, then I don’t really see a problem.
That said, their wealth should still be taxed like a motherfucker.
I think there’s still a pretty solid argument that its shitty to remain a billionare. If I won that kind of money on the lottery I’d set asside enough to retire very comfortably (and still feel a little bad about it) and then build affordable housing and shit.
Hoarding that much money is, in my opinion, just as bad as hoarding a cure for cancer. There are like half a dozen people with enough wealth to eliminate hunger and homelessness worldwide, but every one of them refuses to lift a finger beyond performative bullshit for PR. The level of inhumanity it takes to be like that is off the charts. It’s sociopathic.
We live in a post-defensibility society.
He should run for office
Well, we have a convicted felon and rapist as president already.
Exactly. They’ve set a precedent that running for office gets you out of any consequences. I really want to see what happens if Mangione runs for congress
I’m glad they’re seeking the death penalty.
Because it makes it much easier for the defence team to argue that the prosecution is trying to turn the law into a spectacle, and that Luigi should be acquitted of all charges.
It doesn’t much matter if it’s easier for the defense to argue that. It matters what the judge and jury find.
The federal system gives the judge a lot more power, they can basically pick the jury and evidence themselves, and appeals really, really suck.
