Luigi Mangione pleads not guilty to murdering healthcare CEO
The 26-year-old suspect is facing separate federal charges that could lead to a death sentence.
Speaking to CBS, the BBC's US partner, on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said that the online rhetoric has been "extraordinarily alarming".
"It speaks of what is really bubbling here in this country," he said. "And unfortunately we see that manifested in violence, the domestic violent extremism that exists."
Did he care about the domestic violent extremism before it started to affect the wealthy? What about the domestic terrorists who go after the queer community, POC communities, women, doctors providing reproductive healthcare...the list goes on.
Violent extremism isn't new here. It's just that this one affects people with power.
Yeah, the rules of society say they won and they think all the losers beneath them just have to accept it. The social order and status quo are great for them. That something would violate it is extremely disturbing to them and provokes an emotional response.
I think that's why they seem to be so clumsily overreacting to the murder. Maybe it's working in segments of the population I don't see, but everyone in my social network is either outright happy it happened or at least get why it happened. Some will have perfunctory "murder is wrong" statements, but the thrust is about what a corrupt and evil business health insurance is. That's all the way up to the boomers and crosses political boundaries.
Things like the perp walk, excessive charges, and corporate comedy pretending everyone just thinks Mangione is a bad guy just highlights the us vs. them of class war rather than trying to somehow quell or redirect the bubbling unrest. I think they're doing this because their peers and masters are emotionally demanding a visible and recognizable show of power and obedience. If they knew what was good for them they'd be triple-timing it to make some token effort to reform the system, but even a token effort in response to the killing of a rich person would infuriate them, so clumsy performances it is.
Spot on
You’ve got far right militias blowing up America’s electric grid infrastructure, threatening politicians, having standoffs on federal property, and patrolling hurricane impacted areas trying to capture federal employees that are there helping, and I’ve never heard those people referred to as terrorists.
What about the domestic terrorist corporations who assassinate whistleblowers? Or are there so many hands involved there that it’s not worth the trouble to dismantle those terrorist organizations?
Just as long as the shareholders stay happy and the line goes up.
"Nah, they cool." - these assholes, almost certainly
What about them? They just got their picks elected as the next president and dipshit-in-chief.
Did he care about the domestic violent extremism before it started to affect the wealthy?
No, not at all. They're only mad because for the first time, the elite feel mortal.
You ever heard of the "less dead", well, Brian Thompson is "more dead"
And for those who haven't "Less Dead" is a saying used to describe people who's deaths the police don't look into because they're "not important enough"
Many serial killers get away with their crimes simply because they're smart enough to only kill those who would be deemed "less dead"
Mayorkas said white nationalists are the biggest threat to domestic security. He was impeached by Nazis. He doesn't repeat bullshit about immigration. Not necessarily a standard asshole that fails upwards.
If someone would say this shit on the news in real time, I might actually watch it. But it's all so scripted and tame I can't bring myself to care.
His lawyer made a great point about how law enforcement and the media threw "alleged" out the window and just insisted he did it...
What's disappointing is it's apparently working because when I do see and "allegedly" thrown in, people are down voting it like it's a conspiracy.
People always want to act like propaganda can't effect them, but the whole country immediately accepted that he was guilty because of a tiny change in reporting from the norm.
But especially with the wrinkle that someone brought it up to the McD's worker and then she snitched....
I think the cop's have a reason they're sure, it's just they got that reason illegally thru means we're not supposed to know they have. Which explains a lot of shit.
Frankly I still question if he’s a lookalike scapegoat so the police can save face and try to put it to bed. May also explain the odd “planted” evidence that is being mentioned.
Eh, if he was a real random fall guy, they wouldn't have picked a rich handsome guy in his mid 20s.
Like, it's almost most definitely him...
But fuck the cops, fuck the wealthy, and fuck the healthcare industry. They need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt and all those groups are habitual liars.
So if I was on the jury, they'd need a lot of evidence and need to be able to explain how they got it. They used some illegal spy tech shit because it's a rich victim? Then all evidence gained after gets thrown out.
I feel like people want it to be him because they want to know who did it, not because they're angry but because they want someone to identify with.
Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy nut, the evidence against him is too convenient. I mean sure he probably did it, but who plans the murder of a high-profile target, escapes the initial manhunt, and then walks around carrying the murder weapon, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto basically confessing to it? And if you're the type of person to write a manifesto and expect to be caught, why would you run away in the first place?
My money is on illegal surveillance from an alphabet agency
I've been noticing this on NPR, but they're weirdly cagey about it. Kind of like if a shitty editor went over the script and added "allegedly" to where it needs to, but only in places that are phrased in a specific way (not saying they're doing that).
I'm thinking they either violated the 4th Amendment so hard that any conviction would be impossible, or this isn't their guy.
They want to idolize him, it's hard to idolize the falsely accused.
Yet I'd say the fact that they're just saying "He did it!" at the first guy who fit the description...... Is even more proof that the system is fucked and highlights the very thing Brian was rightfully slain over.
I'm not so sure the cops are actually sure, there are enough questions around how all this shook out, none of it really adds up well, so either they're hiding the evidence that links this shit together, or they're railroading someone who looks like the guy who flashed a smile (who we don't even know for sure is the shooter) so they can look good by closing the case fast and making an example of him.
Its fucked up the news is acting like Sandy Hook wasn't a decade ago. All this guy is accused of is shooting a CEO.
Sandy hook was instead normalized, and happens multiple times over across the nation annually. Pew pew ‘muricuh
The problem here is the frequency of the crimes. If CEOs were being shot on a weekly to bi weekly average in groups of 3 or more, this crime would become one of the many others the American media wash over.
Indeed, the powerful would be left on their own like they left our children on their own. Only unlike our kids, they could do something about it....
The billionaires would be totally "scrooged", better share the wealth assholes. A poor man, isn't a murdered man.
cackle
Well, I can dream....
pretty sure the affect on stonks would make congress address it differently
This is the disheartening part that highlights the class divide. Shootings of common folk barely make the news where I'm from. How much have taxpayers paid for this so far? Justice clearly isn't being applied equally.
I don't really think it's a conspiracy of sorts, it's just news media being news media. They want the most clicks, doesn't matter much what for or what the consequences are. it's the same reason why trump yet again got so extremely much news coverage. Had news organizations all decided not to waste their time with trump, we wouldn't have his presidency now. In reality though, everyone and their mother had to talk about trump, it was trump before and after and now we have yet again to deal with this fuck face for a other 4 years. I know that news media aren't the only ones to blame, theyight now even be the worst, but he'll do they have a large share of the blame for all the shit that had been happening lately, and it's all about the clicks, it's all about the money
Like you mentioned, it’s the biased part of the business which wrestles with journalistic integrity.
ie. Return on Investment, special access or limited access compared to your competitors depending how your piece is written.
It’s not entirely surprising when journalistic integrity is at odds with the finances that fund said journalism, but it most certainly can be disappointing.
The terrorism "charges" are laughably flimsy and clearly contrived. Trumped Up, you might say.
The terrorism charge is absolutely the dumbest thing they did. Now it's on them to prove it was more than just murder.
This makes me believe it really wasn't him. If he actually wrote a manifesto, he'd have declared himself guilty, taken credit, and done a speech about how he was now a martyr for the cause.
If he's sticking to his story, then I believe him. They couldn't find the real killer so they just went with whoever "fit the description", as per usual.
That doesn't explain why he keeps mogging the camera, or what he yells to the journalist in that one video.
I don't know if it's him, but I think whoever it is, is just following their lawyer's advice, not trying to be a martyr
The thing is they've actually made a mistake charging him with terrorism. It is surprisingly narrowly defined so even without a sympathetic jury he might get a not guilty verdict for it and it weakens the whole case against him. But most of all by including it they've made all his intentions and politics central issues to the case. All the evidence and his statements about this will have to go into the public record. If he had pleaded guilty that wouldn't happen nor would there be a chance for jury annulment. Pleading not guilty is simply the smarter option to take.
Wouldn’t be surprised if he was in New York on some legitimate business, they caught him on camera at a Starbucks near the murder, blasted his image all over the news and social media, and just waited for someone to call.
Then when they got the call, they grabbed a backpack with “evidence” and claimed he had it on him when they arrested him.
Did anyone believe that he was wondering around for 3 days with a bag that was holding the murder weapon, fake IDs, and a hand written manifesto? He ditched another bag, and escaped on an e-bike. Why would he then run around for three days with the rest of the evidence.
Either he is the dumbest man alive, or the police really wanted to just go with the first guy who fit the description knowing that they'll look like heroes to their corporate overlords, and that if another guy bites the dust they can just say it was a copycat.
I mean, if he can away with it while not undermining his original intentions, why not do it?
There's various ways he could go unpunished that would prevent a retrial and so he'd then be set up to be influential in some kind of healthcare reform.
Heavy on the cope though.
Personally, I am sad that is all it takes for you to believe something. Businesses, media, governments, and more are trying to make people believe things (unrelated to luigi) that aren't true. You need to raise the bar, not lower it. Maybe you want to believe he didn't do it, but I hope you don't actually believe that based on so little information.
There's too much that doesn't add up, it's just too convenient that he had the gun and manifesto on him.
Of course it was him. That doesn't mean from a legal perspective he is best served by pleading guilty. Pleading not guilty also means he'll get a jury trial and his lawyers can introduce evidence that embarrasses private health insurance providers, or proves his state of mind, or otherwise casts doubt.
I tend to think it's because they charged him as a terrorist. I assume it's a different law in which case he might be able to prove it's not terrorism.
That’s now how it works: In the US “justice”-system there are only extremely limited cases where it makes sense to plead guilty, because it pretty much just means that you skip the trial and get sentenced directly. Especially if you want Jury-nullification, you have to plead non-guilty so that the Jury can find you innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What overwhelming evidence in this case? The evidence made public definitely seems to imply he's not the one who shot the CEO.
Why would a person take such a carefully planned route through the city to Central Park, change clothes and dump their bag, only to keep their gun, fake IDs and hand written manifesto/confession on their person three days later while eating lunch at a restaurant? If Luigi was the shooter and looking to take credit as what has been released of the manifesto implies, why hide out for three days instead of publicly turning themselves in after informing the press so it's recorded and likely televised?
Its obviously NOT him, footage from the murder shows thin eyebrows, white skin (like Irish white) and way smaller dude than Luigi... I still cant understand that people still believe Luigi could be the killer...
I mean last I counted he had like 200000 alibis so...
Luigi Mangione was with me December 3rd, 2024 through December 7th, 2024. He couldn't possibly have been in New York since i don't live there.
He is so hot
I wonder if he had any acting or modeling experience.
In addition to a long stream of journalists waiting for the suspect to appear, members of the public - almost all of them young women - were in court, some of whom told CBS, the BBC's US partner, that they were there to show their support.
(emphasis mine)
And he looked fabulous doing so
Maybe the lack of quick access to life saving resources, procedures and experts immediately after the shooting, aka 'healthcare', was what actually killed him?
Just leaving this link here for no particular reason:
Can confirm. He didn't do nuthin
I keep wondering why the shooter had a different color backpack than the one Mangione was caught with. The jacket and hoodie seemed like they were potentially different, but the nose and eyebrows matched.
Holy shit. Do his lawyers believe he can beat these charges?? What's going on
The evidence against him appears to be that the guy who murdered the CEO might have similar eyebrows to Luigi Mangione, but it's hard to tell from the security video. There's nothing else that puts him at the scene. They can say it's him all they want, but they'll have to reveal some better evidence if they want us to believe it.
If you're going to court for any criminal charge, you plead not guilty. The DA is going to have laid the strongest charges they believe they can get a conviction on, but there is always risk in going to trial. The prosecution generally cares a lot more about getting a conviction than what charge that conviction is on, or what penalty that conviction carries.
So. You're caught dead to rights, charged with a crime. If you plead guilty, you are also waiving your right to trial, and taking whatever conviction and (probably) penalty the prosecution advises the judge.
On the other hand, if you plead not guilty, now you have the opportunity to accept a plea deal from the prosecution - changing your plea to guilty - which would include what charge and what penalty. Depending on what you've done, this can save you a lot of money, reduce or eliminate probation or incarceration time, or take the death penalty off the table.
You can always change your plea from not guilty to guilty. You can't do that the other way around. Whenever you see headlines about "So-and-so pleads not guilty," that doesn't (in most cases) mean they intend to beat the charge. It's just what you do.
Another huge, important, but subtle distinction to make here is that the trial is not to decide whether you did the thing. It's not always a mystery who perpetrated an alleged crime. Even if you pull out a gun and shoot somebody on the 50-yard-line at the Super Bowl, and 300 million people see it, they can't just take you off to prison for murder. They have to give you a trial to determine whether you violated the law.
There's a thing called an affirmative defense, as in, "yes, I did the thing, but it wasn't a crime, because..." If you can, say, convince a jury that you're a time traveler, the ref was going to make a bad call in the 4th quarter that cost your team the Super Bowl win, and that justified shooting him, well, then it wasn't a crime. That's what a jury is ultimately charged with deciding.
This is not to say that Magione's attorney plans to present an affirmative defense, just that there are a number of good reasons to plead not guilty, even if it's 100% certain you did the thing.
(Edit: Typo.)
Guilty or not, always plead not guilty at the start. You'll often have a chance to accept a better plea deal before trial if you want. Or you can go to trial.
Unless you are looking forward to serving time (free food, warm bed, access to healthcare).
Plead not guilty, then wait for jury nullification. This is the way.
NYC residents:
If you are picked for a jury, I know it can be annoying and take time out of your busy life. But honestly, it is the last purely democratic area of our life. The jury has the power to ensure the laws are fairly and equally applied.
Remember that your job as jury is to not only find the facts of the case but also to make sure that the charges fit the crime.
There is one more job you have: is the law correct in this specific crime?
Judges won't tell you this. Prosecutors will make you leave this choice outside the courthouse. But you have it.
The responsibility of the jury is protected so that you cannot be held accountable or even questioned (in an official setting anyway) as to why you voted the way you did. You have the power to view the facts, know that the defendant is guilty, but vote to acquit because you believe the law is wrong in his case.
Don't let prosecutors or the judge trick you.
All in Minecraft, of course.
Yeah, the absurd terrorism charges are probably possible to beat, so no reason to plead guilty to them. They are probably not questioning the murder charges, but that's beside the point.
I'm sure they're contesting all of it. There isn't a downside and a conviction depends on the state having all its ducks in a row, which they do fuck up sometimes.
There is also even a real possibility that he's innocent and they're trying to pin it on him.
What's the downside exactly? Pleading guilty doesn't really come with any upside especially if they're putting the death penalty on the table.