It's a pin job

Sounds like fake ass bullshit to me.
Free Luigi yall ain't got shit no video footage nothing.
"He has read 300 books!!!!!" Is all i see from clowns supporting this regime.

An incompetent pinjob

Would have been unbelievable if the US police wouldn’t have a long history of framing people because they are just too buttfuck stupid to do their jobs.
- That is their job.

French style revolution is the only solution
- Agreed comrade! Pm me and we will begin the organization of said revolution
  
  Nice try, FBI.

I have worked in private security and law enforcement. I have searched people and their bags at security checkpoints to enter government buildings after 9-11. I've strip searched males in lockup. There is no way a trained cop or even an experienced security guard would miss something bigger than a tube of lipstick in a backpack. Nothing found in the backpack at Micky Ds and then found a handgun after taking it inside of a police station? Sounds to me like the gun was driven to the police station separately to be planted in the bag. A 3D printed gun could be made by anyone, including the cops. #ACAB
- They have her admitting on another cop’s body cam that she did a warrantless search. I don’t think she missed anything, I think they just NEED her to have missed it for the prosecution.
- But why make a hero and a martyr? Are they stupid?
  
  Vs. What?
  Letting the world know that you can walk up to someone in the middle of the day and shoot them and get away with it?
  We all know CSI shows are over exaggerated, but they give us a feeling of protection
  Without a motive or a link to follow. A random gunman is next to impossible to find after they get away.
  This way they don't have to make the charges stick but "they caught" the gunman.
  Security theater is important
  
  Yes?

- Our system isn't about guilty or not guilty but "beyond a reasonable doubt"
  If there is reasonable doubt then someone can't be guilty (or shouldn't) and the burden to prove that is on the prosecution.
  I'm not saying it's a good system, or that I agree or disagree but that is our system.
  
  Our system isn’t about guilty or not guilty but ~~“beyond a reasonable doubt”~~ skin tone.
  Gotta check the actual stats.
- Their opinion is a "conspiracy" but my opinion is "right"
  Either way the state has the burden to prove he did the crime, I am not sure why you are this confident he did it. I guess fake news shill ops worked on you as intended lol

Luigi is innocent. He did not kill Brian Thompson. He is a hero by the simple virtue that he is an innocent young man who was dragged through hell over something he didn't do and is having his life put on the line.
As for who actually did it. I hope he lives a long, quiet life.
- Of course Luigi didn't do it. He was flying with me to New Orleans from Nashville at the time of the murder. We got beignets at The Vintage then took a ghost tour of the french quarter.
  
  And right after that he went to my place thousands of miles away and we played classic Sierra games together. Given he is much younger than me he didn't quite understand late 80s and early-mid 90s gaming that much at first. But my god was he such a good listener! He listened to all my middle age man explanations and how revolutionary all that stuff was at the time with full understanding. He even figured out the Gold Rush door puzzle from the get go! The guy is brilliant! And so very nice, too.
- I still hope this is correct and the real guy starts act 2 during Luigi's trial. Also it's be cool if the next three shells read "super Mario brothers" lmao
  
  We need some chubby copycat so they can be Mario.

Wow. That is just unbelievably sketch.

It seems more and more everyday that vigilante justice is the only justice against this corrupt corporate tyranny. I think we all wish this wasn’t the case but as my dad used to say you can wish in one hand and 💩 in the other and see what hand fills up first

It's never made sense to me, TBH. I've just assumed he's being railroaded. In his case the cops just planted a gun instead of drugs like they do to every other person they want to lock up without cause.

Plot twist: good guy policewoman deliberately makes it impossible to prosecute Luigi.

When I picked up bodies for the Medical Examiner's Office, we had very strict chain of custody rules we had to follow. If the decedent had any valuables on their person (purse, wallet, jewelry, etc), or any medication, we had to write detailed descriptions of every item found (a gold ring is not a gold ring, it's a gold colored ring), then package it all up with the ranking police officer on the scene as a witness who then signs the sealed bag. Even the slightest deviation from this would get us immediately fired, and even prosecuted if surviving family members made any accusations about theft.
In a capital murder case where an alleged murderer/terrorist can potentially walk free because the chain of custody rules weren't followed, how the fuck does this cop still have a job? How is she not being charged with tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for letting Luigi go free, but this is a fuck-up of monumental proportions.
- Why would she be fired for doing what she was told? The fact she wasn’t fired tells you everything you need to know
  
  I don't disagree, but that means the fuck-up goes higher up the food chain. The NYPD has to know this makes a conviction that much more difficult.

So they not only have to find 12 people who haven’t been fucked personally or had friends family fucked by their health insurance, now those 12 people have to be blind Pig supporters?
Anything other than a not guilty (or some insanely strong evidence with a perfect chain of custody) verdict for this guy and the fix is in.
If they convict Luigi get the fuck out while you still can, cause the alternative is guerilla warfare against the Gilead states of orange stupidity.

Goes to show how much this isn't about Luigi, or even Brian Thompson. It's about the elite sending a message to the other 99%. Think, even if their case against Luigi is rocky at best, all that matters is they can get him to pay for Brian, regardless of whether he did it or not, or where the evidence points.
All that matters is that we the "peasants" get the underlying message:
If you kill/harm an elite they'll chase you and make you pay with the full weight of their resources (and emphasis on "resources", not necessarily "law").
If you did not kill or harm an elite you're still at risk, because then they'll choose a "peasant" scapegoat to pay anyway.
All that matters is that they get to take their pound of flesh, and that the "peasantry" gets discouraged to fight for their rights as the elite takes, and takes and takes.
Which is why it's so important that regardless of Luigi having done it or not, he should walk free unless there's solid, undeniable evidence of him doing it, like an actual and verified non-deepfake video of the assassination with his clear face on it. And even then he must only face the consequences the law demands, and what others would face in his place for killing the everyday average Joe. The fact that the life lost was an elite should have no bearing on the consequences.
- Even with that lets be clear Mr. Tompson was responsable for many more deaths for the sake of profit, only deemed not murder because its legal, I do not care if there where 30 videos proven to be genuine, and he said his name when he did it, the jury should nulify. Not because murder is correct, but because well millions died in part because of Brian Tompson, and if the state will do nothing to hold him accountable someone else has to.
- Sure, but it's gonna be a real stupid attempt if they take it to trial with such shaky evidence, all it takes is a single juror going "lol no way do I trust that evidence" and the jury is hung, a few jurors on his side and he could likely be found not guilty and that would be the end of that, no retrial, he walks a free man.
  
  I assume that jury selection on this particular trial was almost certainly tampered with to pick the least sympathetic to accused to out right bribed or blackmailed into being told how they will decide the case or else.
  Brian Thompson was murdered, but all the evidence that has been made publicly available certainly suggest that Mangione had nothing to do with it. The images release of the shooting and the hotel do not match, purportedly the hotel images were 2 weeks old at the time, we've gotten no other proof that he was even in the city on the day of the shooting, as well as the backpack found in central park abandoned, yet supposedly 3 days later the suspect had the fake IDs, weapon and manifest on his person while out to lunch?
  I'm sorry but no, this entire thing reads like they just want to crucify Luigi because they fucked up their investigation so bad they're never going to catch the real culprit and his name must have been on a watch list or something to make him a convenient scapegoat.
  
  A hung jury is not an automatic dismissal. The judge can allow a retrial and in this case they absolutely will. Over and over again, until they get the result they want.
- But that's actually a risky strategy. If it becomes too obvious they're pinning it on the wrong guy, the narrative will flip to "If you kill one of them, they will just have a random scapegoat take the fall and let you go free"
  
  We can stop 1 100,000 person march, but we can’t stop 10 10,000 person marches at the same time

Normal US cop behavior

The pictures of Luigi in the lobby of the hostel were taken 3 miles away from the shooting, two weeks before the shooting. The jacket, backpack, eyes and eyebrows of the shooter don’t match Luigi’s. I think that immediately after the shooting, cops used Palantir or similar technology to do an AI search of images similar to the shooter. That just meant anyone on a camera the cops had access to wearing a green jacket with a hood and a black neck gaiter. The image of Luigi smiling at a girl in the lobby of a hostel two weeks earlier was the best match the AI found, so they framed his ass. Cops do it all the time. Ask the Central Park Five. NYPD and prosecutors would rather let a guilty man go free than admit that they lied and framed someone.

She also found a napkin with a drawn map of Deeley Plaza with lines of fire, and a Polaroid of Shergar cuffed to a radiator.
- And Jimmy Hoffa's ring.
- He also stole a copy of that book in Chicago.
  
  He's stolen the declaration of independence!
  Seriously though, Cage should play Mangione when they make the biopic!

At this point the funniest thing would be if the real assassin was to take down another healthcare CEO.
- Someone, can't remember who...so if it's you (not necessarily you OP, a general you) put your hand up, in a different Luigi thread a month or so ago had a pet theory that I think probably holds a reasonable amount of water.
  The theory is that that CEO was knocked off by a paid hitman, possibly contracted by his spouse, and Luigi happened to be picked up as a scapegoat because the NYPD, or the arresting officer, was complicit/paid off a tidy sum.
  With this coming up, it's even less of an unlikely scenario.
  
  Why would the hitman engrave the bullets? If they're picking a plausible scapegoat with severe medical issues, then why one that's young rich and handsome?
  
  The theory is that that CEO was knocked off by a paid hitman, possibly contracted by his spouse, and Luigi happened to be picked up as a scapegoat because the NYPD, or the arresting officer, was complicit/paid off a tidy sum.
  This would be a better theory if Luigi had a serious alibi. Also, if he wasn't tied up with the Silicon Valley Longtermist movement, which has already produced a number of more low-profile killings.
  I wouldn't discount the pet theory, because it does sound like the kind of shit mega-millionaires get up to. But the NYPD picking up this guy specifically, where and when they did, with no credible counternarrative as to where he was at the time of the killing, makes me strongly suspect they have the right guy. But - like with the OJ Brown-Simpson murder - they've got such a clown car of detectives and a grandstanding mayor and self-insert celebrity journalists and prosecutors promoting the case as spectacle that they're going to completely fuck this thing at trial.
  If he wins the criminal case but loses a far more professionally executed civil "wrongful death" case a few years later, I would not be surprised in the slightest.
- Does it have to be healthcare? I mean, there are some other candidates to consider
  
  Starting with almost every single billionaire.

Hooooooleeeeeeee fuck that is a comically blatant frame job
But also: corroborating articles? I’m not finding anything from AP or similar that back this up. How fresh is this?
- corroborating articles
  https://www.wtaj.com/news/local-news/new-photos-show-luigi-mangiones-arrest-defense-argues-for-evidence-to-be-suppressed/
  The defense argues that the search of Mangione’s backpack further violated his rights, arguing that there were no circumstances that constituted police conducting a warrantless search of the backpack. In the motion, Mangione’s lawyers wrote that it was only once an officer conducting the search “she had made a potentially devastating mistake by thoroughly searching the backpack of a murder suspect in a significant New York press case without a warrant, she suddenly stated that she was searching through the backpack at McDonald’s to make sure there ‘wasn’t a bomb or anything in here’.” However, Mangione’s defense team notes that the bomb squad was never called and the McDonalds was not evacuated over concerns of a bomb, but that another officer did tell the officer conducting the search that they “probably need a search warrant for it.”
  Defense attorneys claim that some of the body cam footage is missing including 20 seconds of when Mangione was being questioned by a police when an officer placed his hand over his body cam and the 11 minutes during which the backpack was transferred from the McDonalds to the Altoona Police Department Precinct. The motion goes on the state that once that officer’s body cam footage resumes, it shows her immediately re-opening and closing the backpack compartments she already searched and then opening the front compartment of the backpack “as if she was specifically looking for something. Instantly, she ‘found’ a handgun in the front compartment.”
  
  Good find. That does indeed look pretty damning in the context of chain of custody. I’d be fairly shocked if a reasonable judge doesn’t tell the DA to go fuck themselves with anything yielded from “his backpack”, given that. But that’s also highly dependent on the judge.

Luigi was framed.
- He also allegedly had the manifesto with him, which makes no sense. Basically they just said "We randomly got a tip for this guy at mc donalds and he happened to have all possible pieces of evidence on him days after making a clean get away" mmm yeeah sure.....
  
  And ‘oh, by the way’, we botched the arrest and search and there are some real questions about chain of custody, the search itself, and the evidence. Then there’s the ~~ease~~ (edit: ‘eaves’) dropping on his privileged communication with his attorney… clown show over here.
  
  My pragmatic theory:
  He is the guy (I’m not saying it’s a bad thing)
  The “anonymous tip” was rather “illegal surveillance/tech us plebs don’t know about”
  Police found the gun and manifesto in NYC, and they planted it on him to ensure an easier conviction
  
  And it would've been so much easier to plant the stuff at his house while he was being taken. Except that would have required a small amount of thinking.
- Christ, imagine if he really was set up after all this?
  Or that the charges don't stick?
  
  People have been saying since he was announced as a suspect that he didn't look like the shooter that appeared on the cameras. He sort of looks like him but it's really not that clear cut that it's definitely him
  
  That’s honestly been my opinion the whole fucking time.
- In addition to the rest, from the beginning Luigi himself claimed that there was money and other items in the bag that was not put there by him. This latest development appears consistent with that.

Jokes aside, I honestly don't know if he's the guy.
What I do know, is if this part is true, that should be enough to put doubt into the "beyond a reasonable doubt" part in the jury.
- Why would you believe he is the guy? The only evidence is what corrupt police said on a bullshit story. Brian Thompson was probably killed in a mob hit, dude was up to his eyeballs in illegal insider trading and embezzlement. It is far more likely that he was killed for that before he could rat or to just cover tracks.
- I just point blank don't believe he did it.
  Let's say I kill a high profile individual on the street you know, hypothetically.
  Do you seriously believe that I'd be casually hanging out in public at a McDonalds with a manifesto and loaded gun in my bag? I'm pretty sure that my first port of call if I was assassinating someone would be "Burn all the evidence in an alleyway somewhere, get new clothes on, and lay low for pretty much the rest of my fucking life, possibly in Mexico"
  
  Not only that, Luigi's fake ID which he did not use in an illegal way any known time was not linked with the shooting, just linked to a NY hostel.
  Also Luigi was not marandised, hes also charged in NY, Pennsylvania and federally at the same time, double (triple?) jeopardy
  And his bags were searched without him being able to see the search, which puts into question the search, but they didn't find any gun or manifesto at that time. 6 hours later, they did find a gun and a manifesto after being contact with NYPD. And the paper work for this evidence is also not properly filed. In addition the inventory of his belonging was also not descriptive.
  He was arrested by a rookie cop that didn't get help from a supervisor to avoid mistakes either, lots of adrenaline in a huge profile case like this. He said he knew right away that this was the killer, and he had only the propaganda NYPD had posted to the media. And NYPD didn't know who the killer was
  I dont know how long it took, but it took well over 100 days before the defence was able to even see the evidence against him. A huge red flag that the prosecution dont think the evidence holds water. And when they did get it, it was terabytes of data, and Luigi wasn't allowed to use a computer without hus lawyer present, blocking him from seeing what weaksauce they have against him
  The aid to the prosecutor also listened in, they say it was an accident to a whole telephone conversation with Luigi and the lawyer, how is this even possible. The prosecutor rebuked him self from the case after they were caught doing this, so they do a new prosecutor
  The feds even call for the death penalty before Luigi is even indited, let alone convinced.
  I'm just very skeptical this is the shooter, why would they screw up everything so bad every step on puropuse like this. Its just a hail Mary that the judge who is married to a CEO will convict anyway
  
  and you think my manifesto would start praising with how amazing the cops are and we need to thank them, and we should not rise up?
  
  "Burn all the evidence in an alleyway somewhere, get new clothes on
  Luigi in the released CCTV photography is already wearing different clothes to the shooter. Not very different though.
  Bit strange to change clothes and backpack but keep the same styling and colors.
  
  That's the problem though. Everyone's playing "If I were him".
  The thing is, we don't know what was going on his mind. Say he actually was the one who did it. Maybe he wanted to get caught. Maybe he assumed he was going to get caught within minutes, and didn't bother throwing away the evidence because he didn't think there was any point. Maybe he kept changing his mind about what he was going to do, and in the end that indecision caught up with him.
  Assuming he's actually the one who shot the CEO, I already have trouble understanding his thinking. He shot a guy in cold blood who may have been scummy, but hadn't actually hurt Mangione or anybody he cared about, AFAIK. He didn't do it as part of a community. I know he's not a mass shooter, but shooting a stranger for ideological reasons is most similar to mass shooters or bombers. Most of the times people do that, they're egged on by a community. He apparently just did it on his own.
  So yeah, I don't get it, but the fact I don't get it doesn't convince me it can't be true.
  
  Yeah, the real shooter is probably in the woods somewhere barely surviving off what they can find. At least, that’s more reasonable than doing a high profile assassination and going to McDonalds for a burger after (I know it was days later, it’s hyperbole).
  
  I've said this a few times now, but it's entirely possible he's just not the criminal mastermind we want him to be.
- He's an example of the difference in outcomes between a competent attorney focused solely on your own defense and some public defender that didn't know you'd be their client until five minutes before trial.
  Whether or not he did it, the real outcome of this court case appears to be reaffirming that the ~~NYPD~~ local Pennsylvania PD simply cannot be trusted to do any kind of investigation of a crime or evidence handling even in the most high-profile cases.
  
  This was a police department in Pennsylvania, days later, hours away from NY
  This police department mainly had information from the media, not from NYPD
- I want to see him win this whether he did it or not, but at this point it legitimately looks like it isn't him. Either way, they just want to make an example out of him, it's literally just class warfare and nothing else.
  
  I hope he did it and I hope he gets off.
  
  I wouldn't be surprised if it was him, if he had a meticulous brilliant plan to make sure there was no direct evidence, so people would know it was him but they couldn't prove it in a court of law.
  And then the cops were like "it's cute you think we play by the rules" and planted evidence.
  
  I also hope he's acquitted. I don't know if a random healthcare CEO getting killed will make the world a better place. But, I do think that a guy getting away with killing a random healthcare CEO is more likely to result in change.
  In the first case, it can be dismissed by the CEOs, oligarchs and friends as a crazy lone gunman. But, if a jury votes to acquit after massive donations to his legal case, that becomes a clear sign that it's not just a lone gunman, that a lot of people support this kind of thing. It also makes it more likely to happen again, because the next gunman might think they can get away with it too. If CEOs start quitting because they don't want a target on their backs, or they start reforming their companies to avoid being so hated, that's great.
- I think what ends up happening (as a rando without a legal degree) is that the backpack and all of its contents become inadmissible as evidence. It makes beyond a reasonable doubt harder to achieve for the prosecution because they lack a proposed murder weapon in evidence.
  
  This is just a motion. Judge will decide it's validity and the remedy. It might end up with the evidence excluded, but it might be that the prosecution just has to provide a different/stronger justification, or even be a nothing burger if the judge is unconvinced by the arguments in the motion.
  I agree with your analysis if the judge does exclude backpack and contents as evidence.
  Anything other than exclusion will be grounds for appeal, later, too.
- I think he probably is the right guy but he was smart enough to cover his tracks and they only found him because of some kind of illegal surveillance we don't know about. Would explain why they're so desperate for anything else to explain how they know it was him.
  
  My issue with that is that if he were caught via illegal surveillance so soon after the fact, it seems strange that they wouldn't have caught him during the planning/prep stages using said surveillance.
  
  He clearly didn't want to get away if he kept the evidence. You can just throw it in the trash at a random place
- The images released at the time show two different people. One was from the scene and the other from a hostel in the area. While they look similar, there are details which show there are very likely not the same person. Luigi only matches the details of the hostel image, not the one from the scene.
  
  NYC is full of tall attractive young men of Italian descent. I used to live there and off the top of my head can think of three different aquaintences who were his age and would have matched his profile close enough.
- I can't imagine how much it must suck for him right now if he didn't do it. Like, the way they're treating him is awful regardless, but I imagine that being responsible for the widely praised act would help a little (gosh, it must feel so awkward to have so many fans if he wasn't the one who did it — it has stolen valour vibes (except presumably he wouldn't have chosen to be the scapegoat))

Eat the rich

Now is a good time to remind people to never ever agree to a police search. They're gonna phrase things weird and take advantage of your good nature. Never agree to any sort of search.
Hell, even if they have a warrant I'm tempted to explicitly say I don't consent. I'm not going to resist but I'm gonna make it clear I'm not consenting. Because how the hell do I even verify a warrant is real? I have no idea, and I certainly wouldn't be able to find out if they're at my door.
Be aware though, in Georgia there is "implied consent" with regards to roadside breathalyzer tests. If you get in that situation, remember I'm just a random lemming and not a lawyer. Other states might have similar things.
- "If you get in that situation, remember I'm just a random lemming and not a lawyer."
  Indeed! And along those lines, ask for a lawyer if you're arrested. Especially if you're innocent. People who think "I'll look guilty if I ask for a lawyer" just make themselves vulnerable to words being twisted against them.
  
  “I’ll look guilty if I ask for a lawyer”
  If you ever watch copaganda shows, you'll see that the innocent are always anxious to talk to the cops, with tears in their eyes as the police comforting them, and the guilty are always the ones refusing to cooperate, saying they "know their rights", and they'll be lawyering up.
  This is intentional, the system wants you to believe that your only hope is compliance and no questions asked. That a good citizen knows that the constitution is just a piece of paper, and the only trait worth having is blind faith in your betters. That the common man has only the right to obey, consume product, and reproduce so that he can be replaced on the assembly line when he grows too old.
  If you are sickened by what I just said, hold onto that feeling, it means they haven't completely gotten your soul yet.
  
  If you are in custody, you already look guilty to them.
- Ask them to show you and take a pic of it for your records.
  Pro tip: set a shortcut to your camera on your lock screen so you don't have to unlock your phone.
  
  On most Android phones there's a physical shortcut for the camera like pressing the lock button twice.
- And if they give you some bullshit about "exigent circumstances" to try to convince you to agree to something, just remember, if they met the criteria for exigent circumstances, they wouldn't be asking, they'd have already broken your window or door or otherwise removed your agency.
  
  This is what I tried to get at with taking advantage of your good will. When we order people to do things we often frame it as a question to be polite. "Would you please do X?" So we're used to hearing questions and just saying "yeah sure".
- The pictures of Luigi in the lobby of the hostel were taken 3 miles away from the shooting, two weeks before the shooting. The jacket, backpack, eyes and eyebrows of the shooter don't match Luigi's. I think that immediately after the shooting, cops used Palantir or similar technology to do an AI search of images similar to the shooter. That just meant anyone on a camera the cops had access to wearing a green jacket with a hood and a black neck gaiter. The image of Luigi smiling at a girl in the lobby of a hostel two weeks earlier was the best match the AI found, so they framed his ass. Cops do it all the time. Ask the Central Park Five. NYPD and prosecutors would rather let a guilty man go free than admit that they lied and framed someone.

Well that sure is weird.
No jury Nullification needed. It looks like it really was a frame job. Can't wait to see this case unfold.
- I still think this would be a bad case for jury nullification. Too much attention, too easily sent to the supreme court, court is too packed with clowns to do anything other than remove the power of jury nullification for the benefit of their wealthy owners.
  Who knows though, maybe that would get people to actually decide enough is enough, i doubt it though.
  
  Jury nullification isn't an enumerated power, it's an emergent result of jury deliberations being secret and their verdict being legally binding.
  
  SCOTUS cannot overturn a Nulification in the not guilty, according to anything about nulification I have read thus far, because the jury said that there is reasonable doubt, that he did not do it.
  
  As the other comment says, jury nullification isn't a thing that can easily be removed. The jury doesn't just claim "jury nullification." They just state their decision is that the defendant is not guilty. They don't state why, and we'd only know why they came to that conclusion if they tell us later in interviews or something.
  
  The plaintiff cannot appeal. There are super rare circumstances where I should say "usually can't appeal", but those are so rare I will just say only the defendant can appeal.

Something that needs to be considered is the possibility of parallel construction in the arrest and alleged evidence
- When I first heard about this back in my early 20s, it radicalized me. ACAB.
- This is the first time I hear about this, is this just a way to get normally inadmissable evidence admitted through some bullshit loophole or is there an actual good reason to have this system?
  
  It sounds like they're buying time to find evidence that is admissable in court (ie not their illegal methods they used to first book the defendant while they try to scrounge together what they do need.)
  So goes like this. You use illegal surveillance to track someone without a warrant. You arrest them and plant evidence as cause for lock up. Meanwhile now you can actually get a warrant to search the defendants computer, house, etc... To try to find something that does give you evidence of guilt that will actually be used to prove you think they're guilty.
  Obviously he's innocent though.
  
  Seems like an “ends justifies the means” loophole. The original intent was to hide the source of NSA tips from terrorist prosecution. We’d all probably agree to that without thinking that it can also be used more widely, that the person is not a terrorist until proven so, that there are really no limits, and is an easy way for police to hide abuse of authority.
  Analogous to “Civil Forfeiture”. That seemed so reasonable in the context of seizing wealth obtained through criminal activities by organized crime. But there were no real limits, and it allowed perverse incentives, so now we have local cops stealing people’s personal belongings, and actually creating budgets relying on this theft
  
  This is common knowledge for anyone who was around during the Chelsea Manning / Edward Snowden era and all the revelations of the depths of NSA spying, PRISM, etc.
  Everything is being recorded, analysed, manipulated to whatever degree they’re technically capable of, laws be damned.
  
  At best, you know someone is doing something wrong but get them in something else. Think like mobsters and such. But typically it's just shitty.

Wow, imagine being the cop that fucked this up this hard.
- I don't think they could avoid fucking it up. Planting a fucking gun isn't that easy :D
  
  I mean, I guess it depends on how late in the season you plant it and how many gun seeds you have.
  
  Planting a gun to ensure a conviction? I think the whole “Luigi didn’t do it” conspiracy is silly. Yeah he did it, for sure. And he’s a damn hero for doing it. I don’t see how the ruling class benefits by throwing the wrong guy in jail and letting the killer go free. If there was a non Luigi killer he would have claimed responsibility by now.
  And yes I’ve seen the photos of his eyebrow in a shitty security cam, hairs reflect light or become invisible depending on the lighting and camera quality. Luigi hasn’t even denied it flat out. But yes, Luigi did it and praise him for it.
- Don't worry, they are already on paid disciplinary leave until this is all over.
- Hero Cop Saves Innocent Man's Life
  
  First and last time this phrase has ever been said about a US cop

Getting arrested in Pennsyltucky by imbreds was a genius move.

Spoiled Evidence....
- This. The chain of evidence is tainted and cannot be accounted for. Anything in the backpack could have been placed there by anyone, at any time, before, during, or after his arrest.
  My feelings on this: good. One less thing that they can use against him. If his defense doesn't get any evidence from the backpack thrown out, then idk what they're even doing.

I've been saying all along everything happened too quick for him to be the actual guy. It was pretty clear to me they were desperate to make an example of someone quickly and not accurately.
- Both things can be true, no? He may actually be the guy, but they acquired evidence illegally and still planted it to subvert due process (again).
  
  He isn't, we were hanging out that week.
  
  Well yeah thats a fair point.

Because no one else has yet commented this:
Fuck The Police.
- Seriously! Bunch of slackers around here!
- Sorry, I was asleep. I'll set an alarm next time.
  
  Thankfully/Unfortunately, you don't need an alarm to know that ACAB

They need to play 12 Angry Men for every jury before deliberation, but play it twice for this particular jury. That's not the kind of evidence you send a kid to the chair over.
- Need to be putting up billboards across the state about "jury nullification" being a civic duty.

Let's say that Mangione committed the crime.
My understanding is that he gave cops a fake ID when they questioned him on reasonable suspicion (the basis of which was a tip from an employee). That is something that yes, he can be arrested for. And he can be personally searched after that arrest. But at that point, he can no longer get a gun out of his bag, and cops have control of it, so he can't destroy evidence/get a weapon from it; so searching the bag should be out at that time. So, my understanding, based on case law, is that they would have needed a warrant to search it at that time, as the contents of the bag aren't related to the reason he's been arrested. You aren't supposed to be able to use a pretextural arrest to search a person's car or belongings (e.g., arrest you for suspicion of drunk driving, then search your car to find evidence of burglaries).
In theory, without the warrant, the search and everything from the search should be out. Even if he committed the crime, and kept all the evidence conveniently in his backpack, it should be completely excluded from the case. I'm sure that the DA is going to argue that there's some exception that allows a warrantless search, but I can't say what that argument will be. If the evidence is allowed in, his defense attorney is going to have to object every single time that prosecutors refer to it, for any reason, in order to preserve the option to claim that evidence was improperly admitted in an appeal. (Which they should absolutely do, if it goes that far!)
Federal rules of evidence is pretty complicated stuff. But goddamn, does it look like someone fucked up bad on a really high profile case.
- Even if he committed the crime, and kept all the evidence conveniently in his backpack
  Yeah, he conveniently carried around a disposable weapon used in a murder that he was wanted for, instead of disposing of it. Also he conveniently wrote a manifesto related to the murder and carried that around in his backpack as well.
  Nothing suspicious here. Move along.
  
  Not a manifesto. Manifestos are published by the author. We have no way of knowing who authored that police officer's fever dream, but since the police published it, it wasn't written by Luigi. Also the language and grammar are consistent with the lack of education that cops receive, not the level of education that Luigi received.
  
  disposable weapon
  Printed guns aren't "disposable"; they're untraceable. A printed firearm can function for tens of thousands of rounds, and is not necessarily any less accurate than any other polymer firearm.
  If he never expected to even make it out of NYC, carrying that stuff kinda makes sense. But I def. would have dumped everything in the Hudson river.
- You aren’t supposed to be able to use a pretextural arrest to search a person’s car or belongings
  This is something they could very easily forget, or just never learned, because they usually fuck up the poor and colored and press them into plea deals so it never goes to trial so it never becomes apparent the police have nothing since they ignored all the laws, i imagine when u spend a good amount of your career cheating the justice system you forget there were ever rules to begin with.
  
  Part of me is leaning towards Luigi being the guy and he planned on getting arrested with this 'too good to be true' evidence in this little known PA town, because he was banking on them bungling it and he knew he would have a good legal team making it seem planted, or at the least have widespread public support if he did get charged.
- Pretty sure you're wrong, specifically in that a search incident to arrest doesn't have lines in the sand about which crime you're being arrested for.
  
  Good point, they don't even need a crime to arrest you.
  This is how people end up with their only charge being "resisting arrest".
  
  Search incident to arrest typically allows you to search the person of the suspect to ensure that the person doesn't have a weapon, or has evidence of a crime that they can destroy. Once you've separated a person from a closed bag, you don't have the immediate right to search the bag; US v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977). OTOH, once an arrestee is actually being booked, they can perform an inventory of the contents of a bag (Illinois v. LaFayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983)), which would have turned up the gun, etc., and it would have turned them up under controlled circumstances. But that's not what happened here; he appears to have been arrested on a pretextual basis, and then his bag seized and searched without a warrant. However, it's going to be up to his attorneys to make this argument, and my guess is that the state will argue that he was definitely, 100% going to be booked--despite the lack of evidence at that point to support that--and thus it was inevitable that the gun would have been found. I think that's bullshit, but we'll see.
  
  Off topic but I really like your name
- Not a lawyer, but I know that when a cop arrests someone in a car and the car is impounded, they catalog items. This is an unofficial search to make sure they aren't liable for missing items. I would expect the same of a backpack. But perhaps that falls under the same disqualification of use as evidence you're suggesting.
  
  That's called an "inventory search", and this motion says what happened isn't an "inventory search" because they didn't follow procedure (and cites supporting precedence).
  If they would have just hauled him in for processing on the false identification, and then found the gun during an inventory search at the station, it would be better for the prosecution.
  The motion also claims that the search couldn't be a... safety search? (I don't know the right term)... like checking a person for weapons, because before the search was initiated, the suspect was already handcuffed and separated from the backpack so didn't have access to anything in it that could be hazardous to the officers. Prosecution might argue is was a safety search because they were looking for a hazard that didn't need to be triggered by the suspect, like a timed device or just an incidental hazard.
  IANAL, just an interested citizen.
  
  Not a lawyer, but I know that when a cop arrests someone in a car and the car is impounded, they catalog items.
  Under Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983), it would be fine to inventory a bag when you're being booked. But they hadn't gotten that far, and I'm not aware of any evidence that they would have actually booked him without the contents of the bag.
  
  Also, AFAIK, they're allowed to do a basic search to ensure that someone doesn't have a weapon on them or nearby. It wouldn't make sense to require a warrant for that. Imagine a cop had to apply for a search warrant to ensure that the person they were arresting didn't have a knife or gun in their pocket.
  In that case, it might make sense to search his backpack if it was right next to him. OTOH, if they took his backpack away from him, then they were no longer in danger from anything in the backpack so they had no justification to search it.
  You just know that the police are going to lie about these things. They'll claim he was never separated from his backpack so they were justified in searching it for something dangerous. Or they'll claim that they had reason to believe there was a bomb so even though he didn't have it on him, they still had a reason to search it because it still posed an immediate danger.
  The only way anybody can get a fair trial is to have an expensive team of lawyers who can chase down all these various lies, finding out what was said on body cams, when the body cams were mysteriously turned off, what the exact timeline of everything was, etc.

I love the smell of "Reasonable Doubt" in the morning

It doesn't matter whether he did or did not do it just like it won't matter what evidence does or does not exist.
An example to be made was chosen, and it will be made.
The only question at this point is how will we react to that example.
- If they are worried about conviction, I expect he will be suicided.
  
  This is the harsh truth. Right now, legally, their case is falling apart. A nontrivial amount of hard evidence was in that bag and this action should get everything tossed because the chain of evidence is non-existent.
  The other poster is also correct, they've decided he should be punished for this, whether he did or not is irrelevant. They're going to twist every ounce of evidence they can to say he did it. If that doesn't work, he'll be found hanging from his shoelaces...

- Leave it to the NYPD to find the guy who did it regardless of who actually did it

Crooked cops? Who'd have thought such things were possible. Oh wait, everyone with more than two brain cells to click together.
- Remember that the NYC Police Commisioner is a Sociopathic Oligarch from the Tisch family. The entire NYC police force is now just security for the city's wealthy.

It's like the dumbest and laziest people set out to frame this guy
- Yes we already established they were police, youre just being redundant.

So the cops that qoute "just knew" they had the right guy by looking at him also planted key evidence?
So convenient that your suspect doesn't bother hiding key evidence and that you get a hunch that is right on point...

You know it's a sham the question is, what are you gonna do? you're the people with access to guns... me here in Europe I gotta fight with literal sticks and stones
- I think you're confused, I live in Europe and I have way more guns that the average American.
  
  Austrian? yeah nothing here in Spain, in fact the legislation strictly and very clearly says "the reason to request a permit for the sake of being able to bear arms is a reason that denies granting the permit" so yeah... can I bear arms? why? because I think it's my right! well then absofuckinglutely not
  
  On top or that, compared to an average American, you earned the right to own them by passing several tests and know how to safely manipulate them.
  ...but MUH FREEDOM 🇱🇷
  
  That's only 1.2 guns! Not impressed.

Not same eyebrows as the shooter
- People said they were trimmed at the time, but he'd have to be a werewolf to grow them back that fast.

He's innocent
- Free Luigi!

It almost doesn't even matter if they did plant the gun on him - as soon as it became a national manhunt because the capital class was panicking, nobody was going to believe them that they didn't somehow fuck up due process.
If this ends in acquittal or mistrial I think the media will go back into full-blown panic
- I’d be more likely to panic if it ends in conviction and execution
  
  You, but not the Millionaires and Billionaires that own the media

I don't think they even checked the grassy knoll for a shooter.

Uh oh. It would be wild if it was inadmissible. Their whole job is to collect USABLE evidence.
- Their job is to enforce, through violence, whatever people in power want enforced

Anyone got a link to the motion? Surely it's a public record, right? This is interesting if true, but I'd like to check the sources.
Sorry if I missed it in the rest of the comments; I scanned them and didn't see it.
- https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/luigi-mangione-dismissal-motion.pdf
  
  Thank you!
  Pages numbered 23 to 26 are the meat of the argument referenced in the image, for anyone else that wants to click through.
  "[[l]t can hardly be said that the officer in this case followed the policy [for an inventory search] by conducting a search that included only the glove compartment, and upon finding a gun, leaving it in place."

A second thought - if I was the elite, I'd start panicking right now regardless of the outcome of the trial.
The "assassin" is still out there. He was able to pull this off In front of security cameras, and the only evidence he left behind were three bullets found near the body of the CEO who clearly died of pre-existing conditions.
- Luigi will become a senator, mark my words

source? would love to use this in further talks and wont if its just a twitter post
- https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/luigi-mangione-dismissal-motion.pdf

Luigi is innocent! Free this mans!

It seems like people are adopting the Catholic doublethink strategy for Jesus about Luigi. Jesus is somehow simultaneously God and not-God, Luigi seems to be the guy who justifiably killed that CEO and was definitely framed for murder.
The guy's got to deal with the legal system and apparently they won't accept self-defense as a valid justification for icing the prick who tried to deny healthcare. So, don't have an issue with it, but it is weird to see.
- Alright so I don't think Luigi actually did it. But it's easy to say "Luigi" in conversation and everyone knows who you're talking about, regardless of how they feel about his innocence.
  
  Yeah the evidence is whack but right now the "He did something justified" is just a symbol, if it turns out someone else did it they would take over that symbolism.
  
  I wonder how many guns are named Luigi by their owners now.
- I think many people celebrate the person that actually killed that CEO (no matter if it was Luigi personally or not). That doesn't really have to conflict with thinking that Luigi didn't do it. In the first instance he just represents the person that did it because we don't know who really did it.
  
  If you'd celebrate the real killer, then arguing that Luigi didn't do it seems secondary to the fact that it wasn't a crime anyone should be punished for. It's a weird kind of mental backflip to stay within the lines of the current system while supporting actions that are outside the system.
  Personally, I've had to pay UHC tens of thousands of dollars in premiums and additional tens of thousands every time I've gotten hurt/sick because UHC covers basically nothing. They billed me $800 the last time I got a tetanus shot. It would have been $150 if I had claimed to be uninsured so it is literally cheaper for me not to tell providers I have insurance.
  If shooting a mugger for stealing your wallet is justified homicide, then so was shooting this asshole. I have no issue saying, "I think Luigi did it and he should be free."
- Luigi didn't do it
  If he did do it, it wasn't that bad
  If it was, it's not that big of a deal
  If he was, it's not his fault
  If it was, he didn't mean it
  If he did, the CEO deserved it
  I know this is the narcissist prayer and he's certainly not a narcissist (based on what I've seen anyway) but can't help but see each one of these lines unironically applies to the situation.
  Fact is profit driven healthcare has killed more people than Luigi ever did, allegedly or not.
  
  The point is a sort of doublethink.
  Where in private you celebrate Luigi for what we think he did. But in Public we pretend he didn’t do it to help create a narrative to protect him from the police state.
- Luigi seems to be the guy who justifiably killed that CEO and was definitely framed for murder.
  You are very close. Someone can be guilty and also be framed by a corrupt 'justice' system. They can also do something that can be seen more than one way depending on context, like how killing someone could be 1st degree murder, manslaughter, or self defense depending on circumstances.
  In this case it is a mix of being seen as self defense and the police not following proper procedure in ways that promote speculation of him being framed. So from my perspective he likely did it, but if he did it was self defense/protecting innocents and the police/prosecution are trying to frame him for a quick and public spectacle to appease the wealthy.
- Both of those people exist. It is both true that the CEO was put to justice by a hero and that Luigi was framed for murder. He's just a guy who picked a bad day to visit the city.

free luigi!

Yeah... They'll convict him.

He literally walked up and shot the man in broad daylight on the street.
- No he didn’t, he was actually hanging with me at the time of the murder
  
  Thank you for inviting me. Mario and I had a great time camping with you that night.
- Prove it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

Drag has been saying the gun was planted for months and got banned from !news@lemmy.world for it.
- yeah I saw that lmao. I thought "drag got banned for an opinion I had 💀"
- I'm open to the possibility. Innocent until proven guilty.
  
  Right now it looks like the gun will be ruled inadmissible because the police have made it impossible to rule out the possibility it was planted. So right now they have basically no evidence to build a case. If there are no more surprises, this will be an easy acquittal.
- Where would the planted gun have come from? It's a 3D printed gun. The police would have had to run off a similar model in the few days between the killing and Luigi's capture. If you're experienced with 3D printers and already have a couple printers, you could probably pull that off, but that's not the police. I seriously doubt they have people setup for something like that, and institutional inertial would prevent them from spinning it up in the short time required. The learning curve alone would prevent them from having the time.
  Nor can they feasibly bring in outside help. "We need you to make a 3D printed gun for us". What do the police need with a 3D printed gun that happens to match the one the shooter used?
  Regardless, there's a chain of evidence issue here. That could well destroy the case no matter if it was planted or not.
  
  If it's actually the gun used in the murder, it may have been found previously. It's a disposable weapon, after all. They may have found the gun in NYC and figured they can't tie it to anyone unless it's conveniently found on the person they arrest.
  Now I'm not saying that IS what happened, but it very well could have happened. The circumstances behind the handling of evidence have been very suspicious and a little bit too convenient.
  
  Tbf, squirting out a glizzy only takes like 24hr, roughly, depending on the model, sometimes less. It's entirely possible a cop already had a squirted glock themselves for the purpose of planting, or more likely took one from evidence, or most likely one that never made it in to evidence, off some guy they booked for coke but never put in the gun. Especially considering the lack of bodycam footage, that suggests they could have turned off the bodycam before as well during the arrest in which they sourced the glock.
  It's all speculation of course, but I've known a now retired cop that let a few people off of gun charges because the gun was cool and so it just "went missing" and found it's way into his safe. It can and has happened.
  
  If you'll allow drag to speculate, the easiest explanation is that it's not 3D printed. The chief of police said it "might be" 3D printed. The 3D printing is just a scare tactic they were planning to walk back in court while using the media to manipulate the public into fearing him to bias jurors. The gun actually came from a Three Letter Agency's armoury. It's untraceable because they had it scrubbed, like all their weapons. They handed it over to the local cops and said make this look good.
  
  You really think of the thousands of NYPD personnel, none of them have a 3d printer?
  
  Is it possible police found the gun nearby the shooting, but never made the evidence public?
  I ask because I don't know the intricacies or timeline of the shooting/hunt/arrest/detainment.
  Publicising that "someone just killed a CEO with a 3d printed gun, you found the gun and you have no further evidence" might inspire a lot of copycats.

Who needs movies when reality comes up with stuff like this?