971
DOJ Appears to Have Violated Luigi Mangione’s Right to a Fair Trial, Judge Says (truthout.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/luigimangione@lemmy.world
122 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

There's no question about Derek Chauvin being the one who did the thing though. We don't know for certain Luigi Mangione was the one there that day. Extremely different circumstances.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    We didn't know if Floyd was killed though until autopsies, whereas we know Thompson was shot intentionally on camera.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    We know floyd was killed, there is a video of it happening, he was alive then he was not, as a direct result of what was happening when he died on video.

    The trial was to determine whether or not it was intentional and/or malicious.

    No?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You're proving the point on why it was hard to give him a fair trial, as everyone had seen it reported as a killing. Millions protested for justice against his killer.

    He died on video while under the influence of multiple drugs. Someone dying does not mean they were killed. Some people still believe he wasn't killed, focusing on his fentanyl intoxication, though that runs a bit counter to the expert's interpretation which called it a homicide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    If you punch someone with an undiscovered delicate brain tumor and they die as a result of that tumor rupturing you killed them.

    If you scare someone with a heart condition and they drop dead, you killed them.

    If you give peanuts to someone with a severe allergy and they die, you killed them.

    If you restrict the breathing of someone with severe respiratory problems and they suffocate as a result, you killed them.

    If you lay a bunch of physical stress on a body already under stress and they die because of it, you killed them.

    Intentional or not, the action causes the event, even if the event likely to happen of it's own accord.

    Unless he was going to drop dead in that moment of whatever it was that ended up killing him, the people involved in the actions that exacerbated or expedited the death, killed him.

    I'm not saying this to assign blame, i'm citing cause and effect.

    As i previously stated, it was a killing, intentional or not.

    ^ this is above

    as everyone had seen it reported as a killing.

    because it was, see above.

    What i think you mean is that it was reported as an intentional killing, which is different and yes, bias until properly explored.

    Millions protested for justice against his killer.

    Because they thought he did it on purpose, if he was administering CPR to someone, cracked a rib and punctured a lung, the publicity would no doubt have been different.

    It wasn't the killing, it was the perceived intention.

    He died on video while under the influence of multiple drugs.

    See above.

    Someone dying does not mean they were killed.

    Sure, drop dead on the street of an aneurysm , death but no killing.

    If outside actions led to the death (intentional or not) then they were killed. See above.

    Some people still believe he wasn’t killed.

    Those people are incorrect (see above) unless what they mean is that they think he wasn't killed intentionally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Unless he was going to drop dead in that moment of whatever it was that ended up killing him, the people involved in the actions that exacerbated or expedited the death, killed him.

    I don't disagree with that. But you'd be operating with the unfounded assumption that he would NOT have died without the officer's pressure on him. Prior to an autopsy or expert analysis, you could not accurately claim that.

    Certainly, before people knew all the drugs he was on, and how he was struggling to breathe while in the car, it's not an unreasonable assumption to think he was killed, as it looked like it. But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people. So calling it unequivocally a killing prior to additional evidence, like you are, is unreasonable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don’t disagree with that. But you’d be operating with the unfounded assumption that he would NOT have died without the officer’s pressure on him. Prior to an autopsy or expert analysis, you could not accurately claim that.

    The inverse is also true, but it's still not particularly relevant to my point outside of the rough example i gave previously.

    Certainly, before people knew all the drugs he was on,

    Irrelevant to the definition of killing unless they were an immediate life threatening danger* (which alters the context)

    (* by which i mean, would have died in the same way, in the same rough time window without any outside interaction)

    and how he was struggling to breathe while in the car

    Same as above.

    it’s not an unreasonable assumption to think he was killed, as it looked like it.

    Not an assumption, dictionary definition of killing.

    I don't think it'll make a difference but here is an actual definition : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/killing

    Note the lack of a requirement for it to be intentional.

    But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people.

    irrelevant , A peanut wouldn't kill most people.

    The "potential" lethality of the act doesn't matter if the outcome is death.

    So calling it unequivocally a killing prior to additional evidence, like you are, is unreasonable.

    Again, killing is a reasonable conclusion for an action that causes a death that would otherwise not occur in that rough window of time.

    Seems you're thinking of murder (or manslaughter) which legally has a component of intention, rather than killing.

    Intention is separate from killing, but i don't think you're going to accept that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The inverse is also true, but it’s still not particularly relevant to my point outside of the rough example i gave previously.

    Yes, the inverse is also true. Which is why it was necessary to investigate it to see why he died, as it was not clear why.

    You, however, just saw the video and assumed the cop's actions caused his death. It's unclear why considering his actions would not normally kill someone.

    But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people.

    irrelevant , A peanut wouldn’t kill most people.

    Entirely relevant. If you saw a video of them feeding him a peanut butter sandwich and he died right afterward, you have no clear evidence without autopsy that he didn't have a heart attack or something. You can't just assume the cop's actions caused it.

    Not an assumption, dictionary definition of killing.

    How is it not an assumption to say the cop's actions caused his death prior to autopsy?

    I'm an not talking about manslaughter, murder, none of that. I'm not talking about intent. I am talking about the same definition of killing that you are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yes, the inverse is also true. Which is why it was necessary to investigate it to see why he died, as it was not clear why.

    Agree, but cause of death is not the same as whether or not he was killed, i know you're not seeing the distinction.

    You, however, just saw the video and assumed the cop’s actions caused his death. It’s unclear why considering his actions would not normally kill someone.

    I saw a video of someone not immediately dying, then a bunch of people restraining him, then he died.

    It's reasonable to assume if he was just standing there and they hadn't interacted at all, he wouldn't have died.

    I'll break it down into steps:

    No interaction -> I'm assuming he isn't just going to drop dead in that moment.

    Interaction -> he died.

    Therefore interaction led to death.

    It is possible, though very unlikely he could have just dropped dead of his own accord, it's not a reasonable assumption that he would though.

    I'm not sure how why this is a difficult concept , but it's certainly interesting to see.

    Entirely relevant. If you saw a video of them feeding him a peanut butter sandwich and he died right afterward, you have no clear evidence without autopsy that he didn’t have a heart attack or something. You can’t just assume the cop’s actions caused it.

    That's some top tier mental gymnastics, but not entirely incorrect.

    The same could be said that if someone was shot and bled out, you couldn't be sure it wasn't a heart attack that killed them, but you can be reasonable sure it was getting shot that led to the death.

    Yes, i suppose you couldn't be sure until the autopsy, but it's reasonable to assume causation until proven otherwise.

    Please note that i'm saying causation and not the legal qualifications for murder or manslaughter, because so far you seem to be conflating the two.

    How is it not an assumption to say the cop’s actions caused his death prior to autopsy?

    Hmm, you are right, that is my bad, it is an assumption, even after the autopsy.

    I stand by it being a reasonable assumption though. ( of killing, not intent )

    I’m an not talking about manslaughter, murder, none of that. I’m not talking about intent. I am talking about the same definition of killing that you are.

    You are not, i'm talking about cause and effect you're talking about media bias and fairness.

    As i said, if they'd been having lunch and he'd been accidentally given a strong allergen, the conversation would be very different.

    Still killing though.

    Even if everyone knew, for a fact, that the death was caused by the actions of the police, that isn't itself a bias take with regards to the trial/law.

    That's just cause and effect.

    The law is couched in intention and context, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for distinctions such as murder, manslaughter etc. There would be an autopsy and a conviction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent