all 79 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 346 points 1 year ago (19 children)

In a written decision, Judge Gregory Carro said that although there is no doubt that the killing was not an ordinary street crime, New York law doesn’t consider something terrorism simply because it was motivated by ideology.

“While the defendant was clearly expressing an animus toward UHC, and the health care industry generally, it does not follow that his goal was to ‘intimidate and coerce a civilian population,’ and indeed, there was no evidence presented of such a goal,” Carro wrote.

Hope the rest of the trial goes with as much sense as this

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 174 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    That's huge. That was a big charge and the prosecutors really wanted it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 87 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Hell yes. Now the guy just has to keep them from proving he did it. Honestly feels doable

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The emphasis on "intimidate and coerce a civilian population" is interesting. Seems to imply billionaires are not considered part of the civilian population. As they shouldn't be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    Before we go giving the legal system a pat on the back for that, that's not really what's happening. The law is written with a high level of provable intent in mind, and that's the only way it could possibly pass 1st Amendment muster. It's really, really hard to prove anyone intended to intimidate anyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That is not how I read it. If he had shot and left a note saying "fuck billionaires" or "fuck CEOs" then it would be terrorism because he would be threatening them. But his problem was just this guy. It was plain murder / revenge.

    The internet made him a champion of "anti billionaires" against his will

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Yep. Maybe this is irelevant to US law, but I'm in Romania (European Union member) at the moment and here discriminating against someone based on wealth (wealthy/poor) is a hate crime (as is discriminating based on gender, age, orientation, etc). So at the most it'd be a hate crime. The terrorism charges were politically motivated.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Is it normal for judges to make comments that are worded like the defendant is guilty?

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

    Right? I thought that was odd, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    They should have said something like, "The prosecution hasn't established a motive for the crime to justify a terrorism charge," or something similar.

    But I'm not a lawyer, so it's possible (maybe probable) that it's fine to reference the defendant's motives in reference to the prosecution's claims.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 93 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    I believe Luigi is the killer, and he should be regarded as a hero. The slaying of Brian Thompson was a honorable and heroic act.

    Killing a man who did the evil and destructive work of Healthcare CEO has literally saved the lives of hundreds or maybe even thoudands of United Health customers who would have had their lifesaving care denied.

    If you are lucky enough to be chosen for jury duty, please study Jury Nullification

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    And make absolutely sure that they don't suspect you will be doing jury nullification. They won't allow you to be on the jury if you do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    'I believe in the letter of the law laid out by our true and just government. Also every social media post I ever made was just a shit post and I have matured as an adult last week.'

    Think that will work?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They need to link to your social media posts to YOU. My Lemmy accounts are made with temporary emails. In fact, I stopped using reusable emails unless I absolutely have to. Also I was active on facebook (I only made a facebook account because of the pestering of my family many years ago. But I didn't use it much until years later... and even then, just for a few years, and then I stopped. I stopped using it for a long ass time. I have yet to delete my account though). There was that dumb trend online of many people using their real identities, which I kinda fell for until I realized how colossally stupid it was.

    Basically if I had to conceal my lemmy posts (which is my main online social media) I just need to delete my cache and cookies and there is no way for them to find them on my phone or my other computers for them to search. I can deny ever having made any post and there is not a damn thing they can do about it. Even if they somehow want full records from ISP (and I use a VPN) I can just say I read everything and never posted.

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

    Any recommendations for email? All the ones I find want my phone number or another email

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    No. It won't.

    If you say the words "jury nullification" before you're selected, you'll 100% be disqualified. If you say it after you're selected... you'll probably still be disqualified. There's really no reason at all to say those words anywhere near an actual jury. But you can explain the idea, carefully, and maybe not too explicitly.

    A jury is the final arbiter of the law. If you decide that throwing a sandwich does not constitute assault, then it's not assault.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    they are going to take a while in voir dire, probably going through hundreds juror at a time to see if any of them already havnt been consuming news of luigis arrest. it takes Hours to even go through 12 plus 3-6 alternates.( i was recently in JD and we sat there for like the whole day just doing it in the west.(like 7+hrs)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It takes twelve to hang the accused but only one to hang the jury

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

    Jury annulment is the better option here. Best option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago*

    Acquittal is what happens when all twelve jurors vote "not guilty".

    Conviction is what happens when all twelve jurors vote "guilty".

    A hung jury is what happens when at least one of the jurors votes differently from the others.

    Jury nullification is when the jury votes to acquit despite the obviousness of the guilt of the accused. It is not the best option. The best option is for the jury to acquit based on the fact that the evidence is honestly shit.

    Though jurors are never required to disclose the reasons for their vote. Any one juror who votes "not guilty" and refuses to budge from that position despite the others voting "guilty" will cause a hung jury and prevent the accused from being convicted.

    Hence, it takes twelve (unanimous agreement of all jurors) to hang the accused, and it also takes twelve to acquit them, but any single juror can choose to hang the jury by obstinately voting against the others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I believe a CEO was murdered but I've seen zero evidence it was Luigi and all evidence points to another man of different height and build. Law enforcement and prosecution haven't even established that Luigi was even in the city, the photo used to identify him was proven to be 3 weeks olds at the time of the shooting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The cops have totally botched this case. No piece of evidence is not tainted, and that perp walk is enough to bias any jury. He should be let free (for a myriad of reasons).

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In a written decision released as Mangione appeared in court, Judge Gregory Carro said that although there is no doubt that the killing was not an ordinary street crime, New York law doesn’t consider something terrorism simply because it was motivated by ideology.

    Obviously...

    They say killing anyone wealthy is terrorism, because they don't think fonus as real people.

    They only care about wealthy bigots

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 168 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I remain unconvinced they even got the right fucking guy

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Which means the actual killer effectively got away with it. Good. I hope he lives a long and quiet life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 99 points 1 year ago

    Anyone looking at the terrorism charge knew it was bullshit, but check this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/16/luigi-mangione-terrorism-charges-dropped

    "“Counts 1 and 2, charging defendant with Murder in the First Degree (in furtherance of an act of terrorism) and Murder in the Second Degree as a Crime of Terrorism, are dismissed as legally insufficient,” Carro wrote. “The People presented legally sufficient evidence of all other counts, including Murder in the Second Degree (intentional).”"

    They didn't just toss the terrorism addendum, they tossed two of the murder charges with the terrorism rider.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Luigi did what he did in defense of all of us.

    He should be freed.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Excellent news. Now the prosecution needs to find and convince 12 people that he did it. I'm not sure they have the evidence to do that.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I don't doubt they have evidence that irrefutably proves he's the shooter...

    The issue has always been legally admissible evidence.

    I think they broke a shit ton of laws to find out who did it, then failed to retroactively create a "partel investigation" that would have legally uncovered the evidence so it could be used anyway.

    Like, that's pretty normal for cops. They break laws to solve a crime, make up some bullshit about how they'd have found it anyways, then overcharge to get a plea deal and avoid trial.

    Luigi ain't taking a plea deal, and while they may very well know it's him, they can't prove it in court

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I think the term is "parallel investigation" or parallel construction investigation." I don't doubt that you are correct though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, that's just a typo.

    The whole thing is bullshit tho. When you already know where you'll find evidence, it's easy to justify after the fact how you could have legally been able to search that one place.

    But they can't narrow it down to that spot except by violating civil rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I do doubt they have evidence he is the shooter. Just the footage taken at the scene has details that don't match with Luigi at all. He was in the area since the image from the hostel is very likely him, but just being in the general vicinity isn't enough to convict.

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

    Dude...

    It's 2025.

    If you think the US government can't tell who was on a street at a certain time and then search everyone's cell phones and track where they've been to narrow it down to a very small number of people...

    Like

    I dunno what to tell you.

    The sun also rises each morning and sets at night. And Tuesdays usually follow Mondays.

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

    You are greatly overestimating the diligence of the police. All they care about is finding anyone to pin it on. They're not doing all that work when they can frame a patsy much more easily.

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

    This isn't a random crime they don't care about...

    A wealthy CEO was killed.

    This honestly isn't that difficult to figure out why it's different. But I feel like you've put zero logical thought into your multitude of strong opinions about this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 73 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Free Luigi! Find the real killer!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Now move on to hero charges

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    He looks innocent to me.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    And that's the ball game.

    Maybe now they can start looking for the real killer.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    "Isn't he dreamy?" The judge is on record saying.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Face that gorgeous belongs in a museum, not death row

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Free my boy

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Woo, I’m hot.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    His court date is December. Whatever they have will come then

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • 13 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] [S] 33 points 1 year ago

    Litigation Calendar
    https://www.luigimangioneinfo.com/

    Tuesday, 9/16, 9 a.m.: People v. Mangione (NY State), 100 Centre Street, Part 32, New York, NY 10013

    Friday, 12/5, 11 a.m.: USA v. Mangione (NY Federal), 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 110, New York, NY 10007

    TBD: Commonwealth v. Mangione (PA State), 423 Allegheny Street, Hollidaysburg, PA 16648

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    They argue that the New York case and a parallel federal death penalty prosecution amount to double jeopardy.

    Unfortunately, they don't. You can be charged in State, Federal, and Military jurisdictions for the same offense - provided that the charge is applicable in each jurisdiction.

    My own opinion is that the federal charges are super weak here. They only exist because Luigi is accused of "crossing state lines." So far as I'm aware, interstate travel isn't illegal. The fact that interstate travel occurred before and/or after a crime was committed shouldn't make that a federal crime. Otherwise, everything is a federal crime.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Words are cheap. Defense lawyers are supposed to make every plausible argument, even if they know it will be rejected. This is mostly for appeal purposes. They don't want their client to be in a position 20 years from now where the Supreme Court overturns the dual sovereign doctrine; but their client cannot take advantage of it because his trial lawyers failed to preserve the issue.

    Also, as the Judge points out, there is state double jeopardy law that is stronger. However, it is procedurally too early to attempt to invoke it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Isn't that basically what his defense is arguing though? That without sufficient jurisdiction, it's effectively double jeopardy, and the federal government is only bringing a case forward because they want the death penalty to be on the table

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Mangione’s lawyers argued that the New York case and a parallel federal death penalty prosecution amounted to double jeopardy. But Carro rejected that argument, saying it would be premature to make such a determination.

    Bragg’s office contended that there are no double jeopardy issues because neither of Mangione’s cases has gone to trial and because the state and federal prosecutions involve different legal theories.

    Mangione’s lawyers said the dueling cases have created a “legal quagmire” that makes it “legally and logistically impossible to defend against them simultaneously.”

    If they were arguing against federal jurisdiction, they would be arguing against federal jurisdiction, not saying that it "amounted to" double jeopardy. The judge has still left the double jeopardy argument open, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Right. If he had brought the body across state lines, then I believe that might trigger it as federal.

    But i could be wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    The only thing I can think of that they might have to hook federal charges on is if they're saying he crossed state lines as part of a plan to commit a crime, where that plan was executed (pun intended).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 15 points 1 year ago

    I found a live feed of the "stakeout" at the courthouse:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VDmblURNkSA

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I guarantee he'll end up shanked to death. There is no way they're leaving him alive, and due process has its pitfalls.

    But random prison violence? Could always happen...

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments