It would be amazing if Luigi doesn't even have to go through a trial because Trump cannot keep his mouth shut about anything.
post
Hilarious, they were so thirsty to bust someone they fumbled literally everything. Their evidence chain of custody was fucked, no way to prove it's authentic or untampered
I knew it was horseshit the moment they just found the three things that were impossible to find "from a good Samaritan" all in one neat place. Look at this man right here, he has suspect, motive, and murder weapon on his person's right now!
This whole case stinks like shit.
The actual killer was good enough to escape and hide for days. He’s long gone and hiding now. Not in a McD’s with all his evidence.
Their facial recognition software gave them some people that vaguely resembled the killer. They dug through their backgrounds and found a queer kid living in a youth hostel, someone estranged from their family. If you were going to pick an innocent person to pin this on, he's the classic type. Cops have been pinning unsolved crimes on drifters and other undesirables for centuries.
Want to know what I want to know? Where is Luigi's workshop? That's my question. How the hell do you print out, machine, refine, prototype, and build a 3D printed gun while living in homeless shelters and youth hostels?
Printing a gun is not like printing a page on a laser printer. It can be done, but it requires a long iterative process and a whole workshop worth of tools. If you want to convince me Luigi made a 3D printed gun, then you damn well better be able to show me his workshop.
So again. Where is Luigi's workshop?
Would be funny if they had to let him go because they were so sloppy
In the Alec Baldwin case it seems to me the important people at the office took on the case because it was so high profile. They screwed it up because of their inexperience with actually doing any work.
Could be the same thing happening with this case.
And after the DoJ historically having a 99%+ success rate in front of Grand Juries, this administration has had loss after loss, absolutely unprecedented.
They don't even get a chance to learn from their mistakes, because they just blame their losses on liberals, somehow. They are convinced that they are right in their legal strategies, so they keep on the same path, despite going over the same cliff, every time.
We all know that's because Trump insists on the DOJ following his orders even though he doesn't understand the law, right?
Under qualified Presidents, the DOJ was expected to maintain high standards of ethics and follow the law. That meant bringing indictments with enough evidence to win cases and not prosecuting cases when the evidence didn't support them.
Under the current clown-shoes administration, the DOJ is expected to bring indictments against anyone who hurt Little Donny's feelings, regardless of the evidence. And (at least for now) the rest of the judicial system is still following the law, which means that those cases get no traction.
They need someone to crucify in public for this. They chose him.
Now the crucification will cost them so much credibility.
Now the crucification will cost them so much credibility.
It's a nice thought, but no it won't. The 99% that always vote two-party really don't give a fuck about anything other than what their favorite news broadcast tells them to, and all the news broadcasts villainized Luigi and tripped over themselves talking ad nauseum about Thompson being an innocent victim, and a family man, etc. etc. etc.
True americans knew day one that this whole case is botched and ruined since the administration politicized it and the healthcare CEO's made it to be WAY more than it was.
Hopefully he is let go and we can start arresting and charge the criminals running our country right now. It's gonna take years to charge all the people in the white house, so the sooner we start, the better.
Healthcare businesses will always be responsible for saving and taking life. Are you wanting to dissuade anyone from ever working in healthcare and thus dismantle it entirely?
Bullshit. In sane countries, if a doctor bills a service, the insurance simply has to pay it. In most health systems, if a licensed doc bills what is a normal unexceptional standard procedure for a condition, the insurance simply has to pay it. They're a licensed doctor. That's just one of the powers of their position. If an insurance company thinks a doctor is committing fraud, they can haul them in front of the medical licensing board and make them justify their diagnoses and treatments. Sane countries simply do not allow insurance companies to arbitrarily deny coverage for non-experimental, non-cosmetic medical treatment. If a doc sets a broken arm, insurance isn't even allowed to try and weasel their way out of covering it.
Most medical systems around the world work like this - by simply trusting the judgement of state licensed physicians. They do this, and the sky doesn't fall. And we're the ones stuck with the most expensive medical system on the planet.
Brian Robert Thompson, the serial killer that murdered 40,000 innocent people, did so by overruling doctors for profit by denying life saving medical care. In most countries his actions would have been a national scandal that would have seen him in a cell for the rest of his life. He was a mass murderer personally responsible for a dozen 9/11s. He literally dwarfed the body count of Osama bin Ladin.
You didn't disprove my statement.
To disprove it, you would have to claim that these "sane countries" do not deny any life-saving treatment, thus never taking life. Yet every single one of them has limitations in their services. They're replacing the insurance denial with a system-level denial by means of a narrow scope of provided services. Insurance can't deny what's never provided.
So, for clarity, are you claiming that these "sane" healthcare systems never let people die due to treatment that is too expensive?
Brian Robert Thompson, the serial killer that murdered 40,000 innocent people ... He was a mass murderer personally responsible for a dozen 9/11s. He literally dwarfed the body count of Osama bin Ladin.
I know you're trying to cope with your bloodlust by dehumanizing him as much as possible. But this sort of logic makes anyone with a dollar in their pocket into a murderer. It's insane, and you know it.
You're just classist when it comes to your views on violence. You don't actually care about human death and suffering; you only care about optics. You're perfectly happy with someone murdering tens of thousands of people as long as they wear a suit and use a pen as their murder weapon. Sorry, but if you concoct an insurance system that is deliberately designed to remove people from the life-saving care that they are legally entitled to receive as part of their insurance plan? If you deliberately design a Kafkaesque nightmare literally designed to make people die of their conditions before they're able to navigate through all the hurdles you place in their path? If you do all of this just to drive your stock price higher? You are every bit as much a murderer as any psychopath that carves people apart with a knife.
And no, this scarcity mentality is bullshit. Yes, there are always some novel, experimental, and ridiculously expensive treatments that need to be denied for cost reasons. But no system, private or public, covers those, so there's no point considering them for this discussion. But bog-standard well-established treatment do not need to be rationed. No one is going on chemotherapy just for fun. You absolutely can have a system where no one dies from lack of affording standard well-established medical treatments. The US is the outlier here. The rest of the developed world doesn't have this problem; only us. Yet you're here, having gouged your own eyes out to willfully blind yourself, saying that you simply cannot see a way how this can be done!
United health cares experiments with randomly denying care falls under "saving life" to you? Seems like capitlist excess and murder to me. They have the highest denial of claims rate by far of any insurer. And they trusted claim denials to AI in order to save money, which they knew for a fact had a 90% error rate, such that 9 of 10 claims it denied were reversed on appeal. Only some people did not appeal, they just died having not appealed, or died waiting for the appeal process. Appeals take 60 days. During that 60 days people simply are denied the care their doctors are shouting that they need. Does being made to just sit and wait 60 days for your first appeal while a treatable cancer eats your insides sound ethical to you? You might get pissed during that wait period eh? Might start doing some target practice. If you did I wouldn't blame you one little bit. Self defense is what that is.
"The lawsuit, filed last Tuesday in federal court in Minnesota, claims UnitedHealth illegally denied "elderly patients care owed to them under Medicare Advantage Plans" by deploying an AI model known by the company to have a 90% error rate, overriding determinations made by the patients' physicians that the expenses were medically necessary.
There IS such a thing as criminal mismanagement of a corporate entity, and I think united health care corporation deserves the corporate death penalty for this, and their executives who green lit this program should be imprisoned to the fullest penalty the law can provide for criminal negligence. THIS is exactly why everyone celebrates Mangione. And if laws dont exist to hold these people to account, we need politicians who will make some.
Hehehe. It'd be hilarious to see the whole prosecution fail because they were unsustainably aggressive and sloppy.
Well, well, well, if it isn't the consequences of replacing competent career government officials with stooges.
Conservative Justification: You have to be patient, and give the process time to gain momentum. If you need to accelerate the process, then more conservative policies need to be implemented, more harshly.
I've been hearing that for literally 40 years. Shouldn't those policies have kicked in by now?
Oh, right, they did.
Well, that and the murder-friendly administration publicly announcing that you're going to pursue the death penalty hard probably makes it a whole lot less likely people are gonna try a plea
LOL, as if Democrats wouldn't have railroaded him too. They 100% support the health care system that is killing people.
I'm pretty sure they're referring to the incompetence, not the unfair trial
It's not all out of incompetence though, some of them do know that's not how the law says it should be (and many don't, sure), they just want to bully their way into making it work that way and then just keep doing it that way because they don't like the current way.
To me, the method here doesn't matter much. We'd get a fascist approach regardless.
They 100% support the health care system that is killing people.
100%? That's a lot for a world with Bernie, AoC, and Zohran Mamdani in it.
Those people are the periphery of the Democratic Party, and deliberately held in that place by the rest of the party. When people say “The Democrats” they mean the people with actual power in the party, like Pelosi, Schumer, Harris, etc.
Maybe theyre not all in, vut they did condemn luigi. They lack a backbone just like the rest of the democrat party. Theyd rather just kinda hope things get better rather than making it happen.
Don't blame the Republicans guys! Democrats are not perfect so please don't look at all the bad things Republicans are doing! Look over here not over there!!
I keep saying it: The one thing that may still save us, is their virtuosic incompetence. All we have to do is give these apes enough rope, and they will eventually hang themselves.
The problem is all the damage they'll do before then.
Charges should be dismissed with prejudice.
He'll probably end up "suiciding himself with two gunshots to the back of the head" if he actually somehow gets out of this.
Is that not what happens with a mistrial?
No, usually they have a new trial. If there is prosecutorial misconduct, it could be dismissed with prejudice. It's pretty rare
The mayor called him a murderer lol how the fuck are they supposed to have a fair trial
They managed to with Derek Chauvin, and the public prejudice was much worse, even from public officials. Their mayor also called him a killer.
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.
We didn't know if Floyd was killed though until autopsies, whereas we know Thompson was shot intentionally on camera.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pretty sure they didn't commit a crime. And it's not uncommon for these things to happen in high profile cases. A "fair trial" is very difficult.
it's literally a violation of his sixth amendment rights as an American citizen.
it's a crime to violate the rights given to citizens through the constitution.
just to say again.
a crime was committed.
where is the difficulty exemption?

You're under the mistaken belief that it's criminal to violate Constitutional rights.
18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
don't be a dumbass and educate yourself.
That's two or more people conspiring to violate rights. People still routinely have their Constitutional rights violated and it's not criminal. I'm literally litigating a § 1983 federal lawsuit right now. It's rarely criminal. Just stop spreading misinformation.
a 1983 is a deprivation of rights and amounts to a finding of legal implication. it's a far more serious section compared to 241 because it implies both intent and execution.
241 implies conspiracy to commit to a violation of rights which would fit the current argument better than 1983 since there's a lack of motive and evidence against the DOJ for violating his sixth. it could be used as discovery to identify evidence between communications to lead to 1983.
a crime is a crime, regardless of who/what committed it. the government is no exception, however it's not like you can slap cuffs on the entire DOJ. those individuals involved would need to be charged for anything to stick. no different than if an employer killed an employee through neglect. those responsible would be charged, but the company would get off mostly unscathed.
It is difficult to prove willful violation of rights (required for a criminal case) which is why it doesn't happen often, even while people's rights are violated routinely.
so you said you're working a case right now. are you a lawyer or the client?
Both in this particular case, I'm doing it pro se. I can't legally represent anyone, so I represent myself when the need arises and provide assistance to others who cannot afford help, usually prisoners. I'm focusing on 8th amendment violations such as excessive force claims and poor prison conditions. It's a useful form of activism, even if a suit is not ultimately successful. It costs them either way.
wow. legal consultant, software engineer, sec-ops, defender of pedophiles, network engineer, detective, farmer.
most impressive.
how do you find the time to grace us plebeians with your large intellect?
no need to answer, I have a suspicion on how it's possible.
I'm a software engineer with only a little legal background.
I'm none of the other things you listed. Most the prisoners I help are not pedophiles. And I only manage my product's server cluster because I don't have money yet to hire anyone. I'm not good at devops or networking. 🤷
They have done it that way for everyone since coming into power. Even if they know thr proper procedures, they have continually shown no desire to follow them
It's funny that of all the alleged murderers that end up in court, The put a ballistic vest on Luigi we certainly ain't gonna shoot him) just to make him look more dangerous.
"we" aren't. But the Bootlickers might try to. But I agree that it's to make him look more dangerous. Because they certainly wouldn't give a shit if a red hat shot him.
Forcing that handsome man into a bullet proof vest in an attempt to make him look like a Batman villain should be enough evidence on its own for this to be thrown out.
Did anyone actually think he's gonna get a fair trial? He's obviously a patsy set up because they couldn't find the real guy anyway. Who actually carries the weapon on the bus with them? The real one is probably at the bottom of the East River.


top 81 comments