1052

In December, Luigi Mangione was arrested for shooting health insurance executive Brian Thompson. Last week, Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, announced that she was seeking the death penalty. It’s a highly unusual announcement, since Mangione hasn’t even been indicted yet on a federal level. (He has been indicted in Manhattan.) By intervening in this high-profile case, the Trump administration has made clear that it believes that CEOs are especially important people whose deaths need to be swiftly and mercilessly avenged.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] yarr@feddit.nl 5 points 2 months ago

I mean, it's somewhat defensible, right? He did kill someone, so isn't it symmetric if he gets killed? You can obviously make an argument against this but isn't the tone of the article written to make it seem like this is just laughable, when it's really not?

I'm sick of these hyperbolic headlines just to capture clicks.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 45 points 2 months ago

Did he?

I'm completely serious, I have legitimate doubts about if Luigi is the adjuster. Everything about the arrest and (apparently illegally) collected evidence is extremely skechy.

After almost a week, the guy who escaped NYC cleanly (while leaving a backpack full of monopoly money in central park and signed bullet casings at the scene) is carrying around a signed confession and the murder weapon at McDonald's?

There's literally no other evidence than what they allegedly found on his person. The guy doesn't look that much like the person/people in the videos, the way they found him (an old man reporting to a cashier that a person with only their eyes visible looked like the shooter from the security cams) is sketchy as hell, and the evidence is straight up out of a police wet dream about the perfect arrest

This guy deserves a trial, like everyone does. The state apparently has no case against him at this point too

So why does every conversation start with assuming he did it?

[-] yarr@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago

I don't assume he did it. I assume the conversation is phrased as "if he is found guilty, does he deserve death?". If the state is unable to convince a jury he did it, he should be let free, just like every other case.

[-] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 24 points 2 months ago

He did kill someone

I don't assume he did it

You posted both of these. One isn't true. Did you change your mind between your original post and your second?

[-] Baguette@lemm.ee 13 points 2 months ago

If he is found guilty does not mean he is guilty. That's the problem with the death penalty. You can release someone if future evidence disproves the conviction. You can't bring someone back to life if you give them the death penalty.

[-] Draegur@lemm.ee 15 points 2 months ago

No. You are fundamentally incorrect in that HE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY FOR KILLING ANYONE AT ALL AT THIS TIME. You, talking "past" the conclusion as if it is foregone--just like the fascists are, are part of the problem.

I'm sick of dipshits like YOU skipping over due process.

[-] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 14 points 2 months ago

You're calling him guilty. He hasn't even been tried yet. You've let these hyperbolic headlines make up your mind for you and convince you of a verdict. That's exactly what Bondi and this article is trying to do, think for you. Forget the click. You've already given them what they want.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 months ago

The state killing its own citizens is never morally defensible.

It's even more egregious when political influence tries to exert pressure on the legal process in an effort to prejudice that verdict.

[-] yarr@feddit.nl 3 points 2 months ago

The state killing its own citizens is never morally defensible.

A citizen killing another citizen is never morally defensible, and yet, here we are.

[-] rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

A citizen killing another citizen is never morally defensible

That's just plain not true. There are situations that are not just morally defensible, but legally justifiable.

For example: If an active shooter (a citizen) is killing people (or threatening to kill people), any given citizen is morally and legally justified with taking the shooter's life to preserve the lives of others.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

I never claimed it was.

[-] tmyakal@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago

The issue is that he's only been indicted in New York, and New York abolished the death penalty more than twenty years ago.

The Feds would need to press their own charges if they wanted to pursue the death penalty, which they have not done yet. That's the laughable part: they're trying to dictate sentencing before they pressed charges, gathered evidence, or secured a conviction. And the only way to get a death sentence is by unanimous jury vote during sentencing, which, let's be honest, is going to be very difficult to get rid Luigi.

this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
1052 points (100.0% liked)

News

30438 readers
2470 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS