1049

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 116 points 5 days ago

None of this, of course, is to say that what Mangione did was justifiable or wise.

Um, fuck you? He hasn't been convicted and the author's assumption here, that Mangione is guilty of what he has been accused of, is part of the fucking problem.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 17 points 5 days ago

Damn, when did Jacobin get soft?

[-] Freefall@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

Yessss....show us you fear.....we feed on it.

[-] SparroHawc@lemm.ee 12 points 4 days ago

Sigh. Yet another article assuming Mangione's guilt. Ben Burgis didn't even bother to say 'allegedly' anywhere.

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago

He'd became a martyr. The best chance way the ruling class could handle this is letting him go on the condition that he denies every publicity possible for a given years, even "just" imprisonment would communicate "we fear guys like this".

[-] ameancow@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

It's very naive of people to think that in an authoritarian dictatorship controlled by the world's wealthiest people, that there won't be a LOT of unjust deaths in the coming years.

I will be positively shocked if they don't make a very public example of Mangione. It's going to hurt and that's what they want. They want to kill him in front of us so we feel pain. Then they're going to do it again and again with other people whom we don't want to see die. Remember that. This is what happens.

This is what 45% of eligible voters thought would never happen so they stayed home. Too much trouble. Too hard to figure out the truth (by googling for 30 seconds). Too many excuses to not rock the boat, and now the boat is rocking us all out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 6 points 4 days ago

Sadly I think he's going to be a martyr like Alexi Navalny. The 1% is patient, and they know they can distract us and grind us down. We can raise hell for a moment, but they know our weakness is our stomaches.

[-] ComradeRachel 151 points 5 days ago

I think the death penalty being on the table would increase the likelihood of the jury finding a reasonable doubt or jury nullification. It would only hurt the prosecution imo.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 122 points 5 days ago

OR it's going to prejudice the jury against him, like it usually does.

When capital punishment is on the table, only people who are in favor of it are selected for the jury, and people who are in favor of state murder are MUCH more likely to return a guilty verdict than people who aren't.

That's one of hundreds of reasons why civilized legal systems don't murder prisoners anymore.

[-] LeninsOvaries@lemmy.cafe 34 points 5 days ago

Why the fuck does the prosecution have the ability to put punishments on the table that are known to bias jury selection?

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 53 points 5 days ago

Because the system itself is rigged in favor of the prosecution by design.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 days ago

Yup. One of the main reasons people oppose the death penalty is because of the proven record of innocent people receiving death sentences. Approximately 4% of people who receive death sentences are actually innocent. We execute many innocent people in this country. The system absolutely does not operate on the principle of "it is better for 1000 guilty to go free than for one innocent to be unjustly punished."

Many oppose the death penalty because they realize just how poor our justice system is at actually determining guilt and innocence. Those who assume it is near-infallible will be much more likely to support the death penalty. So if you screen out those opposed to death sentences, you also screen out people who are more skeptical of the criminal justice system overall.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 5 days ago

I kind of agree, if I were in the jury, it would make me think twice about finding them guilty since I would feel like I have someone’s death on my hands.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

There's no way this jury is going to be allowed to find him innocent much less jury nullification. If they can't be bribed they'll be threatened.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 23 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Why does it feel like the trump administration would use Mangione's acquittal by jury as a reason to try to attack and do away with the 6th Amendment (trial by jury amendment)?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] LeninsOvaries@lemmy.cafe 108 points 5 days ago

I'm glad they're seeking the death penalty.

Because it makes it much easier for the defence team to argue that the prosecution is trying to turn the law into a spectacle, and that Luigi should be acquitted of all charges.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 24 points 5 days ago

It doesn't much matter if it's easier for the defense to argue that. It matters what the judge and jury find.

[-] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 29 points 4 days ago
[-] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 69 points 5 days ago
[-] LordCrom@lemmy.world 20 points 5 days ago

Well, we have a convicted felon and rapist as president already.

[-] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 15 points 5 days ago

Exactly. They've set a precedent that running for office gets you out of any consequences. I really want to see what happens if Mangione runs for congress

[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 29 points 5 days ago

This guy killed a patrician and now that class has totally seized controlled of government.

[-] FenderStratocaster@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago
[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 days ago

we're not real big on justice at the moment...

[-] Spider2013@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 5 days ago
[-] smokingpistol@lemm.ee 27 points 5 days ago

He’s a real true America hero and a patriot! Que Viva Luigi!

[-] Gudl@feddit.org 42 points 5 days ago
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Lolseas@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago

So what are the odds of jury nullification on this case?

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] loomy@lemy.lol 21 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

ok but killing a millionaire is defensible

[-] samus12345@lemm.ee 51 points 5 days ago

Not because they're a millionaire. Because they're a CEO whose policies directly resulted in unnecessary suffering and death.

[-] Banana@sh.itjust.works 29 points 5 days ago

Billionaires do deserve to die for being billionaires though.

You can't amass that type of wealth without being responsible for human suffering en masse. It's impossible.

[-] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 16 points 5 days ago

yeah I think this distinction is important. we don’t need to kill the working professionals who saved money and invested wisely throughout their careers. many of those people will eventually be millionaires, but like, ones of millions.

once you get to hundreds of millions it starts to look like there was no possible moral way to arrive at that.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Wilco@lemm.ee 15 points 5 days ago

Agreed, its a bit like self defense or defending others.

If you are armed and see a murder about to happen you CAN legally intervene with a firearm. You do not have to standby and let someone get killed.

UHC was killing thousands and apparently the government was/is fine with it. Thus ... it was a defensive killing.

This discussion would get me banned off of Reddit (again).

[-] torch_and_blanket@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

My favorite Reddit alt got disappeared because the degree of subtlety with which I conducted my advocacy for political violence dipped once by accident below the acceptable threshold. So I'm here. Hah!

load more comments (1 replies)

He didn’t do it.

They’re pinning some rich guy bullshit on him.

Brian Thompson was stepping out in his wife.

She hired a hitman from El Salvador to kill him so she could have all his stuff.

Luigi is just some kid swept up in police railroading.

Luigi is innocent.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] yarr@feddit.nl 5 points 4 days 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 4 days 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?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Draegur@lemm.ee 15 points 4 days 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.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 14 points 4 days 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 14 points 4 days 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.

[-] tmyakal@lemm.ee 12 points 4 days 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
1049 points (100.0% liked)

News

28850 readers
3723 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