Murder is where you kill an innocent person. Killing a spree killer, esp during the spree, is just defending people. Hopefully the jury is made cognizant of that.
I mean, the only other option is to plead guilty, and nobody would do that. So this was kind of expected.
Luigi is a hero. But not because he killed a CEO, or anyone. Because he was framed by the government, dragged through the mud, humiliated publicly, and held his head high standing 10 feet tall. Not guilty plea is nothing less than I expected. We should all take note of his example. They can't beat us all if we resist.
Well, that settles it then. Better release him for the sake of Government Efficiency and all that.
Prosecutor: Could you find defendant guilty?
Potential juror: I could.
Narrator: They couldn't.
I don't think jury nullification will be needed. I legit think that Luigi didn't do it. Meaning a simple acquittal is all what is needed.
As for the real killer? I hope he lives a long and quiet life.
This is 100% the approach I'm betting the defense will take. "Yeah he did it but he deserved it" would be a great story but an absolute dipshit defense to take. Court of law is separate from court of public opinion, and unless they can prove he did it without reasonable doubt then not guilty is the way to go.
“He who saves his country commits no crime “
Watch out, fascists love that motto
Flushing a toilet isn't a crime.
Solidarity aside, whenever you are arraigned, any lawyer worth their salt will advise you to plead not guilty, because entering a guilty plea means it's over, move on to sentencing, where you have no leverage at all.
You can always change a not guilty plea to a guilty plea later, if a plea deal offered by the prosecution is acceptable to you. This is especially relevant in a case where the death penalty is on the table, but also applies to the possibility of reduced charges or penalties in any case.
I'll also add that this case could well end up with an Alford plea. In short, where the defendant asserts innocence, does not admit to the criminal act, but accepts the sentence because they believe that a jury would find them guilty based on the evidence. Again, this is definitely related to a case where the death penalty is on the table.
I'd be very disappointed in any jury who found him guilty
Having been on a jury,
People are dumb and have no empathy
I was on a grand jury some years ago in NYC. It really did a number on my faith in people and the legal system.
Now, a grand jury is different than a regular (petit) jury in a few key ways. First, you only need simple majority to move forward with an indictment. You can't 12-angry-men hang a grand jury. Second, as I learned later, even if you do convince a majority to not indict, the prosecutor can just try again. So all those times the police didn't get indicted for murder and the prosecutor just gave up? They could have tried again. They didn't, because they didn't want to.
All of that said, the cases were largely about drugs. People selling weed and heroin and the like. No violence. I suggested to the jury that we maybe just say no, and don't ruin people's lives over marijuana. You don't have to show your work. You can just say whatever. The whole rest of the jury was like "are you insane?" Some of them were just anti-drug, full stop no context. Some of them were like "We have to do what they tell us" very obedient. Some of them just wanted to go home, and thought an indictment would be the fastest way.
They all voted to indict on every charge. The guy who was sleeping, and the lawyers and cops laughed at him snoring, also voted to indict.
I asked the little old white lady sitting behind me a hypothetical. I asked if she was on a jury in the 60s, and the charge was a black man eating at an all white's diner, if she would indict. She was like, "Hmmm maybe."
I tried. One of the cases the cops said they found a gun in the man's house, so they charged him with intent to use it in a violent crime, or something. I was like, they didn't even try to prove it was his or that he was going to use it. Everyone voted to indict. I'm just like, why do you have to make it easier for the police?
People might not have empathy, but even less people are going to want to side with an insurance company
Realistically they'll try arrange one that will. They're going to try secure a guilty verdict by any means necessary to make an example out of him.
Ideally, a jury's responsibility is to weigh the evidence and find whether the evidence supports a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
There has been no jury selection yet, let alone presentation of evidence. I would guess that any jury nullification would depend on a defense tactic of "Yes, my client committed this act, and his motive was to prevent UHC from directly causing the deaths of their customers by refusing to honor legitimate claims or by delaying payment of claims." There might be something there, especially since UHC changed its stance on something (I forget exactly what right now) in the wake of their CEO being killed.
But that would be a really difficult defense to mount. You'd basically be admitting to the act and hoping that at least one person on the jury would A) agree with your defense, and B) be willing to hold out over it, and C) not be replaced by an alternate for "failure to follow jury instructions" or some such thing.
Again, since a jury has not even been selected, I won't speculate on what evidence gets presented and what evidence (if any) ends up being excluded. By extension, I cannot agree with your above comment.
Please note that I am also not saying "He's guilty, he should hang", because that would also entail speculating on evidence.
I believe him.
He couldn't have done it! He was having a couple beers with me at the time that CEO died
I remember that night! He was buying rounds for the whole bar, what a great guy!
That kid didn’t do it. They are railroading him too hard and committing too many procedural violations for it to be anything but a setup.
Any normal case a judge would throw everything out for how prejudicial the state has behaved.
The face they don’t care how blatantly prejudicial they are shows they don’t care if he did it or not.
He didn’t do it.
The CEOs wife had hmm killed for meeting his side piece there.
The assassin was from El Salvador or something.
All the photos look exactly like him tho... I mean is there is substantial evidence he didn't do it? I fully support him, but I think it's a stretch to say he was framed and the photos look nothing alike
Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
The misuse of evidence and the lead detective and mayor sharing evidence his lawyer hasn’t seen in a media campaign to impugn the man.
There’s reasonable doubt in their earnest attempt at seeking justice here. They seem hellbent on violating his constitutional rights.
I doubt they have the right guy. Reasonably
Excellent explanation, I too doubt that it was him and would vote not guilty
Dude has a familiar face. There are tons of people that look "just like" those fuzzy videos and pics
Could those photos be ai generated?
The only way we can be reasonably sure they are not is if we believe the prosecution is honoring their commitment to the constitution and acting in good faith.
I do not believe they are acting in good faith.
This means I have reasonable doubt on their entire effort.
Justice is dead.
Are any of the photos from the crime scene?
Because if you find a guy who matches "photo of guy getting coffee", you still don't have evidence that he's a killer. You have evidence that he got some coffee.
The police say the bullets matched the "ghost gun" that he had on him, along with fingerprints from the crime scene. They say it's "hard evidence."
There shouldn't need to be evidence of his innocence, there should need to be an overwhelming amount of evidence proving he's guilty. That's part of the foundation for justice that courts are meant to uphold.
Edit: mistype for spelling
Luigi Mangione is a hero of the people.
Nah he was just framed as one
If the eyebrows don't fit, you must acquit.
Good, honestly we don't even know if he's the person who did the crime.
Who's that guy? Doesn't look like the guy they were searching for. At all.
World needs fewer Elons and more Luigis
The world needs no Elons at all
Without the elons there likely would be no luigis
We'd still have Luigi, he'd just be doing more QA work for Civ or going surfing instead of being dragged around for this show trial.
Yeah that tracks. He was walking my dough at the time.
Federal prosecutors claimed in their new filing that Mangione deserves the death penalty because of "the impact of the victim's death upon his family, friends and co-workers" and because "he expressed intent to target an entire industry and rally political and social opposition to that industry, by engaging in an act of lethal violence."
I just want to remind everyone of the impact of many of Thompson's murders on their family, friend, and co-workers, all in the service of the money masters' sheer, unadulterated, insatiable greed.
He can’t have done it, I saw him on the day and I don’t live in the US. He’s telling the truth.
Does the public have any information on the evidence they have that he did it? What I have read about all sounds like a weak case with what I suspect is a mountain of inadmissible evidence gathered by methods outside of laws that would apply to the non elite class.
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.
