It will be a perfect litmus test of how corrupt modern media is when the case gets tossed out and suddenly all of the media will begin reporting "it wasn't actually him to begin with" stories that were magically not present before...
Slam dunkeeee...
So, according to the motion filed on the 1st of may, which is what I assume the tweet is referencing, I think there are two things of note.
1st: When cornered at the McDonald’s, the police questioned him about his name and requested his id, then proceeded to ask him a bunch of different questions regarding his identity, the validity of his id, wether he had lied about his name, and any travel to New York. They, at no point at the McDonald’s, ever read him his Miranda rights, even after informing him that he was under investigation and detaining him, even after one officer told the others to read him his rights.
2nd: They moved his backpack to another table before informing him he was under investigation. They did not have a warrant to search his backpack, and given that it was far beyond his reach, and he was handcuffed when they began searching it, there was no reason to suspect anything in it would have been dangerous to the officers on sight. They found a computer chip in the bag while he was still inside, and did not “find” the loaded gun until he was outside and being driven to the precinct. After “finding” the gun, the officer searching the bag stated that they were searching it to make sure there “wasn’t a bomb or anything in here”. The motion I’m referencing suggests that this statement was a hasty attempt to justify the warrantless search post facto.
Defense attorneys claim that some of the body cam footage is missing including 20 seconds of when Mangione was being questioned by a police when an officer placed his hand over his body cam and the 11 minutes during which the backpack was transferred from the McDonalds to the Altoona Police Department Precinct. The motion goes on the state that once that officer’s body cam footage resumes, it shows her immediately re-opening and closing the backpack compartments she already searched and then opening the front compartment of the backpack “as if she was specifically looking for something. Instantly, she ‘found’ a handgun in the front compartment.”
As for the 2nd, the gun was only "found" after the body cam had been off for 11 minutes, and only at the police station.
According to motion filed by the defense on the 1st of may to dismiss multiple items from evidence, including the bag search, the police reported finding the gun during the warrantless search of the bag at the McDonald’s, not just during the second search at the police station.
ever read him his Miranda rights
I've got a Fox News talking point to recycle from the Boston Marathon bombing:
"That's great! He doesn't have those rights so we don't have to worry about due process!"
Which is... not how that works.
Miranda rights don't need to be read until the person in question is under arrest.
If it was on his person at the time of his arrest, then they can search it without a warrant.
You don't have to agree with the prosecution of Mangione but critiquing procedure a faux-legalistic perspective does nobody any good.
I am referencing from the motion to dismiss or suppress evidence given by the defense on the 1st of may. If you don’t like how I have stated it, go read it your self and see what they’re saying on the matter, but they explicitly request that transcripts from the arrest at McDonalds to be dismissed on the grounds that he was not read his Miranda rights.
The motion isn't likely to succeed.
They, at no point at the McDonald’s, ever read him his Miranda rights, even after informing him that he was under investigation and detaining him
So he wasn't placed under arrest when they detained him? He wasn't under arrest at any point while they were at the McDonald's?
When is the specific point someone is under arrest? My understanding from people asking "am I under arrest or am I free to go" is the suspect is 'under arrest' as soon as they are no longer free to go.
Identity, where'd he been, his ID, don't constitute "interrogation" for the purpose of Miranda rights.
That's more or less true, but he didn't ask, "Am I under arrest."
And the goal post has been moved. We've gone from "he wasn't technically under arrest" to "arrest and these specific questions are acceptable". Weren't you just complaining about a faux-legalistic perspective?
I don't know what questions he was actually asked but don't see the point in looking it up for the goal post to move again.
Also of note, you mentioned that they can search his bag without a warrant if it's on his person when arrested. They searched his bag at McDonald's. So he was arrested at the time.
I didn't move the goalposts. You even responded to my specific response to what you said.
He was arrested when they searched the bag. Not when he was being questioned.
Your first comment:
Miranda rights don't need to be read until the person in question is under arrest.
Implying he wasn't under arrest at any point while he was in the McDonald's because the complaint was no one read him his Miranda Rights.
You now:
He was arrested when they searched the bag
Okay, so going by your earlier comment that is when he should have been read his Miranda Rights.
Actually, hold up a second here:
He was arrested when they searched the bag. Not when he was being questioned.
So the moment the police do an illegal warrantless search of his bag, that is the exact moment it becomes legal because the definition of under arrest is "when police are doing something that would be illegal if you weren't under arrest"?
That is incredibly fucking convient that he's not "under arrest" while being questioned (because it would be illegal to question him if he was) but is then immediately "under arrest" when his belongs are searched (because it would be illegal to search them if he wasn't).
If what you are saying is true, then that is incredibly fucked up because apparently in the American legal system suspects exist in a super position of "under arrest" and "not under arrest" at all times until the police take an action that would be illegal in one of those cases. Then the super position collapses into the one that makes their actions technically not illegal until the police are done with that action, and which point the super position reasserts itself.
This isn't difficult.
He wasn't under arrest from the first moment the police talked to him. That doesn't mean he wasn't at any subsequent point put under arrest.
So what is the specific action that legally defines when a suspect goes from "not under arrest" to "under arrest"? After all, there are specific rights and actions allowed under one but not the other. So how do the suspect and the police know and legally define when that change takes place?
Could is possibly be... The reading of the Maranda Rights?
No. Because the police don't have to Mirandize someone when they arrest them.
No one will ever convince me that the weapon they "found" wasn't drenched in Central Park pond water.
Or the trunk of a squad car
Or already in the evidence locker.
I’ve said from Day 1 that the entire arrest smelled like “accidentally” disabled body cams and planted evidence. The amount of shit they found him with was just too perfect to be real. This dude supposedly evaded a nationwide manhunt for an entire week, then got caught with the (easily disassembled) ghost gun and a hard copy of his manifesto?
You’re telling me this supposed criminal mastermind had an entire week to break apart and scatter his 3D printed gun, so it would never be traced back to him… And he didn’t? He chose to keep the entire thing in his backpack for cops to find?
And he had a manifesto in his bag ready to go, just in case he got caught? People who write manifestos do so because they expect to be caught, and want to make a statement. So why is this dude fleeing for an entire week before getting caught with his manifesto?
I'll be honest, after seeing the public's reaction, and weighing his options for a week, he may have simply decided that whether or not he could beat the rap then he'd be a hero in the history books forever. He could dine out on that for the rest of his life. Even in prison I bet he'd be well treated by the inmates, if not the guards.
There's a decent chance he gets some of that sweet sweet jury nullification though. I mean he's clearly a risk taker, maybe he decided to roll the dice. The cops being the dumbest shits possible about planting evidence will only help him in that regard.
Anyway, I don't think it's so impossible he deliberately got caught with his manifesto. It's possible he destroyed the gun, then was willing to get caught and they planted evidence. Maybe they did it out of force of habit, or they were just so hyped on what big heroes they were being they couldn't help themselves.
100%, shit smelled so dubious it was like a gleeful insult by the authorities against our intelligence.
Fuck the insurance CEOs and their ilk, and fuck the police.
Well, they need to have some plan to keep the peasants in line.
Body cam footage had they potential to save the cops from these kinds of things. But they vilified it so strongly that it won't save her now.
It always seemed odd to me that someone who could so calmly pull off the murder of the CEO in the manner it was done and just casually bike off would end up caught the way Luigi was.
Caught quick because the city has security cameras in every store? Feels plausible. Caught after a long search after deep investigation? Feels plausible.
Caught after just enough time for the public to start getting rowdy, but not enough to have tracked him down through an investigation? Caught with the supposed weapon on him? Just feels off.
If he avoided capture for the time that he did, he should have had some opportunities to ditch the gun.
Motive seems off too. As far as has been released publicly, he was never a customer of the insurance company.
Whole thing stinks.
caught as soon as he was snitched on by a boomer who told A MCDs employee, which also wierd.
How many trash cans are there in NYC? Over the course of a week he could have sprinkled a piece of that gun in each of the five Burroughs miles apart, but he just so happened to have it, still fully assembled, chilling in his bag. Apparently this “terrorist” took the time to write a whole manifesto but stopped planning after “gun goes bang” and just started wandering around and thus was so easy to catch.
I’ve walked through cow pastures that smelled better.
Edward Snowden has already said that facial recognition software is being widely used across America. They knew it was him and then planted the evidence. Government doesn't want you to know they are constantly recording and tracking your movements. Big Tech sell them your location data.
oh yea, they used for red light stops very easily.
Parallel construction
That is actually confirmed.
Source? I want to read about it.
Seems like a setup
I don’t know about you, but I’m getting some reasonable doubt of this accusation.🤔
FINALLY they’re starting to make clear that this poor kid was picked as a patsy/fall guy because the cops were about to get French Revolution’d for their blatant favoring of the wealthy and extended incompetence. JFC.
Why would you pick such a hot guy with such a fuck you attitude though? Dude is a poster boy for how screwed the system is that even someone as wealthy as him couldn't get coverage.
Like I never get these patsy claims - who is recruiting for this and how? Why are they so bad at it? Why would they pick such a sympathetic target? Why pick someone with such a clear and obvious motive and then let the media hum and haw about how "the motive isn't clear"? Why not control the narrative better than this?
Sorry, I don't buy it. The cops could easily have planted the gun on the guy even if he did it. That's what they do. The story still adds up, it just makes a conviction harder to achieve now, which is honestly great news.
I think it’s not the cops who were scared, but other executives who have done just as much harm, the cops probably just wanted the executives to shut the fuck up.
If it's found that he didn't do it, will he get less popular because then he's not based anymore?
I’d say maybe some would think less of him, but I think he’d still deserve support for getting railroaded.
My theory from the start is that they knew it was him, but found out via illegal means so they had to frame him some other way
it was kinda suspected from the start.
Definitely. They're claiming that a McDonald's worker called the cops on a nondescript (well, kinda attractive) white guy? A hundred Luigis eat there every day, and the "Bartender that remembers someone from three days ago" is an artifact of cop dramas.
When I worked in fast food, I called the customers "wallets with feet". Jeffrey Dahmer and Tim McVeigh could have come in together and I wouldn't have noticed.
The defense doesn’t have to prove he didn’t do it. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. He can be found not guilty by a variety of mechanisms, still have factually done it, but because the prosecution couldn’t verifiably prove it, get released. He can still be a symbol either way.
Frankly if I were on a jury this would be enough alone. I could not vote guilty if I knew this had happened. That is more than enough Reasonable Doubt. Not that this jury is going to be able to deliberate or anything. They're going to be bribed and or threatened so heavily that they're going to convict no matter what.
I don’t think so, because then he’s an innocent person who was screwed over by the medical insurance industry, who then had his life derailed again in the name of “justice” for a dead insurance executive.
Even without all the extra bullshit surrounding the case, and even back when I was a high school republican douchebag who hadn't even voluntarily stayed home from church yet and still believed cops have our best interests in mind, I STILL would have said this sounds like complete bullshit and they planted evidence.
I knew he was innocent!
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
