Luigi Mangione is accused of stalking United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson and shooting him to death on Dec. 4, 2024.
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.
World needs fewer Elons and more Luigis
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.
He should be acquitted specifically to make a point. A certain type of individual may or may not be safe if said person performs against the interest of their constituents.
I like how you think.
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!
Yo, guy… Did you kill that CEO?
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.
Dude was with me in Bahamas
I was in the Bahamas and witnessed him being with you.
I told you he didn’t do it!
It was a me! Mario!
It was a me all along!
He’s the best guy around.
I was banned from reddit cause I supported him feel at home here
Luigi Mangione is a hero of the people.
Nah he was just framed as one
For no reason at all.
True hero!
deleted by creator
He operated the largest health insurance company, setting the model for the rest to follow. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people suffered/ died when he fraudulently denied them the health care that they paid for. He is a corporate serial killer, who murdered people for profit. Whoever killed him, did it to protect his customers from his fraudulent, and deadly, business practices.
Well, he operated the lowest branch of the largest health insurance company, but I’d say the rest still applies.
too bad it wasnt witty or hemsely, the head of the companies of UHG.
The guy was making north of $10 mill a year, so he wasn’t small potatoes.
I didn’t say he was any kind of potatoes, just pointing out a fact.
Wow! This is amazing! This garden vegetable is talking! I mean, it’s completely wrong, but god damn! Talking veggies!
But he oversaw one of the worst insurance companies out there.
I looked at some of thier subsidiaries, and i know people that have to use thier pharamcy networks, also terrible service. optum health is owned by UHG.
Nah. He’s “just some schmuck.” TURNIP HAS SPOKEN.
how about the billionaires who donate to the politicians? I’d say in several cases they have more power. And btw (while I don’t think killing him was good), the company was developing an AI under that CEOs leadership designed to find more complex ways to deny claims
Free this man. The wealthy psychopaths need something to be fearful of as it’s the only emotional trigger that will keep their behavior from genociding the poor.
We are all Luigi. Make them fear all of us, not just one.
So far, only one has actually done anything.
The only thing that prevents the working class’ genocide is that the military isn’t fully automated yet.
Soon.
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
Having been on a juryPeople are dumb and have no empathy
also heard the smart ones get out of jury duty. i had a former colleague in an old job said she was chosen because she wouldnt speak for herself.
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.
That would be the worst thing for them to do, but they’re not the brightest.
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.
“The man who saves his country breaks no laws” isn’t that right DoJ?
They don’t have to say outright that the guy was scum and got what he deserved, just question why the federal charges are being brought while there’s a state case and ask questions about how many other people would have a good reason to want this health insurance executive dead. You can introduce the message without abandoning all other defense and saying it explicitly.
They’ll find 12 angry rich white women and its over for him. You know it, I know it. Dude martyrd himself from the beginning and I bet he knew it
they will more than likely choose 12 retirees, and people that dont read the news that much plus any pushovers. thats how they choose these are the most easily manipulated juror types out there. ive been in different forums about juror duties, its almost always these people.
on reddit people speculated they will probably choose one where thier own insurance hasnt screwed them over, so it creates a bias for the prosecution.
Having one person isn’t going to help much, even if they don’t get replaced, it’ll be a hung jury at best, unless they’re the most persuasive, charismatic person on earth.
And you generally don’t want a hung jury. It’s just delaying, and now the other side knows your entire defence strategy and can prepare on better countering it. You having information on their strategy isn’t as valuable.
In federal Court the judge has a lot more control in the composition of the jury., they even lead voir dire.
They can pick a jury of all ceos if they want.
that would show extreme bias by the courts, its like an all white female jury against a black defendant.
That would be a bold choice, and I don’t think it would work out well overall. In terms of the public response. And imagine the security, it would be locked down harder than any place in the world.
Although in all seriousness, in a normal setting they might be challenged if they chose an all-CEO jury. You can’t fill a jury with the potential target victims of the crime that is being accused. It would not be seen as fair by any stretch of the imagination.
If someone was a accused of targeting very tall men with pink hair, you couldn’t fill the jury with people matching that description. Any sane person in the legal business would call them crazy.
Why? It’s not even a question of if it was him. And it’s not even a question of whether he killed the guy.
He is a murderer whether you agree with why he did it or not.
So you believe that someone who followed this CEOs schedule to find an opportune moment to shoot him, escape to a pre-stashed escape bike, then rode through the one place in New York without CCTV and DITCHED EVIDENCE then carried the MURDER WEAPON, which he didn’t ditch, to a McDonald’s isn’t being set up? The inventory of what they “found” on him wasn’t done until AFTER a New York cop drove up there. It makes more sense to me that the gun was ditched in Central Park and the NYPD just held onto it until they found a good patsy, then drove it to Pennsylvania so they could “find” it on him.
the point from him “allegedly” shooting the ceo, to them trying to find evidence was botched from the getgo.
deleted by creator
Because of this fact a lot of courts will just automatically enter a not guilty plea during your first appearance now.
He’s guilty of stealing my heart tho
Why, is he made of cheese?
whatever he’s made of id eat the shit out of him.
I mean, cheese is one thing. But if shit is your thing, who am I to judge.
Guilty of my cholesterol.
Good. All the best to him.
