Previously the reporting on this did not have a political angle and so it was removed from Politics and correctly directed to News.
The charges related to terrorism now give this a political angle.
“Luigi Mangione is accused of first-degree murder, in furtherance of terrorism; second-degree murder, one count of which is charged as killing as an act of terrorism; criminal possession of a weapon and other crimes.”
The terrorism statutes can be found here:
https://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/ny-penal-law-490-25-crime-of-terrorism.html
“The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”
So by saying terror, they admit that there is something to be fixed by policy of a government
“One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter”
Post bills every-fucking-where about Jury Nullification.
So the jury has their out now, jury nullification on the grounds of the act not being terrorism
nope. not that one.
there’s two charges, only one with ‘terrorism’ attached.
Are insurance CEOs really human? Is it even possible to commit murder against one? I think it would be more like killing a flesh-eating parasite. I’m thinking the charge should be animal cruelty at the worst. What kind of criminal penalty would I get if I threw an ant farm in a lake? That’s the kind of punishment Luigi should get.
Yo, he’s a piece of shit human that didn’t deserve to play Minecraft. Making him less than human could justify targeting his children or the terrorism charges. This the CEO knew what he was doing was bad for people because he was a human.
Nah, his kids didn’t surrender their humanity. You can only do that by your own choices.
No. This is us.
This is what we are.
Bullshit. I for one haven’t killed 40,000 people.
1st & 2nd degree both have the terrorism angle attached.
Yeah I’m pretty sure they’ll somehow end up with a jury comprised entirely of CEO’s or their immediate family, “randomly” selected of course
Jury nullification does not require “grounds”. Jury nullification is a result of the jury’s verdict being final regardless of the details of the trial. It’s also an effect of the fact that you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. The jury is not required to form a verdict strictly on the basis of the trial. The may find the defendant not guilty regardless of actual guilt.
Self defence, not guilty
Justifiable homicide.
Nah. I have an out. Insurance CEOs simply aren’t human. The charge should be animal cruelty at the worst. Luigi should get the same criminal penalty as someone would get for stepping on a cockroach. Murder requires the thing you’re destroying to actually be a human being.
That reminds me that you should never make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison
Nullify the jury. A man can break the letter and spirit of the law if the jury decides he should not be punished for it.
Terrorism to bring this to first-degree is very much a stretch in my eyes. The poor civilian CEO population are spooked by one person getting shot.
It makes it harder to prosecute, at least?
They aren’t dropping the second degree murder charge, so they don’t necessarily have to meet the higher bar that this sets.
That said, while they probably want to be able to paint him as a terrorist, that necessarily involves a more detailed look at what he was trying to accomplish, and that might just backfire on the prosecution. It only takes one sympathetic juror to block a guilty verdict.
That said, while they probably want to be able to paint him as a terrorist, that necessarily involves a more detailed look at what he was trying to accomplish, and that might just backfire on the prosecution. It only takes one sympathetic juror to block a guilty verdict.
This is a really good insight, thanks!
The second part of the statue, to cause government action, does seem kind of appropriate. But I highly doubt he thought he could pull that off and it’s going to take a lot more 2nd player characters to get there.
New York Penal Law § 490.25, the crime of terrorism, is one of the most serious criminal offenses in New York State. The statute defines the crime of terrorism as any act that is committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion and that results in one or more of the following: (a) the commission of a specified offense, (b) the causing of a specified injury or death, © the causing of mass destruction or widespread contamination, or (d) the disruption of essential infrastructure.
Yup, and murder is one of the specified offenses under (a).
Note the OR between coerceing the public and coerceing government. He coerced the public by murdering on the street. Doesn’t have anything to do with the government.
Coercing the population to do something about the CEOs, coercing the government to do something about health policy.
No. In this case they are arguing that the intent was to frighten people on the street. They spoke about it during the press conference. The insurance companies, health policy, etc will not play a part. In fact, the judge will probably prohibit its mention in a murder trial. That’s a subject for you guys. Anyway, it has nothing to do with politics
Terrorism is, by definition, a political action. Charging him with terrorism makes it political.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
“Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1]”
There’s no question that the killing was ideological. I think where the charge has the potential to fall apart is “non-combatant”.
If you argue that the CEO pushing the rejection of insurance claims is causing death, does that make them a “non-combatant”? 🤔
Where it becomes a slippery slope is that this is the same excuse the “pro-life” movement uses for the targeted killing of abortion doctors, and they use the same tactics. Doxing, distributing hitlists, etc.
It pertains to a New York law above. The legal charge is defined.I would hope a judge would not consider an argument about what it is outside the parameters of what is written in the law.
Oh, I’m not thinking about the JUDGE, I’m thinking about the JURY.
This guy is going to get a standing ovation when he enters the courtroom.
Hopefully not from the jury box. They better play their cards close to the chest.
Okay, so next time just make it look random. Got it.
Manifesto? No sir!
By the time we have a large enough sample set to definitively prove the killings aren’t random, a lot of progress will have been made.
Once again statistics proves its power.
“The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”
I have no issue with the state correctly identifying this act as terrorism. I take great issue with the fact that this act is being defined as terrorism, while using a definition that clearly defines many things that get a pass as terrorism. Remember last Trump presidency, when his white house published an old-school violent videogames scare video to garner support for his policies while distracting from discussion on gun laws? An act committed with the intent to coerce a civilian population is terrorism.
And let’s be real, I picked a low-stakes, innoculous example just to make a point: the state does a LOT to terrorize it’s citizens. But when they do it, it’s “law and order.” When Luigi fights back in self defense? “Terrorism”.
Trump’s gonna pardon the J6 terrorists. That tells you everything.
Whatever. United Healthcare should be next for the countless murders they’ve done.
We don’t put corporations on trial in America, silly billy
I mean… we CAN… it just doesn’t happen often enough.
Off the top of my head:
Enron:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Kenneth_Lay_and_Jeffrey_Skilling
Trump Org:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_business_fraud_lawsuit_against_the_Trump_Organization
“The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”
So it’s fine if you use large sums of money but someone goes with the more democratic route of using a gun and suddenly it’s not cool
The real offense was being poor.
That’s the funny thing, he wasn’t poor at all. His family is fabulously wealthy. We don’t know how much access to that money he had, but he was able to get two degrees from a very expensive school then move to Honolulu and join an intentional community while not having a job. Then disappear for months while not having a job.
I think he had no intention of getting away with it. The ideal way to do this would be acting like he planned nothing, don’t disappear, then go visit an old friend somewhere who would give an alibi. Instead he’s hanging out in bumfuck Pennsylvania with the murder weapon and fake ID.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
As happy as it made everyone with a brain: That was definitely the legal definition of terrorism (if he did it).
From a quick google, criminal possession of a weapon is because NY has laws against ghost guns (3d printed firearms).
Don’t get the logic on both first and second degree for blapping the same guy though.
Eh. I really don’t consider insurance CEOs to be human. If you so thoroughly abandon your own humanity, why should we even legally consider you a human being anymore? As such, I would argue that it’s no more possible to murder an insurance CEO than it’s possible to murder a cardboard box. Hell, at least a cardboard box does some minimal good for the world. Frankly, Thompson’s doing more good for the world as worm food than he ever did as a CEO. I consider the worms feeding on Thompson to be more human than Thompson himself. Does Thompson technically have a family? Sure, but so do the worms.
Throw the book, see what sticks. First degree in NY is very narrow IIRC.
You can tell the corpos are really upset when the government they own brings out the T word.
