A judge has dismissed terrorism charges against Luigi Mangione in New York state’s case over the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, but he kept the state’s second-degree murder charges against him.
The emphasis on “intimidate and coerce a civilian population” is interesting. Seems to imply billionaires are not considered part of the civilian population. As they shouldn’t be.
That is not how I read it. If he had shot and left a note saying “fuck billionaires” or “fuck CEOs” then it would be terrorism because he would be threatening them. But his problem was just this guy. It was plain murder / revenge.
The internet made him a champion of “anti billionaires” against his will
Yep. Maybe this is irelevant to US law, but I’m in Romania (European Union member) at the moment and here discriminating against someone based on wealth (wealthy/poor) is a hate crime (as is discriminating based on gender, age, orientation, etc). So at the most it’d be a hate crime. The terrorism charges were politically motivated.
Before we go giving the legal system a pat on the back for that, that’s not really what’s happening. The law is written with a high level of provable intent in mind, and that’s the only way it could possibly pass 1st Amendment muster. It’s really, really hard to prove anyone intended to intimidate anyone.
The emphasis on “intimidate and coerce a civilian population” is interesting. Seems to imply billionaires are not considered part of the civilian population. As they shouldn’t be.
That is not how I read it. If he had shot and left a note saying “fuck billionaires” or “fuck CEOs” then it would be terrorism because he would be threatening them. But his problem was just this guy. It was plain murder / revenge.
The internet made him a champion of “anti billionaires” against his will
Yep. Maybe this is irelevant to US law, but I’m in Romania (European Union member) at the moment and here discriminating against someone based on wealth (wealthy/poor) is a hate crime (as is discriminating based on gender, age, orientation, etc). So at the most it’d be a hate crime. The terrorism charges were politically motivated.
Sometimes you take the hero you get, whether they want to be or not.
Before we go giving the legal system a pat on the back for that, that’s not really what’s happening. The law is written with a high level of provable intent in mind, and that’s the only way it could possibly pass 1st Amendment muster. It’s really, really hard to prove anyone intended to intimidate anyone.