- cross-posted to:
- news
- cross-posted to:
- news
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.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Storming the capital or shooting dozens of children are not terrorism, but shooting a CEO who murders thousands is. Got it.
They’re clearly trying to send a message to scare his supporters
They’re clearly trying to send a message to scare his supporters
Yes, they are. By charging him as a terrorist, they are saying that anyone who supports him is supporting terrorism. I’m sure that someone somewhere is making very long lists of names of social media posters and people who donated to his legal defense.
New York law vs. Federal Law. ;)
Without a doubt, “;)” is the most passive aggressive emoticon in the history of the written language.
What’s the most directly aggressive one?
👁️👁️
🖕
That’s an emoji, not an emoticon.
😂 ← this one. This is the most aggressive. I’m not even joking. I hate this emoji with a vengeance
I find this edit even more upsetting. Right wingers love to post the dumbest shit with this emoji as if being arrogantly stupid somehow makes you less wrong.
It’s great when boomers use it thinking it’s just a crying emoji, though. “Aunt Cathy has passed away. 😂”
“😜” or ;P
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.
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.”
These CEOs are quite literally trying to kill us for profit. This is class warfare, and they are the aggressor. They are not civilians, and the terror is not directed at the population or the government.
In fairness, I think you could argue the second half. But I would have to read the manifesto to see if he actualy intended that, or if it is just the rest of us who wish he had…
I tend to agree with that, the intent isn’t to make the general public afraid, it’s to coerce them into taking action.
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.
No. This is us.
This is what we are.
Bullshit. I for one haven’t killed 40,000 people.
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.
1st & 2nd degree both have the terrorism angle attached.
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.
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
Terror?
Come the fuck on,
FedsNew York. Absolutely fucking not. This sparked joy, not terror, in the populace. This was, to be quite frank, the exact opposite of terrorism.It’s not the Feds, it’s the state of New York.
This is like saying a wife killing their abusive husband is an act of terror. Clearly she’s saying she’s not taking the abuse anymore and any man or woman that treats her so poorly would meet a similar end. The perp that killed UnitedHealthcare’s CEO and those cheering him on are saying the same thing – enough abuse. We’re all terrorists because we want CEOs that do real harm to their customers to be held accountable? The current system is completely ill-equipped to even do so much as shame these abusers (i.e. libel and slander laws).
It sparked terror in the people that actually matter, the ruling class.
It also makes light of actual terrorists. Perhaps they aren’t all bad after all.
This is the best argument against the terrorism charges. Should we have a fucking parade to show how NOT terrorized we feel?
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.
Okay, so next time just make it look random. Got it.
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.
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.
Well… guess the family won’t get life insurance now that it’s called a terrorist attack 🤣
“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.
New Yorkers and Pennsylvania residents need to show up to their jury duty summons and get your ass on a trial… You never know whose trial you’ll end up on. Don’t say nullification during the interview!
If was considered a peer of Luigi Mangione I would be so fucking honored.
You want them to go hiking?
That’s
T-r-i-a-l
Thanks. I love trail mix.
You’re a good sport.
So I know you won’t be mad if I add “whose.” The apostrophe in “who’s” replaces the i of “who is.”
Meanwhile, the point you were making is perfect.
Oh jeez, I need all the help I can get. Thanks again. Follow me for more errors!
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
No, see, that’s clearly false. The civilian population did not get intimidated or coerced by fuck and all, and the government wasn’t threatened.
So, nope. Not guilty.
I think what the state is trying to say is that only corporate executives are people.
The government is run by corporatism, so maybe? But as for the public, this is most solidarity we’ve seen from US citizens in a while. We weren’t the target, nor did we feel like we were. We were Spartacus.
For a moment, I thought “hmm. What if we all said ‘No, I shot Brian Thompson’” sort of like what happened in Spartacus, but then I remembered that all 6000 slaves or whatnot were executed
