Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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.
You can tell the corpos are really upset when the government they own brings out the T word.
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.
Terror?
Come the fuck on, ~~Feds~~ New York. Absolutely fucking not. This sparked joy, not terror, in the populace. This was, to be quite frank, the exact opposite of terrorism.
It also makes light of actual terrorists. Perhaps they aren't all bad after all.
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's not the Feds, it's the state of New York.
This is the best argument against the terrorism charges. Should we have a fucking parade to show how NOT terrorized we feel?
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
So by saying terror, they admit that there is something to be fixed by policy of a government
"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..
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
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.
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.
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.
"One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter"
Well… guess the family won’t get life insurance now that it’s called a terrorist attack 🤣
Post bills every-fucking-where about Jury Nullification.
"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.
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.
This guy is going to get a standing ovation when he enters the courtroom.
"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