Luigi Mangione pleads not guilty to federal charges in CEO killing
Luigi Mangione pleads not guilty to federal charges in CEO killing
Luigi Mangione is accused of stalking United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson and shooting him to death on Dec. 4, 2024.
Seeing the way Luigi was carrying himself, and his facial expressions, makes me wonder. Does he actually have a cast-iron allibi just waiting to be revealed?
Well, that settles it then. Better release him for the sake of Government Efficiency and all that.
Luigi is a hero. But not because he killed a CEO, or anyone. Because he was framed by the government, dragged through the mud, humiliated publicly, and held his head high standing 10 feet tall. Not guilty plea is nothing less than I expected. We should all take note of his example. They can't beat us all if we resist.
yay!
“He who saves his country commits no crime “
Watch out, fascists love that motto
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.
All the photos look exactly like him tho... I mean is there is substantial evidence he didn't do it? I fully support him, but I think it's a stretch to say he was framed and the photos look nothing alike
Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
The misuse of evidence and the lead detective and mayor sharing evidence his lawyer hasn’t seen in a media campaign to impugn the man.
There’s reasonable doubt in their earnest attempt at seeking justice here. They seem hellbent on violating his constitutional rights.
I doubt they have the right guy. Reasonably
Dude has a familiar face. There are tons of people that look "just like" those fuzzy videos and pics
There shouldn't need to be evidence of his innocence, there should need to be an overwhelming amount of evidence proving he's guilty. That's part of the foundation for justice that courts are meant to uphold.
Edit: mistype for spelling
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.
I believe him.
Yo, guy.. Did you kill that CEO?
We all killed that CEO leech, on this blessed day
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.
Luigi Mangione is a hero of the people.
Nah he was just framed as one
For no reason at all.
True hero!
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.
But he oversaw one of the worst insurance companies out there.
Wow! This is amazing! This garden vegetable is talking! I mean, it's completely wrong, but god damn! Talking veggies!
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
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
The problem is he definitely killed the guy. In a sane world the defense would walk in, state directly to the jury "jury nullification is a thing", and that would be the end of it.
They have engineered a system where the only recourse the common man has is violence, and I have no qualms about saying this CEO, like many others, deserved to die.
Having been on a jury,
People are dumb and have no empathy
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because of this fact a lot of courts will just automatically enter a not guilty plea during your first appearance now.
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.
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.
He's the best guy around.
I was banned from reddit cause I supported him feel at home here
Who's that guy? Doesn't look like the guy they were searching for. At all.
Good. All the best to him.
Federal prosecutors claimed in their new filing that Mangione deserves the death penalty because of "the impact of the victim's death upon his family, friends and co-workers" and because "he expressed intent to target an entire industry and rally political and social opposition to that industry, by engaging in an act of lethal violence."
I just want to remind everyone of the impact of many of Thompson's murders on their family, friend, and co-workers, all in the service of the money masters' sheer, unadulterated, insatiable greed.
funny how none of thompsons family or friends came out supporting him? the estranged wife who is probably elated to not fight in divorce court, or Mr andrew witty dint even bat an eye he died.
Also we literally only know his thoughts on the matter because they released excerpts of his journal. If he was trying to rally political and social opposition, you'd think he would have published a manifesto himself.
That journal is fabricated.
The manufactured evidence then found a guy they could pin it on
Presumptive of you to assume what was put forth as his writings are actually his. His guilt or innocence need to be determined in court, not in law enforcement's uncorroborated statements to the media.
Does the public have any information on the evidence they have that he did it? What I have read about all sounds like a weak case with what I suspect is a mountain of inadmissible evidence gathered by methods outside of laws that would apply to the non elite class.
It is an extremely weak case. He is unidentifiable by the video, which is their best evidence by far, and any physical evidence is suspect in multiple ways, due to police corruption and corporate/ oligarch pressure. It should be very easy to sow reasonable doubt.
He was halfway around the country earing ice cream with me.
At least he's wearing armor now.
Free Luigi, he did it and I stand with him.
Where's your evidence he is guilty?
*If