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.
I believe him.
Yo, guy.. Did you kill that CEO?
We all killed that CEO leech, on this blessed day
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
Who's that guy? Doesn't look like the guy they were searching for. At all.
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.
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
Are any of the photos from the crime scene?
Because if you find a guy who matches "photo of guy getting coffee", you still don't have evidence that he's a killer. You have evidence that he got some coffee.
I think most of the people are pretty sure he did it. It’s just that the “it wasn’t him” defense is popular amongst the people that think vigilante justice should allow for legalized murder.
If he actually did it, he should rot in jail like any other murderer. If it can be proven that he didn’t, he didn’t he should walk free. That’s how it should be. That is how civilized people work.
And the people that think he should walk even if he did kill a man- just because of who that man is, they have become the very thing they hate.
If only they would take a moment to understand this.
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.
If the eyebrows don't fit, you must acquit.
“He who saves his country commits no crime “
Watch out, fascists love that motto
Good, honestly we don't even know if he's the person who did the crime.
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.
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.
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.
That journal is fabricated.
The manufactured evidence then found a guy they could pin it on
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.
Well, that settles it then. Better release him for the sake of Government Efficiency and all that.
Dude was with me in Bahamas
I was in the Bahamas and witnessed him being with you.
Good. All the best to him.
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?
I have not seen genuine evidence it was actually him. This wouldn't even be the first or last time evidence was planted on someone to paint a narrative.
The way I see it, they needed a scapegoat. Because how do you just lose a murderer in broad daylight?
There's no way someone smart enough to do all that somehow gets hungry and loafs around at a McDonald's? The real killer collected his bounty and is living on a remote island by now.
They needed to do anything to stop copycats from popping up, and they did an okay job at doing so.
The picture they showed and Luigi… looks like two different people.
I hope his lawyers is using the Chewbacca defense.
They needed to do anything to stop copycats from popping up, and they did an okay job at doing so.
Though I wonder if that will remain the case if Luigi actually does come up with an alibi he had all along, waiting to reveal it all this time just to really rub it in how law enforcement screwed this up. And with all the spotlight on him all the time, the real killer could be anywhere in the world at this point, completely unknown and unreachable. Not exactly a scenario that scares people off
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.
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.
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's the best guy around.
I was banned from reddit cause I supported him feel at home here
Prosecutor: Could you find defendant guilty?
Potential juror: I could.
Narrator: They couldn't.
I don't think jury nullification will be needed. I legit think that Luigi didn't do it. Meaning a simple acquittal is all what is needed.
As for the real killer? I hope he lives a long and quiet life.
This is 100% the approach I'm betting the defense will take. "Yeah he did it but he deserved it" would be a great story but an absolute dipshit defense to take. Court of law is separate from court of public opinion, and unless they can prove he did it without reasonable doubt then not guilty is the way to go.
Murder is where you kill an innocent person. Killing a spree killer, esp during the spree, is just defending people. Hopefully the jury is made cognizant of that.
Flushing a toilet isn't a crime.
I mean, the only other option is to plead guilty, and nobody would do that. So this was kind of expected.
At least he's wearing armor now.
He was halfway around the country eating ice cream with me.
yay!
Free Luigi, he did it and I stand with him.
Where's your evidence he is guilty?
*If
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
Having been on a jury,
People are dumb and have no empathy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.