It's a pin job

Vs. What?

Letting the world know that you can walk up to someone in the middle of the day and shoot them and get away with it?

We all know CSI shows are over exaggerated, but they give us a feeling of protection

Without a motive or a link to follow. A random gunman is next to impossible to find after they get away.

This way they don't have to make the charges stick but "they caught" the gunman.

Security theater is important

Yes?

And right after that he went to my place thousands of miles away and we played classic Sierra games together. Given he is much younger than me he didn't quite understand late 80s and early-mid 90s gaming that much at first. But my god was he such a good listener! He listened to all my middle age man explanations and how revolutionary all that stuff was at the time with full understanding. He even figured out the Gold Rush door puzzle from the get go! The guy is brilliant! And so very nice, too.

We need some chubby copycat so they can be Mario.

That’s honestly been my opinion the whole fucking time.

And it would've been so much easier to plant the stuff at his house while he was being taken. Except that would have required a small amount of thinking.

The theory is that that CEO was knocked off by a paid hitman, possibly contracted by his spouse, and Luigi happened to be picked up as a scapegoat because the NYPD, or the arresting officer, was complicit/paid off a tidy sum.

This would be a better theory if Luigi had a serious alibi. Also, if he wasn't tied up with the Silicon Valley Longtermist movement, which has already produced a number of more low-profile killings.

I wouldn't discount the pet theory, because it does sound like the kind of shit mega-millionaires get up to. But the NYPD picking up this guy specifically, where and when they did, with no credible counternarrative as to where he was at the time of the killing, makes me strongly suspect they have the right guy. But - like with the OJ Brown-Simpson murder - they've got such a clown car of detectives and a grandstanding mayor and self-insert celebrity journalists and prosecutors promoting the case as spectacle that they're going to completely fuck this thing at trial.

If he wins the criminal case but loses a far more professionally executed civil "wrongful death" case a few years later, I would not be surprised in the slightest.

Our system isn’t about guilty or not guilty but “beyond a reasonable doubt” skin tone.

Gotta check the actual stats.

I assume that jury selection on this particular trial was almost certainly tampered with to pick the least sympathetic to accused to out right bribed or blackmailed into being told how they will decide the case or else.

Brian Thompson was murdered, but all the evidence that has been made publicly available certainly suggest that Mangione had nothing to do with it. The images release of the shooting and the hotel do not match, purportedly the hotel images were 2 weeks old at the time, we've gotten no other proof that he was even in the city on the day of the shooting, as well as the backpack found in central park abandoned, yet supposedly 3 days later the suspect had the fake IDs, weapon and manifest on his person while out to lunch?

I'm sorry but no, this entire thing reads like they just want to crucify Luigi because they fucked up their investigation so bad they're never going to catch the real culprit and his name must have been on a watch list or something to make him a convenient scapegoat.

We can stop 1 100,000 person march, but we can’t stop 10 10,000 person marches at the same time

Not only that, Luigi's fake ID which he did not use in an illegal way any known time was not linked with the shooting, just linked to a NY hostel.

Also Luigi was not marandised, hes also charged in NY, Pennsylvania and federally at the same time, double (triple?) jeopardy

And his bags were searched without him being able to see the search, which puts into question the search, but they didn't find any gun or manifesto at that time. 6 hours later, they did find a gun and a manifesto after being contact with NYPD. And the paper work for this evidence is also not properly filed. In addition the inventory of his belonging was also not descriptive.

He was arrested by a rookie cop that didn't get help from a supervisor to avoid mistakes either, lots of adrenaline in a huge profile case like this. He said he knew right away that this was the killer, and he had only the propaganda NYPD had posted to the media. And NYPD didn't know who the killer was

I dont know how long it took, but it took well over 100 days before the defence was able to even see the evidence against him. A huge red flag that the prosecution dont think the evidence holds water. And when they did get it, it was terabytes of data, and Luigi wasn't allowed to use a computer without hus lawyer present, blocking him from seeing what weaksauce they have against him

The aid to the prosecutor also listened in, they say it was an accident to a whole telephone conversation with Luigi and the lawyer, how is this even possible. The prosecutor rebuked him self from the case after they were caught doing this, so they do a new prosecutor

The feds even call for the death penalty before Luigi is even indited, let alone convinced.

I'm just very skeptical this is the shooter, why would they screw up everything so bad every step on puropuse like this. Its just a hail Mary that the judge who is married to a CEO will convict anyway

"Burn all the evidence in an alleyway somewhere, get new clothes on

Luigi in the released CCTV photography is already wearing different clothes to the shooter. Not very different though.

Bit strange to change clothes and backpack but keep the same styling and colors.

and you think my manifesto would start praising with how amazing the cops are and we need to thank them, and we should not rise up?

This was a police department in Pennsylvania, days later, hours away from NY

This police department mainly had information from the media, not from NYPD

This is just a motion. Judge will decide it's validity and the remedy. It might end up with the evidence excluded, but it might be that the prosecution just has to provide a different/stronger justification, or even be a nothing burger if the judge is unconvinced by the arguments in the motion.

I agree with your analysis if the judge does exclude backpack and contents as evidence.

Anything other than exclusion will be grounds for appeal, later, too.

I hope he did it and I hope he gets off.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was him, if he had a meticulous brilliant plan to make sure there was no direct evidence, so people would know it was him but they couldn't prove it in a court of law.

And then the cops were like "it's cute you think we play by the rules" and planted evidence.

I also hope he's acquitted. I don't know if a random healthcare CEO getting killed will make the world a better place. But, I do think that a guy getting away with killing a random healthcare CEO is more likely to result in change.

In the first case, it can be dismissed by the CEOs, oligarchs and friends as a crazy lone gunman. But, if a jury votes to acquit after massive donations to his legal case, that becomes a clear sign that it's not just a lone gunman, that a lot of people support this kind of thing. It also makes it more likely to happen again, because the next gunman might think they can get away with it too. If CEOs start quitting because they don't want a target on their backs, or they start reforming their companies to avoid being so hated, that's great.

NYC is full of tall attractive young men of Italian descent. I used to live there and off the top of my head can think of three different aquaintences who were his age and would have matched his profile close enough.

Jury nullification isn't an enumerated power, it's an emergent result of jury deliberations being secret and their verdict being legally binding.

As the other comment says, jury nullification isn't a thing that can easily be removed. The jury doesn't just claim "jury nullification." They just state their decision is that the defendant is not guilty. They don't state why, and we'd only know why they came to that conclusion if they tell us later in interviews or something.

SCOTUS cannot overturn a Nulification in the not guilty, according to anything about nulification I have read thus far, because the jury said that there is reasonable doubt, that he did not do it.

The plaintiff cannot appeal. There are super rare circumstances where I should say "usually can't appeal", but those are so rare I will just say only the defendant can appeal.

First and last time this phrase has ever been said about a US cop

Thankfully/Unfortunately, you don't need an alarm to know that ACAB

Good point, they don't even need a crime to arrest you.

This is how people end up with their only charge being "resisting arrest".

Search incident to arrest typically allows you to search the person of the suspect to ensure that the person doesn't have a weapon, or has evidence of a crime that they can destroy. Once you've separated a person from a closed bag, you don't have the immediate right to search the bag; US v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977). OTOH, once an arrestee is actually being booked, they can perform an inventory of the contents of a bag (Illinois v. LaFayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983)), which would have turned up the gun, etc., and it would have turned them up under controlled circumstances. But that's not what happened here; he appears to have been arrested on a pretextual basis, and then his bag seized and searched without a warrant. However, it's going to be up to his attorneys to make this argument, and my guess is that the state will argue that he was definitely, 100% going to be booked--despite the lack of evidence at that point to support that--and thus it was inevitable that the gun would have been found. I think that's bullshit, but we'll see.

Off topic but I really like your name

Not a lawyer, but I know that when a cop arrests someone in a car and the car is impounded, they catalog items.

Under Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983), it would be fine to inventory a bag when you're being booked. But they hadn't gotten that far, and I'm not aware of any evidence that they would have actually booked him without the contents of the bag.

Also, AFAIK, they're allowed to do a basic search to ensure that someone doesn't have a weapon on them or nearby. It wouldn't make sense to require a warrant for that. Imagine a cop had to apply for a search warrant to ensure that the person they were arresting didn't have a knife or gun in their pocket.

In that case, it might make sense to search his backpack if it was right next to him. OTOH, if they took his backpack away from him, then they were no longer in danger from anything in the backpack so they had no justification to search it.

You just know that the police are going to lie about these things. They'll claim he was never separated from his backpack so they were justified in searching it for something dangerous. Or they'll claim that they had reason to believe there was a bomb so even though he didn't have it on him, they still had a reason to search it because it still posed an immediate danger.

The only way anybody can get a fair trial is to have an expensive team of lawyers who can chase down all these various lies, finding out what was said on body cams, when the body cams were mysteriously turned off, what the exact timeline of everything was, etc.

Seems like an “ends justifies the means” loophole. The original intent was to hide the source of NSA tips from terrorist prosecution. We’d all probably agree to that without thinking that it can also be used more widely, that the person is not a terrorist until proven so, that there are really no limits, and is an easy way for police to hide abuse of authority.

Analogous to “Civil Forfeiture”. That seemed so reasonable in the context of seizing wealth obtained through criminal activities by organized crime. But there were no real limits, and it allowed perverse incentives, so now we have local cops stealing people’s personal belongings, and actually creating budgets relying on this theft

This is common knowledge for anyone who was around during the Chelsea Manning / Edward Snowden era and all the revelations of the depths of NSA spying, PRISM, etc.

Everything is being recorded, analysed, manipulated to whatever degree they’re technically capable of, laws be damned.

At best, you know someone is doing something wrong but get them in something else. Think like mobsters and such. But typically it's just shitty.

Nice try, FBI.

“I’ll look guilty if I ask for a lawyer”

If you ever watch copaganda shows, you'll see that the innocent are always anxious to talk to the cops, with tears in their eyes as the police comforting them, and the guilty are always the ones refusing to cooperate, saying they "know their rights", and they'll be lawyering up.

This is intentional, the system wants you to believe that your only hope is compliance and no questions asked. That a good citizen knows that the constitution is just a piece of paper, and the only trait worth having is blind faith in your betters. That the common man has only the right to obey, consume product, and reproduce so that he can be replaced on the assembly line when he grows too old.

If you are sickened by what I just said, hold onto that feeling, it means they haven't completely gotten your soul yet.

If you are in custody, you already look guilty to them.

On most Android phones there's a physical shortcut for the camera like pressing the lock button twice.