A former prosecutor has said he has never seen so much sympathy for a person accused of murder.
  • Kalysta@lemm.ee
    6·
    18 小时前

    It’s like asking us to feel bad that Osama Bin Laden was killed. Or that Charles Manson died. Why are they trying to generate sympathy for a serial killer? Deciding on who does and doesn’t get health care makes you just as much a murderer as Mangione. So why should I care?

    • arc@lemm.ee
      9·
      23 小时前

      He’s 100% guilty. He crossed state lines to stalk and shoot his victim dead. He even wrote a mini manifesto where he admitted the crime.

      The issue is that his victim was a piece of shit and so there is a great deal of sympathy with the killer who appears to have suffered his own health issues. It must be hard to find jurors who haven’t been personally negatively impacted by United Health or else know someone who has.

      That means in a jury of 12 it might be impossible to ensure the verdict is unanimous. I am sure the defence will also try to make the trial about private health insurance and will be leaning hard into things like the victim and his company’s culpability in so much pain, suffering & death.

      • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
        16·
        23 小时前

        So far we have not seen any evidence of his guilt. We have opened an investigation with the IDF to check whether he is guilty and we will come back to that in the future.

        • arc@lemm.ee
          2·
          22 小时前

          He was literally caught with a written confession.

          To the Feds, I’ll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.

        • D1G17AL@lemmy.world
          4·
          1 天前

          That’s what I said as soon as they nabbed Luigi. Does not look like the original shooters profile.

        • arc@lemm.ee
          1·
          23 小时前

          Just some other random guy with weapons and a manifesto admitting to killing a health exec

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.netEnglish
            7·
            20 小时前

            He’s pleading not guilty, claiming that the cops planted that shit.

            And the cops routinely lie and plant evidence, so it’s not out of the question.

            • arc@lemm.ee
              1·
              9 小时前

              If the cops did indeed plant evidence then happy days for the defence since it should be easy to disprove. e.g. by simple handwriting analysis or other such means. But this is fantasy wishful thinking since he did write the words. So stick to the reality here. He shot the guy and confessed to it. Lord knows what else he said during interviews with the cops but probably lots. His defense team will attempt to disqualify evidence and diminish his culpability while transforming the trial into one about private health care. They only need one not guilty and that’s what they’ll do their best to achieve.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.netEnglish
                1·
                5 小时前

                If the cops did indeed plant evidence then happy days for the defence since it should be easy to disprove. e.g. by simple handwriting analysis or other such means. But this is fantasy wishful thinking since he did write the words. So stick to the reality here

                Handwriting analysis is hardly objective.

                He shot the guy and confessed to it.

                He’s pleaded not guilty, and unless you have more up to date information, he’s made no confession outside of the alleged note.

            • peoplebeproblems@midwest.socialEnglish
              4·
              19 小时前

              Know what?

              I’m thinking you might be right. Walking that confidently? The show of police presence? The assuredness of the police? The publicly shared evidence? A guy that kinda fits the profile?

              He’s also a smart dude. He sees this for what it is. He also probably understands that regardless of what happens, the public will probably obtain justice.

              We’re all furious with the state of things. We’re furious over the lack of police accountability, the laws for the poor and not the elite. We’re furious that they can look at what health insurance can do to make profit, and let it be completely legal to let people die.

              It doesn’t matter if he did or did not do the crime at this point. The elite showed their hand too early, the public is calling it. He’s probably scared shitless, but he knows. He knows that regardless of what the outcome is, the people have rallied to him. He knows they can’t risk making him a martyr, and an acquittal would be devastating. The entire Spirit of the Constitution (regardless of it’s interpretation by the Supreme Court) and the people is behind him.

              He knows justice is coming.

        • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
          1·
          20 小时前

          Murder is murder no matter how much the victim had it coming.

          Edit: as others have told me murder is only applicable after conviction. My post here is wrong and dumb.

          • oshu@lemmy.world
            4·
            23 小时前

            The word murder has a specific meaning in law: The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

            • slingstone@lemmy.world
              2·
              19 小时前

              Given that the whole point of the act was that the CEO and his company were indifferent to human life, one could argue that the shooter valued the life and dignity of his fellow beings far more than his target. Furthermore, the tens of thousands of deaths attributed to the vile strategies of this company in particular would seem to offer a very significant justification and excuse. Of course, malice aforethought is inherent to an assassination, so I guess they have him there.

              In the end, though, the jury will be under no legal obligation to follow the law and could choose to find him not guilty if they agree with his reasons for acting.

      • FLeX@lemmy.world
        2·
        18 小时前

        Eveyone is the parasite of someone else. Think of it before spitting nazi shit next time.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    67·
    2 天前

    The media likes to downplay that the CEO had straight up killed people. Eye for an eye applies. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice to find Luigi guilty.

  • Critical_Thinker@lemm.eeEnglish
    99·
    2 天前

    Oh, so like when it goes the other way and the public decides someone is guilty long before they go to trial and prosecutors go after him anyway.

    Big deal. The jury will decide one way or another and I will be very surprised that the highest charges will stick if they get normal people on the bench.

    The fact that this guy had a manhunt out for him when people are murdered every day and nearly no resources are used at all to go after them is astounding. Just shows the law is there for the rich, not the rest of us.

  • DankOfAmerica@reddthat.comEnglish
    74·
    2 天前

    Juror 1: It wasn’t him. I know it in my heart…because I’ve had congenital heart disease my whole life, so I’m acutely aware of how my heart is feeling at all times. Like when my insurance company raised my premiums, I felt that in my heart. I feel this verdict in my heart, too.

    Juror 2: At first, I thought it was him, but then I didn’t. Something about it made me change my mind. He just looks like a highly principled person. The media owes this man an apology.

    Juror 3: This reminds me of the time I went to the ER with a severe migraine, and the insurance company denied payment for the visit because there was no proof that I had a migraine and said it could have been anxiety, which wasn’t covered in my plan. Maybe this wasn’t murder. Maybe this was assault. I guess we’ll never know now.

    Juror 4: The prosecution made a good case, but the defense made one very good point: the victim has a long history of gaslighting vulnerable people. It made it hard to trust them.

    Juror 5: I think it was a cover up. Maybe the “victim” killed himself and wanted to make it look like a murder so his family would get the insurance money. They seemed to know a lot about insurance loopholes and tactics.

    Juror 6: I feel for the victim, but I think that considering the charges, they need a second opinion…Oh, the law states that someone can’t be tried for the same crime twice? If they think that is unjust, they could work with government to come up with a better system then. Though it is going to be a tough battle to repeal the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution since they will need approval from 38 states, but maybe they have the public’s sympathy.

    Juror 7: I’m glad this trial is over. I need to get to the home to take care of my wife with cancer. The insurance company keeps giving me trouble, and she’s too weak to fight it.

    Juror 8: Did you know that the defendant hadn’t even met the victim once. Who targets a random stranger for no reason at all? The prosecution wasn’t able to make a case defining the motive of the defendant.

    Juror 9: In my experience, you have to be careful with insurance companies. You can never trust them. The prosecution was working for an insurance company, so it was hard to believe anything they presented.

    Juror 10: As a family practice doctor, I have to deal with insurance companies that lie about denials all the time, so I can tell when they are lying, and I think they were lying in the trial.

    Juror 11: NOT GUILTY. The defendant seemed to be defending others from death or serious bodily injury, which is legal according to New York Penal Law 35.15.

    Juror 12: The defense made a good point. The victim had told his doctor that he smoked a cigarette once in college, and I heard that smoking cigarettes can lead to poor health. Maybe the victim would have survived if he hadn’t smoked before. We have to consider that.

  • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
    82·
    2 天前

    There’s a McDonald’s worker able to be jury. Oh wait, he didn’t get the reward money as his claim got denied for bullshit reasons, just like insurance… Never mind.

    • Mad_Punda@feddit.org
      16·
      2 天前

      Is there a source for this? Last time I heard about it, it turned out to be just a ”possibly, maybe, it could be denied”, but nothing was decided yet.

      • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
        39·
        2 天前

        So, the reports say “might not get it” Like this report but in almost all cases reward money isn’t paid. In this case I’d think he has somewhat of a chance to get it due to public pressure, now that it’s in the media. But in most cases it is denied because of bullshit reasons. “Thanks to your tip we were able to catch the guy, but through other sources we would have found him as well, so, no” or “multiple agencies offered reward money, so they both say the other one should pay up, so none pay up” or “you didn’t follow the right procedures to get the money” or any other bullshit reason to deny payout. Often you’d have to prove you were the sole reason the person got caught, while you don’t have access to restricted case files so good luck with that.

        It basically works like the health insurance system in the US. They will do anything they can to reject your claim while you will have to fight to get what you should.

        Fun fact: radio stations do the same. They offer amazing prices, get loads of people to listen ‘to find the hidden clue’, have them call an expensive phone number. They pick a winner, have them on the air over the phone, everyone hears how happy they are by winning, so people will try to compete next time again. But they never get a price. Because, no one will hear they didn’t get any. Or at least, this used to be so, now with social media it’s harder to hide these shady tactics.

        Not just radio stations by the way, This was recently.

        • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
          7·
          2 天前

          This is the best answer ive seen thus far. Ive just being saying all sources reporting he isn’t being paid are sourcing their info from a game of telephone origination from articles speculating he might not be paid. This is much better written though thanks!

        • boomzilla@programming.dev
          0·
          2 天前

          Got no doubts about what you stated (also a huge wtf to that basketball charity fuckup) but I’m still convinced the snitch will get her money just as Lugi will be convicted for terrorism, although the commenter above, in his epic joury-comment wrote that the double-conviction wasn’t allowed under the state law. If it isn’t FBI or the police who pays her then it will be the some other CEOs. Maybe on a charity event.

          • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 天前

            No one cares whether the snitch will get their money. All eyes will be on the court case. And she it comes to money, everything will be done to deny a payout. It’s how big corps and the government work. Whenever there’s a desk approving a payout, there will be a desk above it questioning it and putting it on hold, finding ways to drown it in paperwork. Spending money means someone will be held responsible for losing funds, which means someone will have a bad rep concerning their career so no one wants to work towards a payout. Capitalism thrives around reducing spendings and increasing profits. That’s a major flaw of capitalism. Investing in the future, the general public or the greater good are not part of the equation.

          • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
            3·
            2 天前

            “yeah, thank you for the golden tip, we caught the guy thanks to you. But you snitched, and we do not endorse that (with all the whistle lowers lately) so we’re not going to reward your behavior by paying you to show people it’s better to keep your mouth shut… Or we will shut it for you (again, like with all the whistle blowers). Snitches get stitches!”

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      2 天前

      I understand that she can only get the money if he gets convicted. They’ll probably still find some other excuse not to pay her, but still - I argue that’s a pretty big bias that should disqualify her from jurying.

    • NutWrench@lemmy.mlEnglish
      24·
      2 天前

      Just don’t mention jury nullification in front of a judge or prosecutor. They hate that.

        • AEsheron@lemmy.world
          8·
          2 天前

          Never mention it. They will often ask questions about how you think a juror should or can act. If you answer them in a way that shows you might know about nullification, you are out. If you then later admit you know about it, they will point to those questions and know you lied about them. Safest answer is to just never, ever use the term, ideally you should go through the motions in deliberation of putting the the rules together, like you are just realizing it’s a possibility then and there.

          • jagged_circle@feddit.nlEnglish
            8·
            2 天前

            Yeah, I’m saying that we should mention it as non jurors. Its our responsibility to tell them. Here on Lemmy and every way we can. Let jurors know that they have the ability to do justice, even if the law is wrong

            • kreskin@lemmy.world
              2·
              2 天前

              Yep. Some parts of the law have evolved so far afield from their original context that they conflict with other legal basics. You never know when a conversation like this one might be personally applicable. No one expects or plans to die, or to be called on for jury duty. Its a surprise.

  • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    55·
    2 天前

    Both teams will be given an opportunity to eliminate potential jurors they believe are too sympathetic to the one side or the other.

    Good luck with that, you can only weed out a limited number, and there’s a fucking lot of us.