• ALQ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    307
    ·
    1 month ago

    Speaking to CBS, the BBC’s US partner, on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said that the online rhetoric has been “extraordinarily alarming”.

    “It speaks of what is really bubbling here in this country,” he said. “And unfortunately we see that manifested in violence, the domestic violent extremism that exists.”

    Did he care about the domestic violent extremism before it started to affect the wealthy? What about the domestic terrorists who go after the queer community, POC communities, women, doctors providing reproductive healthcare…the list goes on.

    Violent extremism isn’t new here. It’s just that this one affects people with power.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      96
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Yeah, the rules of society say they won and they think all the losers beneath them just have to accept it. The social order and status quo are great for them. That something would violate it is extremely disturbing to them and provokes an emotional response.

      I think that’s why they seem to be so clumsily overreacting to the murder. Maybe it’s working in segments of the population I don’t see, but everyone in my social network is either outright happy it happened or at least get why it happened. Some will have perfunctory “murder is wrong” statements, but the thrust is about what a corrupt and evil business health insurance is. That’s all the way up to the boomers and crosses political boundaries.

      Things like the perp walk, excessive charges, and corporate comedy pretending everyone just thinks Mangione is a bad guy just highlights the us vs. them of class war rather than trying to somehow quell or redirect the bubbling unrest. I think they’re doing this because their peers and masters are emotionally demanding a visible and recognizable show of power and obedience. If they knew what was good for them they’d be triple-timing it to make some token effort to reform the system, but even a token effort in response to the killing of a rich person would infuriate them, so clumsy performances it is.

      • samus12345@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        When my usually “civil” boomer dad said he gets why he did it and wasn’t outright condemning him, I knew the ruling class wasn’t in control of the narrative as per usual this time.

        • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          49
          ·
          1 month ago

          My 75 year old Canadian aunt laughed when I showed her this

          Everyone hates these people except the people who want to be these people.

          • samus12345@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            33
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I’m actually rather impressed that so many people get what’s actually happening here. I don’t know if it’ll ultimately amount to anything, but it shows that it is actually possible to get through to people sometimes. It’s a shame that no avenue but violence has been left to us to do so.

            • naught101@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              I think most people have known about the situation for years. Apathy isn’t a result of disinterest or lack of care, it’s a result of lack of agency and lack of hope. Now both of those are slightly more on the table.

            • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              By making a big show of this arrest, they’ve ensured that what they don’t want to happen will happen.

              They will share out of fear.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        I know two things.

        1. Luigi didn’t do it
        2. What happened was a Christmas miracle, the rich will only share if it’s profitable or if they’re scared.
        • Wiz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          If we learn something from “A Christmas Carol”, it’s that a rich person must go through at least 3 traumatic events before they repent.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      82
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      You’ve got far right militias blowing up America’s electric grid infrastructure, threatening politicians, having standoffs on federal property, and patrolling hurricane impacted areas trying to capture federal employees that are there helping, and I’ve never heard those people referred to as terrorists.

        • SoleInvictus
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          They’re not only making the poor unhappy, the chaos they sow disproportionally affects the working class, the majority of the population. The more fragmented the majority, the better for the leech ruling-class minority. Chaos provides opportunity for those with power to consolidate further power - financial, social, and political.

    • BmeBenji@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 month ago

      What about the domestic terrorist corporations who assassinate whistleblowers? Or are there so many hands involved there that it’s not worth the trouble to dismantle those terrorist organizations?

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 month ago

      Did he care about the domestic violent extremism before it started to affect the wealthy?

      No, not at all. They’re only mad because for the first time, the elite feel mortal.

      You ever heard of the “less dead”, well, Brian Thompson is “more dead”

      And for those who haven’t “Less Dead” is a saying used to describe people who’s deaths the police don’t look into because they’re “not important enough”

      Many serial killers get away with their crimes simply because they’re smart enough to only kill those who would be deemed “less dead”

    • mhague@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Mayorkas said white nationalists are the biggest threat to domestic security. He was impeached by Nazis. He doesn’t repeat bullshit about immigration. Not necessarily a standard asshole that fails upwards.

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      If someone would say this shit on the news in real time, I might actually watch it. But it’s all so scripted and tame I can’t bring myself to care.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    149
    ·
    1 month ago

    Its fucked up the news is acting like Sandy Hook wasn’t a decade ago. All this guy is accused of is shooting a CEO.

    • SuiXi3D@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      1 month ago

      Maybe if it happens enough, we can normalize billionaire CEO murder as well.

    • papertowels@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      This is the disheartening part that highlights the class divide. Shootings of common folk barely make the news where I’m from. How much have taxpayers paid for this so far? Justice clearly isn’t being applied equally.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 month ago

      The terrorism charge is absolutely the dumbest thing they did. Now it’s on them to prove it was more than just murder.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    1 month ago

    This makes me believe it really wasn’t him. If he actually wrote a manifesto, he’d have declared himself guilty, taken credit, and done a speech about how he was now a martyr for the cause.

    If he’s sticking to his story, then I believe him. They couldn’t find the real killer so they just went with whoever “fit the description”, as per usual.

    • wildcardology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      1 month ago

      Innocent until proven guilty. It’s the government’s job to prove him guilty. He doesn’t have to help them.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 month ago

      That doesn’t explain why he keeps mogging the camera, or what he yells to the journalist in that one video.

      I don’t know if it’s him, but I think whoever it is, is just following their lawyer’s advice, not trying to be a martyr

      • DeLacue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 month ago

        The thing is they’ve actually made a mistake charging him with terrorism. It is surprisingly narrowly defined so even without a sympathetic jury he might get a not guilty verdict for it and it weakens the whole case against him. But most of all by including it they’ve made all his intentions and politics central issues to the case. All the evidence and his statements about this will have to go into the public record. If he had pleaded guilty that wouldn’t happen nor would there be a chance for jury annulment. Pleading not guilty is simply the smarter option to take.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          A jury could just find him not guilty on that one count but guilty on all others. Not seeing how it weakens any other part of the case.

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            I think it’s along the lines of ‘if the prosecution presented an accusation that is obviously false, how well standing is the rest of the case’

            If I were in the jury, a case that is part bullshit would definitely compel me to think again about how well the investigation was done

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          That’s the one thing that tells me he’s not just going to walk, he’s going to walk on fucking water where he’ll be able to look down to see the Prosecution drowning

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 month ago

      Wouldn’t be surprised if he was in New York on some legitimate business, they caught him on camera at a Starbucks near the murder, blasted his image all over the news and social media, and just waited for someone to call.

      Then when they got the call, they grabbed a backpack with “evidence” and claimed he had it on him when they arrested him.

      Did anyone believe that he was wondering around for 3 days with a bag that was holding the murder weapon, fake IDs, and a hand written manifesto? He ditched another bag, and escaped on an e-bike. Why would he then run around for three days with the rest of the evidence.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Either he is the dumbest man alive, or the police really wanted to just go with the first guy who fit the description knowing that they’ll look like heroes to their corporate overlords, and that if another guy bites the dust they can just say it was a copycat.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 month ago

      Personally, I am sad that is all it takes for you to believe something. Businesses, media, governments, and more are trying to make people believe things (unrelated to luigi) that aren’t true. You need to raise the bar, not lower it. Maybe you want to believe he didn’t do it, but I hope you don’t actually believe that based on so little information.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        There’s too much that doesn’t add up, it’s just too convenient that he had the gun and manifesto on him.

    • sunbytes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean, if he can away with it while not undermining his original intentions, why not do it?

      There’s various ways he could go unpunished that would prevent a retrial and so he’d then be set up to be influential in some kind of healthcare reform.

      Heavy on the cope though.

    • arc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Of course it was him. That doesn’t mean from a legal perspective he is best served by pleading guilty. Pleading not guilty also means he’ll get a jury trial and his lawyers can introduce evidence that embarrasses private health insurance providers, or proves his state of mind, or otherwise casts doubt.

    • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      I tend to think it’s because they charged him as a terrorist. I assume it’s a different law in which case he might be able to prove it’s not terrorism.

    • Fiona@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      That’s now how it works: In the US “justice”-system there are only extremely limited cases where it makes sense to plead guilty, because it pretty much just means that you skip the trial and get sentenced directly. Especially if you want Jury-nullification, you have to plead non-guilty so that the Jury can find you innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        What overwhelming evidence in this case? The evidence made public definitely seems to imply he’s not the one who shot the CEO.

        Why would a person take such a carefully planned route through the city to Central Park, change clothes and dump their bag, only to keep their gun, fake IDs and hand written manifesto/confession on their person three days later while eating lunch at a restaurant? If Luigi was the shooter and looking to take credit as what has been released of the manifesto implies, why hide out for three days instead of publicly turning themselves in after informing the press so it’s recorded and likely televised?

  • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 month ago

    Maybe the lack of quick access to life saving resources, procedures and experts immediately after the shooting, aka ‘healthcare’, was what actually killed him?

  • Orbituary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago

    I keep wondering why the shooter had a different color backpack than the one Mangione was caught with. The jacket and hoodie seemed like they were potentially different, but the nose and eyebrows matched.

    • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      1 month ago

      The evidence against him appears to be that the guy who murdered the CEO might have similar eyebrows to Luigi Mangione, but it’s hard to tell from the security video. There’s nothing else that puts him at the scene. They can say it’s him all they want, but they’ll have to reveal some better evidence if they want us to believe it.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      1 month ago

      If you’re going to court for any criminal charge, you plead not guilty. The DA is going to have laid the strongest charges they believe they can get a conviction on, but there is always risk in going to trial. The prosecution generally cares a lot more about getting a conviction than what charge that conviction is on, or what penalty that conviction carries.

      So. You’re caught dead to rights, charged with a crime. If you plead guilty, you are also waiving your right to trial, and taking whatever conviction and (probably) penalty the prosecution advises the judge.

      On the other hand, if you plead not guilty, now you have the opportunity to accept a plea deal from the prosecution - changing your plea to guilty - which would include what charge and what penalty. Depending on what you’ve done, this can save you a lot of money, reduce or eliminate probation or incarceration time, or take the death penalty off the table.

      You can always change your plea from not guilty to guilty. You can’t do that the other way around. Whenever you see headlines about “So-and-so pleads not guilty,” that doesn’t (in most cases) mean they intend to beat the charge. It’s just what you do.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Another huge, important, but subtle distinction to make here is that the trial is not to decide whether you did the thing. It’s not always a mystery who perpetrated an alleged crime. Even if you pull out a gun and shoot somebody on the 50-yard-line at the Super Bowl, and 300 million people see it, they can’t just take you off to prison for murder. They have to give you a trial to determine whether you violated the law.

        There’s a thing called an affirmative defense, as in, “yes, I did the thing, but it wasn’t a crime, because…” If you can, say, convince a jury that you’re a time traveler, the ref was going to make a bad call in the 4th quarter that cost your team the Super Bowl win, and that justified shooting him, well, then it wasn’t a crime. That’s what a jury is ultimately charged with deciding.

        This is not to say that Magione’s attorney plans to present an affirmative defense, just that there are a number of good reasons to plead not guilty, even if it’s 100% certain you did the thing.

        (Edit: Typo.)

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Judicial system working like this (including the previous comments about pleas) is something I would’ve probably doubted if I read it in a fiction, but here we are

    • CascadianGiraffe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 month ago

      Guilty or not, always plead not guilty at the start. You’ll often have a chance to accept a better plea deal before trial if you want. Or you can go to trial.

      Unless you are looking forward to serving time (free food, warm bed, access to healthcare).

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 month ago

        NYC residents:

        If you are picked for a jury, I know it can be annoying and take time out of your busy life. But honestly, it is the last purely democratic area of our life. The jury has the power to ensure the laws are fairly and equally applied.

        Remember that your job as jury is to not only find the facts of the case but also to make sure that the charges fit the crime.

        There is one more job you have: is the law correct in this specific crime?

        Judges won’t tell you this. Prosecutors will make you leave this choice outside the courthouse. But you have it.

        The responsibility of the jury is protected so that you cannot be held accountable or even questioned (in an official setting anyway) as to why you voted the way you did. You have the power to view the facts, know that the defendant is guilty, but vote to acquit because you believe the law is wrong in his case.

        Don’t let prosecutors or the judge trick you.

        All in Minecraft, of course.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, the absurd terrorism charges are probably possible to beat, so no reason to plead guilty to them. They are probably not questioning the murder charges, but that’s beside the point.

    • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      What’s the downside exactly? Pleading guilty doesn’t really come with any upside especially if they’re putting the death penalty on the table.

    • sudo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      In addition to a long stream of journalists waiting for the suspect to appear, members of the public - almost all of them young women - were in court, some of whom told CBS, the BBC’s US partner, that they were there to show their support.

      (emphasis mine)

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        They’re really trying to say that “Oh he’s handsome, that’s why people like him.”

        No it’s not his looks, it’s the fact that he lit the fires of rebellion just be being accused of this act of self-defense.