Paywall removed: https://archive.is/bItmD

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 1 year ago (47 children)

It's saying he murdered the CEO, when he has not been proven/convicted of doing so. How are you a moderator making decisions like that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [+] -54 points 1 year ago (45 children)

    If nobody believes he killed the CEO then everyone needs to immediately retract all the Luigi memes.

    It's clear he shot the guy, the only question is how justified it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    Innocent until some guy on Lemmy says otherwise?

    Oh wait, no, it still has to be proven.

    Unless you were present at the time, you've seen some videos. Perhaps it's not likely, but videos can be faked, more easily now than ever before.

    Proof first.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] -30 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    Lemmy isn't a court of law, neither is the Internet. It's pretty much universally accepted he killed the guy, if it wasn't, we wouldn't have the hero worship.

    What the court is going to decide is if he's justified or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Lemmy isn't a court of law, neither is the Internet.

    Proceeds to cite general Internet opinion as proof of guilt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    The court is also going to need to decide if the cops planted the evidence he conveniently carried with him several days later.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] -22 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Any conspiracy theory is going to do some heavy lifting explaining how the highly custom pistol in the video is not the same highly custom pistol found on Luigi.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    the highly custom pistol

    What?

    Wasn't it all 3d printed?

    I never heard the brand but I'd bet it was an 80% like the vast majority are. There are millions of those guns.

    found on Luigi.

    No, nothing was found on Luigi.

    He had a backpack and hours after his arrest it was searched after chain of custody was violated, nothing in there is admissable evidence.

    https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/28/us/luigi-mangione-evidence-illegal-search

    Even if it was a rare gun, it can't legally be linked to Luigi, that's just how our legal system works.

    Bonus:

    Love is not admissable evideeeeeeeeece

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXsG6BO292w

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Exactly. Looks a lot like they found the gun near the scene of the crime, and then planted it in his backpack. That makes a lot more sense than him hauling it and an incriminating manifesto with him for several days. If he wanted to do the manifesto thing he'd have left it at the scene of the crime. None of that evidence makes sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    I mean, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...

    It's very hard to believe this guy just had all the evidence a prosecutor could want, literally in a nice little bag and he was just fucking taking it a long on a bus journey.

    It might have happened, but cops fucking lie.

    If cops didn't plant evidence, we wouldn't have to have laws about chain of custody. Rich people get off on tiny loopholes all the time, this is a foundational principle of our legal system.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (15 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    The handgun police say Luigi Mangione used to fatally shoot UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson is nearly as recognizable as the now-famous alleged shooter himself—and shows just how common and lethal these weapons have become.

    So...

    A common 3d printed gun...

    And you sure as shit can't ID it in the video, that's just the ones the cops say was in a backpack that they say Luigi had....

    And like I've said before, the backpack isn't admissible evidence.

    Like. You're operating under the assumption that whatever the police do is ok, and I struggle to understand how an American can have that much faith in the American criminal justice system.

    People get off on way less all the time man, he's got money and it doesn't take much to beat reasonable doubt. Especially when the cops fuck up this bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Again, admissable doesn't enter into it. That's something for the court to determine.

    It's plain everyone believes Luigi killed the guy.

    This is Luigi:

    There is no question he killed the guy, the only question is justification.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Do you understand that the picture with the hood up is from earlier at a hostel?

    Your little collage is cropped, but isn't Luigi wearing a completely different backpack in the one on the right than the shooter is in the middle.

    You can't just throw a picture of the shooter in between two pics of Luigi and claim that proves something.

    Do you have any idea how many people have greenish coats in NYC any given morning?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    And how many got caught with the gun and a hand-written manifesto? It's plain Luigi plugged the guy, the only question is if it's justified, that's what the court will determine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You trust the cops. Why would you? They've been proven, just in the last five years, to have planted evidence on innocent people.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-throws-man-guilty-plea-224510985.html

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Oh, I absolutely do not trust the cops, but given everything we have learned, it's self evident he shot the guy.

    As I say, the only bit that needs to be determined is if he was justified or not. His fans believe he was, which is why they float things like jury nullification, not that he's innocent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You definitely do trust the cops, your entire argument here consists of trusting the cops

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No, my argument is based on trusting observable reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    And how many got caught with the gun and a hand-written manifesto?

    That doesn't matter if it can't be evidence...

    We're just going in circles.

    You believe the cops because things the cops said...

    Most can't do that anymore

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Again, we aren't talking about what he's found guilty of or not. We're talking about if he shot the guy or not.

    Saying the evidence is inadmissable doesn't discount the fact that it was the gun used and the manifesto shows motive.

    He DEFINITELY shot the guy. Whether he's CONVICTED for it is a different issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    He DEFINITELY shot the guy

    Because he was seen wearing a greenish coat?

    Like, if you can acknowledge that the screenshot of his face and the video of the shooting are from two different videos and there's not continuous footage between the two...

    Then I don't understand why you keep saying it's him.

    If you can't, then I don't think there's anyway I can help you understand this.

    And I definitely don't understand why you just want to keep repeating your opinion like it's somehow a fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I agree that "DA says..." is equal to "alleged," but you lost the thread with "it's clear he shot the guy."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    There are two groups of people:

    1. People who think Luigi's a criminal who needs to be imprisoned or executed.

    2. People who think Lugi's a hero who was fully justified in his actions.

    Both groups agree he killed the guy. There is no argument outside tin-foil-hattery that he didn't.

    The only question remaining is if it's justified or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Mangione has not admitted to the act nor has he been convicted. He has a right to the presumption of innocence. The state must prove his guilt. Trial by public opinion in the media is not a replacement for a jury of his peers. That is an elementary democratic principle, not a conspiracy theory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago

    Of course he's not going to admit anything, he's not a dummy. But it should be obvious to anyone with 1/2 a brain he's the shooter, the only question is "was it justified?"

    In that regard, he seems to be winning the battle for public opinion and has been even before he was ID'd.

    I keep half expecting this moment at trial:

    https://youtu.be/mCjBspxuUmU

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    It’s clear he shot the guy,

    It's really not...

    You cant say for sure it's him in the video, and while cops say he had a bunch of evidence on him, they also say they didn't find that evidence till after the chain of custody was violated. Nothing in his backpack is admissible.

    Like, this is America bro, corrupt cops isn't anything new. They lie all the time, you can't fault the majority of Americans for not caring what they say as a result.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    It's not up to you or me to say what's admissable or not. The gun in the video is the gun in the backpack. If you want to argue the cops planted it, then you have to explain how they got it.

    Occams Razor - Luigi failed to ditch the gun.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-shooting-suspect-thursday-hnk

    "Marked shell casings from the assassination scene match the gun found on the suspect. His fingerprints match some key items investigators found nearby. And he was arrested this week – after going silent from his mom and friends for months – with a fake ID and a handwritten “claim of responsibility” referencing the crime site."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It’s not up to you or me to say what’s admissable or not

    https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/28/us/luigi-mangione-evidence-illegal-search

    It might be the gun.

    It might even have been in the backpack and Luigi just had it on him.

    But it doesn't matter, the cops pulled a Mark Furhman. They're not used to having to follow the law, so they fuck up high profile shit.

    Nothing in the backpack will be admissable. And all the evidence was from the backpack.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Shell casings from the crime scene match the gun found in the backpack. It's the same gun. See the cited article above.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    If they planted the gun, shell casings wouldn't be too hard to plant either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    There's no evidence the cops knew ANYTHING about the gun until it was found in his possession.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm not lying here, I can't prove a negative. If you want to assert the cops planted the evidence, the burden of proof is on you.

    So far, there is none.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    It's not a deliberate lie to say we have photos of Mangione wearing the exact same outfit as the shooter in the same general time and place a the shooting and when he got turned in at the McDonalds, he was carrying the gun and a hand-written manifesto.

    Look, I'm sorry you can't recognize reality when you see it. But the idea that the cops in New York somehow collected evidence for the cops in Pennsylvania to plant on him is absolute nonsense.

    No cop had the slightest clue who he was until the McDonalds turned him in.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -19 points 1 year ago*

    I should add too... nothing in the headline is saying Luigi "murdered" anyone. The word is "killed" and that's not the crime.

    The act of homicide on it's own isn't a crime. The circumstances will determine if it's murder, manslaughter, etc. etc.

    You don't need a conviction to say someone killed someone else, that part is self evident.

    Was it justified? Was it murder? That's what the courts will determine.

  • source
  • parent