If he doesn’t walk, bust him out by force.
Hit the invisible ? Block and get a Super Star!
Need to get him out of there ASAP. Hopefully the inmates got his back so the guards don’t get him 1 on 1
Donations flatline then skyrocket? Classic propaganda machine narrative. First they paint Mangione as a martyr—convenient—then “anonymous benefactors” magically revive the coffers.
Wake up, sheeple: this isn’t organic support. It’s either bots laundering oligarch cash or the deep state stress-testing narrative elasticity.
”Legal defense funds” = Patreon for white-collar theatrics. Mangione’s either a pawn in their chess game or the sacrificial lamb. Either way, grab popcorn.
Democracy’s a rigged carnival, and we’re all just clowns paying to watch.
Ah fuck you lot are here now
You have a natural way of writing and I appreciate it.
Man, I don’t think I’ve EVER seen sheeple used unironically in the wild. (2nd person perspective)
None of that is real. Health care companies have been abusing the population pretty hard for a very long time. They kept rolling dice until they crapped out.
People hate them enough that a lot of people actually support or at least approve of what he did. Its not much more complicated than that.
Why would you be able to launder money by donating it to a random dudes death penalty defence fund?
Mushroom kingdom banks are a bit slow.
Sorry… I got nailed by a blue shell just before I walked into the bank.
I mean nobody can carry 100 coins at the same time there because they turn into an extra life, so large transactions are labor intensive.
Is it possible to make a tax deductable donation to hit Trump or Musk?
idk if a Mario brother is the right person for that.
donate to BJ Blazkowicz instead.
No, but you might be able to set up a betting pool. If you just happen to win, make sure you have an alibi.
But seriously, don’t do that. The person who originally thought up that, who I wont name because his name and the name for this thing are probably weighted heavy in the spider bots, was a student who landed in jail twice for tax evasion. Like, the second time happened immediately after the first.
I hear Luigi is starting Luigi coin, where 80% of the coin is held at first by himself and the other 20% available. Slowly he will introduce more into the market
If he does that I’m buying!
Yeah I’ve spent a ton of money on much dumber memes, this one is tempting…
https://www.givesendgo.com/legalfund-ceo-shooting-suspect
Wanna help get those numbers up?
Before I donate. How do I know the money is actually spent as proposed? I don’t know anything about the site or who raises the money.
European btw.
he comes from like one of the richest families in the country…
I’m sure his ultra right wing family is just throwing money at his defense.
If someone is trying to help; I don’t care what family they come from.
They probably are. As long as they aren’t gay rich white families will pay for most anything for their kid…
Yes, they will. It’s OK to be gay they’re rich enough to afford it. What’s not ok is being gay publicly.
Best donation I’ve ever made.
Donated, thanks
How does it benefit anyone?
Scenario where legal team is able to pull something off:
Brave man gets best legal defense imaginable because of donations
Gets off or small sentence
Shows crazy people and billionaires this could happen again and people will help the suspect out
???
More progress is made.
This reminds me of the fine Lemming that keeps posting something like “Things will not improve until the rich meaningfully fear for their lives”
That is probably correct.
deleted by creator
Luigi’s
familyFather is RichLuigi made 6 figures with his tech job and his multiple ivy league engineering degrees
A lot of these fundraisers probably dont even end up used for his defense, some are scams
Benefits a hero
A hero who kills one random guy, changes nothing, gives 10k to the police, and lives in prison?
Why would we want that?
Oh, he wasn’t a random guy. He was a mass murder. As in present tense at the time he was executed
He worked for a company that redistributed wealth for covering healthcare costs, but kept too much for themselves pushing some people into debt, and that company is still operating exactly the same today as it was before.
Yeah but if enough people follow suit, then you might actually get some real change. Either because the insurance companies are terrified of retribution or because the government takes a hint (that is assuming you actually get another election).
Besides even if he is found guilty (which I’m not sure he is considering he was having breakfast with me at the time of the shooting). A good legal team could still negotiate for a lighter sentence or better conditions.
He intentionally chose policies that killed people. Boohoo. He got we He deserved.
He and the rest of the organization’s bigwhigs chose policies that don’t cover the costs of a comparatively small number of people’s medical care. As did the guy who took his place.
Luigi killed him for that and nothing changed. Why are we supposed to cheer for nothing changing?
iirc they changed one of their policies shortly after his death. I think it was insulin or something but I can’t remember.
Yes, there were definitely positive changes after their CEO was executed with popular support
Can’t find anything anywhere indicating that. The last time they walked back a policy to my knowledge was in 2023.
It’s about sending a message
Whats the message?
First it wasn’t a random guy, he went after Brian Thomson specifically.
The message is that people support what Luigi did, or perhaps they don’t condone murder but they support that the industry is fucked and they want change.
I am interested in the trial and whether any meaningful change comes from this act. Either way I think it’s pretty heroic to throw your live, a rather privileged life at that, away for what you believe in. Misguided or not.
Brian Thompson is a random guy who worked as a suit for an unethicaly company. He was immediately replaced by another suit and the company has openly denied doing anything wrong, refusing to change how unethical it still is to this day.
Polls show Luigi’s actions are not condoned by a majority of any demographic. Change in the industry won’t come from this.
Heroic is selflessly doing what is right, not selfishly doing what is emotionally pleasing.
I know it’s exited the news cycle, but I still remember this was a big thing for the left and right to both agree on supporting. I’d very much like to prompt Trump for his opinion on the man to force him to take a side.
Best to not remind Trump that Luigi exsist. Don’t need him falling out a window with the cameras off and the guards napping.
Haha you think trump is deciding anything still. Didn’t you see how they had to walk back his Israel comment?
prompt Trump for his opinion on
the mananything to force him to take a side.That’s how you get banned from the press pool.
Actually, a pretty substantial minority of people think what Luigi did was right.
Are you a cop or just a bootlicker?
I bet more cops and bootlickers agree with you than not. My stance doesn’t promote any authority at all, it’s as simple as “pointless murder is wrong, doesn’t help us”.
EDIT: BTW that user is a fucking Tankie so it’s extra ironic.
Luigi’s assassination absolutely had a point, and had immediate results in BCBS rescinding/delaying their plan to cut anesthesia allowance for people during surgery. Luigi directly saved thousands of people from unnecessary suffering with just one targeted attack. Imagine what a more widespread action could accomplish.
I’m betting you’re a cop. You’ve got the same blind loyalty to the law, paired with a lack of moral compass.
BCBS announced those changed before the assassination, they also stopped suing over medical debts the year prior, got any others?
Also, even if Luigi did somehow change that and not the countless other people including the governor going after them in court and on social media for the year prior, it would have saved people from potential debt, not death and not certain debt.
That’s a lie. I cannot find a single source predating the attack.
I made a couple edits trying to find a better source, sorry for the wait.
Ah wait hang on wrong link, 1 moment
Theres like a million articles talking about this story after UHC happened so it’s taking a minute
It was published Dec 4th talking about “last thursday” which would be Nov 28th!
Ah but the article was updated on the 6th…
You know what, I might have been misinformed about this, it’s possible that the changes took place on Dec 5th, all the paperwork being written up, board meetings held, and filed less than 24 hours after the assassination, although I still doubt Luigi had as much to do with it as the Governor saying “Outrageous. I’m going to make sure New Yorkers are protected" just before that. And also those bad policy changes were announced in late 2023 or January 2024 but also never implemented due to criticism they received then as well.
Is murder always wrong?
Like the trolley problem. How is indifference to other preventable deaths any better than killing one dude.
I mean, definitionally yes murder is always wrong. Killing isn’t always wrong, but murder is when killing is unjustified so yeah, it’s always wrong.
Maybe in law speak, but murder and kill are synonymous.
deleted by creator
They are very similar, yes, but synonyms will often have subtly different definitions and connotations that mean you can’t just replace one with the other wherever you want. Frankly, the difference between murder and killing is something I learned in high school English so I understand that the difference might have been off your radar before now, but this is the way the words are used most frequently, they’re different words for a reason. Murder implies a moral or legal judgement on the action of killing, and killing is just dispassionately describing that something has died as a result of some other action. We all learn something new every day, it’s OK not to know something.
Luigi’s Trolly Problem:
2 separate tracks
Track 1 has Brian Thompson, pulling the lever kills him but he is immediately replaced by another guy
Track 2 has some unknown number of people who will die regardless of any action you take
Yes, one Luigi will not solve the problem. Once you get past 4 or 5, you’ll find less people willing to take on the risk of the job. You get to a dozen, and you’ll be shocked just how much progress we get.
If nobody does the job then nobody gets health insurance and everything is out of pocket for everyone, you realize? Even worse now that the USA Federal Government is freezing funds for Medicaid.
I agree that cops have no place here. If They wanna lick boots and circlejerk eachother about how just their unjust system is they can go to reddit or Twitter.
Pretty off topic
That was not the sentiment I saw when it happened.
I saw incredibly low turnout for people against the action taken but I saw people on the left and right agreeing and with glee. Like everywhere.
Here is an Emerson Poll that found TOTAL 17% of people agree the killing was justified, and the highest demographic was young people with 41% (still not a majority). https://www.axios.com/2024/12/17/united-healthcare-ceo-killing-poll
The poll was about a week after the killing.
Another small poll of college students found this:
according to a poll conducted by College Pulse and shared with Newsweek—32 percent of survey participants said he should be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole; 14 percent chose life imprisonment without the chance of parole; 26 percent preferred a fixed-term prison sentence; and 2 percent believed he should get the death penalty. The remaining respondents chose “other” or “no opinion.”
Hmm that’s interesting. My impression was that approval was much higher, anecdotal of course tho and not really representative.
Never heard of Emerson but I would be asking who paid for that poll? Did they have a vested interest in playing down support? Has the poll been manipulated to get the best charts etc.
PragerU puts out lots of polls, but it doesn’t mean they’re valid.
Emerson College was established in Boston, Massachussets in 1880
Their “About Us”
The Polling Center is a non-partisan organization dedicated to accurately reflecting populations through public opinion research. Established 25 years ago as a classroom exercise, in 2012 Emerson College Polling was transformed into an innovative, nationally-ranked polling center. Emerson College Polling conducts research on civic behavior, polling methodology, public health, and public policy.
Emerson College Polling (ECP) is a Charter Member of the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Transparency Initiative. AAPOR is the leading professional organization of public opinion and survey research professionals in the United States, with members from academia, media, government, the nonprofit sector, and private industry. ECP publishes not only its full topline results, but also its full crosstabs for each survey, aiming to ensure that data is easily accessible and available to researchers.
They also have a MBFC rating of least biased LINK HERE
They haven’t failed a fact check in 5 years, have very low traffic/popularity, and in the past rarely reported on politics.
Thanks for this. Very usual to know. Appreciate you linking sources too.
How is he going to defend against suicide with a bullet to the back of his head?
By who? Didn’t Trumpelon piss off federal agents of all kinds?
Sanders was the compromise choice
Luigi 2028
Pray for Saint Luigi
And thus the lord said: “Get really pissed off reading books and news, then kill people you’ve never met before instead of doing literally anything else to actually change the system that causes the problems you were angry about in the first place” Amen.
EDIT: /s is mandatory
Eat the rich
Wait … how is that link working?? kbin.social has been offline for months.
Edit: Ohhhh … the name of the community at LW is “[email protected]” - now I see.
No, you’re right the 1st time. It’s eattherich, hosted at kbin. It’s a weird side effect of federating. The original instance hosting the comm is gone, but all posts and comments go into the local instance first (in this case, Ozma’s posts to .world) to be federated back to the main instance (kbin). Since kbin is gone, that federation ain’t happening, and nobody from any other instance can view the content from their home instance. But you can directly view .world’s local copy of what it thinks the instance should look like, which contains all of Ozma’s contributions.
Ah, I wondered why nobody else was posting there! Thanks for the explanation.
This is super cool
I don’t think we’ve yet witnessed the full benefits of the distributed nature/federation.
Is it just me or is the sub empty
It’s not just you. See my other comment for technical explanation.
Your instance needs to be instructed to fetch it.
E.g., by setting up a subscript’ to the community, or viewing individual threads and comments.
The interesting thing here, as the other responder observed, is it’s the local copy of a previously-federated community.
I would have assumed that the copies would be read-only from outside the actual instance. But it sounds like you’re able to post to the copied-communities too. Lul.
That sounds like something I have no control over but the admins might
It’s you.
Given the way federating works, just because you’re seeing something doesn’t mean everybody else is seeing the same thing you do.
And? I can see content there. Parent commenter can’t.
There’s a difference between “works for me”, and “it’s you”.
But I am full!
Anyone smarter than me in law know if there is even a remote chance he walks?
I’m not smarter in the law, but I remember the OJ trial. Just because all the evidence points to the obvious conclusion doesn’t mean that the result will be as you expect. Did the police do everything by the book, or is some of the evidence they’re relying on tainted? Did a cop worry the evidence wasn’t going to be enough and plant some more? Was he caught? Did they forget to read him his rights before interrogating him?
The trick with legal cases is that the prosecution basically has to avoid making mistakes, and it’s up to the defense to find a mistake they made. One major difference between a public defender and an extremely expensive legal team is the number of flaws they can find in the prosecution’s case before they run out of time.
There is absolutely no way. That jury is going to be tampered with more than any you’ve ever seen in history.
Aside from the nullification and hung jurys, there’s a good chance for a mistrial from them parading him around and letting everyone in the US know he fought for them.
How did he fight for anybody? Just seems like a run of the mill emotional murder.
Fucking troll
I’m not good at law but I have heard from people smarter than me that there are chances for at least a hung jury (I think could be retried) and there’s also another option called jury nullification, where the jury essentially says, “yeah we know he is guilty but we don’t agree with the law in this case” and acquits.
Every jury I’ve ever been on has been hung, just by averaging alone
The jury nullification thing pisses me off.
I get that people don’t want Luigi to go to jail but wishing for juries to just make up the law based on the vibe of the case is just bonkers.
The court system is a joke already.
I’m going to copy WoodScientist’s post. Don’t know how to tag, sorry, but credit goes to him for this.
"I would say that jury nullification isn’t just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.
Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn’t “juror” a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it’s one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!
No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don’t even consider to be crimes.
The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.
THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.
Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place."
This is just more words saying the same thing - that jurors should just make up the law based on the vibe of the case. It’s absurd to me that so many people in these threads complain that the legal system is unfair, and in the next breath propose that citizens should be able to set aside the law in specific situations because of the feels.
That is the antithesis of a fair and just system and honestly it’s exasperating rehashing the same concept over and over.
The answer to why guilt is determined by a jury of your peers is that it avoids having a judiciary that can charge, convict, and sentence a defendant. That seems patently obvious to me.
You need to be found guilty of the charges against you by a jury of your peers. The whole point is that the jury is not experienced in law, and interprets the facts and evidence as any reasonable third party would.
Juries are not appropriately positioned to determine a sentence because they are not experienced and have no frame of reference.
It’s telling that in these threads my comments are awash with downvotes but no one can provide an actual rebuttal.
Basically, people just don’t want luigi to be punished for murdering a shitty CEO. Sadly, that doesn’t make jury nullification a legitimate course of action.
You’re missing the point, especially if you think a fair and just system even exists within the US. If you want to take the stance that “murder is illegal”, sure, what he did was illegal. Jury nullification is a way we peons can still hold an iota of power. It’s spitting in the face of unjust systems.
Let me ask you this. Would you prefer a situation in which Luigi was convicted for murder, sentenced to life in prison, and the system never changes? Or would you prefer a situation in which exceptions are given in exceptional circumstances in an attempt to change a fundamentally broken system?
If your answer is the former, you might just want to apply at United and work your way up.
I guess this is the core of the issue.
I find it bizarre that anyone could honestly think that a broken system could be improved by allowing 12 random people to make exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Sorry but it’s difficult to say anything charitable about that opinion.
Every case is exceptional, and we have a complex process for weighing the circumstances and determining the least-bad outcome.
You can look at Luigi’s case and say “this victim deserved to die therefore Luigi should not be punished”, but what is the consequence of that? How many people will be murdered that don’t really deserve to die? How many murderers who deserve to be punished will not be?
I can provide no further information that is going to help you see the point.
God speed.
Jury’s have kind of always been vibes. There’s plenty of black kids that got the guilty verdict and hung and later it was revealed to be the womans father or friend of the family that raped.
It is important to be more than a clockwork orange, understand the law but don’t apply it with such rigidity as to be devoid of morals or humanity.
I strongly disagree. Laws must be consistently applied.
To set aside the law prohibiting murder in a specific case just because you don’t like the victim is the antithesis of a fair and just legal system.
Obviously in a vacuum laws should be consistently applied, but we are so so far from laws being consistently applied in the US where bad guys get away with literal murder, why be so upset with a loophole that let’s a good guy off for murder for once?
Cops and rich people murder every day and get away with it due to our legal system being broken. The time to put your foot down starts with them.
I can’t believe I have to say this but, you can’t expect consistent application of the law while arguing that exceptions should be made when you like the perp.
And how do you propose we ensure they are applied to the rich and those in power? Because until that happens they are being forced on the common man much more, as a weapon for those in power.
I don’t really follow you sorry.
I suppose wealthy murderers are probably less likely to get convicted due to better representation. I would’ve thought Luigi had pretty good representation given his gofundme.
Laws consistently and rigidly applied out of context is how you get to fascist governments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power
Nonsense. Laws may be consistently applied by racist governments but it’s the nature of those laws (luke ethnic cleansing) that makes them fascist.
Why let only judges make the jokes then and not the people in the jury too?
Imho that’s a fairness in a sometimes unfair system.It’s really not a “fairness” because every case will be heard by different jurors with no legal experience.
The “fairness” you’re talking about will depend on the popularity of the accused.
Do you honestly believe Luigi would enjoy the support he has of he were an aging overweight bald guy?
At its core, jury nullification is about deciding cases based on the vibe.
I do believe that the perception of the action of which Luigi got accused weighes orders of magnitude more than the perception of his appearance or his popularity.
It’s not him who was popular in the first place.
It was what was done.
Accusing him of it in turn made him popular. That would’ve worked for other people too.That’s not the type of popularity I’m talking about.
Luigi is young, approachable, affable, and not unattractive. I don’t believe for a moment that someone without those qualities would enjoy any sympathy from a jury.
Full hearted agreement. Pretty privilege is an observable phenomenon and Luigi is a cutie.
Heck, you could even argue that sharing a name with one of the Mario Bros from Nintendo makes Luigi seem family-friendly, silly, and meme-able.
Either of which could explain a future where Luigi would be found innocent by jury nullification where an amorphous blob that represents every other possibility would be found guilty.
However, the only way to be sure is to test the hypothesis. So to all you scientists out there, go forth and collect more data points!
Not just that. He likely lowered their insurance premium as well.
Because judges have experience in law, and they have to stand by their decisions.
The judges in the USSC want to have a word with you.
Because that’s how lynch mobs got off without penalties too. It’s very much a case of being careful what you wish for in this case. If he gets off because the jury says it’s OK to gun someone down without direct provocation, you can bet that others will too. You shot a gay man for no reason? No problem, the jury says that’s fine. You shot someone you suspect of having sympathies for Democrats? Head home, the jury was packed with MAGAs.
Rich people and people in government already get away with this stuff. Our president is a felon. If people in power aren’t bound by the law then citizens will act. Only holding the people who act accountable is ensuring that the people in power never have consequences.
I agree with what you are saying, but this is not a precident you want to set. Jurys are supposed to consider whether the defendant broke the law, not whether they agree with the ethics of the action. Too many miscarriages of justice have occured for ‘vibes’ to be an acceptable way to judge these things.
I would rather see his defence mount a case around self-defence or something of that nature (the CEO was harming Luigi or his family for instance) so that the jury have a reason to say he was within the law.
Yes, pardons get used like that, but are applied but one, theoretically accountable (I know, I know…) office. Having jurys just decide someone is not guilty because the dont like the victim seems far more likely to lead to a complete breakdown of what remains of law and order. Given what’s coming, maybe that’s inevitable, but I don’t think encouraging it is a good idea.
Well, given that jury nullification is a thing and considering how rarely it happens, I’d rather risk the scenarios outlined by you than having no way of giving a not guilty verdict to people this way who do something illegal but legitimate.
The difficulty comes with defining shooting someone, who isn’t an obvious immediate threat, as legitimate. If there’s a plausible way to do that, it should be the core of his defense, if there isn’t you’re asking the jury to let him off just because you don’t like the guy who was killed.
I hope his defense team can find a way to show that he acted in self defense against the harm the company were doing to him. That would be a plausible reason for the jury to find him not guilty, not set a precedent for letting murderers go free, and send a suitable warning to other CEOs.
I have two arguments to defend jury nullification. First of all, in our system “jury nullification” is NOT a policy. It is the name for the inevitable fact to that members of a jury can decide to vote “innocent” without being subject to some kind of interrogation.
My second argument is this: I think jury nullification is actually a good policy, because the only thing it produces are delays unless fully 12 out of 12 randomly selected citizens think this application of the law is completely unfair. If the citizenry believes a law is unfair with that much unanimity it probably IS unfair.
Well, to your first point, jurors cannot be held accountable for their verdict. Obviously if they could the whole system breaks down. Jurors can exploit this protection to return a false verdict with impunity, but it is exactly that - false testament. Others will try to say that jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal system but IMO it’s just exploiting a limitation.
Secondly, you’re not talking about an unfair law, you’re talking about an unjust outcome. All laws will produce unjust outcomes in some specific circumstances. However a law against murder reduces more harm than it causes, so it’s worth upholding.
To me, the idea of having juries decide to set aside the law in cases they feel are unjust is an absurdity. Imagine if Trump were on trial and the jury unanimously returned not-guilty despite obvious guilt.
To be fair, both Biden and Trump set aside the law by not actually banning TikTok, so it makes sense that at least in some specific instances, normal people are allowed to as well.
No, that doesn’t make any sense at all.
Presidents are elected to weird ultimate power, and are intended to do so with the support of the best advice available.
A President is not a king. We fought a couple wars about it. We might fight another soon.
He isn’t a threat to the public. No need to lock him up. Odds are good he won’t reoffend either.
You could say that about most murderers. Why not just abolish the prohibition on murder?
The court system is a joke already.
It always was
No. He’s going to die in prison. I’m not happy about that fact. I’m just telling the truth. Just like there’s zero chance Charles Manson ever gets out. There’s zero chance Luigi gets out.
Might happen. Then when a sensible government gets in, somewhere down the line, we pardon him and make him secretary of HHS
Any government that puts this man, who murders strangers after getting emotional from reading books, in charge of HHS is not sensible.
Then slowed… then surged… then slowed… then surged… then slowed… then they had some orange juice and a muffin… and now they’re surging again.
Then it fell into the swamp
