Luigi Mangione Prosecutors Have a Jury Problem: 'So Much Sympathy'
newsweek.com
newsweek.com
But at the end of the day the prosecution will have a jury that holds little sympathy. Anyone who did has already posted on social media about this which will be used to strike them.
And that is assuming the prosecution won’t find additional grounds for striking them such as anyone who had their claim denied recently.
Jury selection always favors the prosecution and for high profile cases it favors them more since the public is naturally tainted.
The jury will end up being made up of 55-65 white male executives from up-state New York simply because they will end up being the only ones who have not tainted themselves with shitty takes on Twitter.
The murder 2 charge is a slam dunk, so are the weapon charges.
This will not be a case of jury nullification since it requires a unanimous consensus.
Any ideological holdouts would likely won’t pass selection and for sure won’t hold up to sequestering since there is no way a judge would call for a mistrial after an already lengthy selection process until weeks and maybe even months pass in deliberations.
Anyone who thinks this guy would get off needs to get out of their bubble.
Thoughts on why not to condone vigilante justice:
* You might have mixed feelings about one particular target, but what about emboldening all the people who would choose other targets? Think of all the mentally unstable people, with access to firearms, who believe the most ridiculous propaganda that's being shoveled to them, about being under existential threat from domestic enemies. Won't any surge of political murders presumably be by the sickest, stupidest, and shittiest people?
* What about ostensible threats against CEOs and other powerful people being used as a pretext to give them special protection by the state, and corresponding encroachment on the liberties of others? Could this elevate a fascist overclass even more?
What we should instead be doing is figuring out how to regulate and prosecute some of the many awful abuses and injustices in society. We have the government framework for it. It's just not been working as well as it could.
There's nothing to figure out. We know what the abuses are and we know how they can be fixed. Its just that the abusers are in control of the system and will prevent any attempt lesson that power. If you know of way that can be overcome, let us know.
For example, imagine if OpenAI had hired a bunch of principled people who were aligned with their ostensible charter. Instead, when it came down to actions rather than words, it looked like almost every employee would rather have a monetary bonus.
It's oxymoronic though, as much as I agree with you this corner of the internet is first and foremost brought by an accelerator which celebrates greed and sociopathy above all.
So, be careful what you wish for! With advanced surveillance tools of today and the resources to add more, a totalitarian regime would be PERMENANT.
Isn't this already the case? Crimes affecting high profile people get prioritized.
In some places police doesn't even come out for property crimes anymore, but that's only for the plebs. You are likely to get a much better response if you're rich and/or well-connected.
Furthermore, due to the complexity of the law, access to justice requires significant lawyer efforts, which you can afford if you're rich. If you're not, you get to try your luck with the overworked public defender.
And I am glad people are waking up to the reality they live in.
I saw someone mention that online and the response was "now you get it". People are advocating targeting politicians too. That is no different from Jan 6th people etc. I see people who are supposed to be smart making such insane "structured" claims. The level of cognitive dissonance in support of that guy is absolutely insane.
That is a misnomer. Most people with guns are not unstable, but has been influenced by a barrage of propaganda like "it is OK to take the law into your own hands", "Only real men own guns" and even trump as president got into the act in 2020 when he lost the election. 99.999% mentally unstable people harm themselves instead of others. Just look at US entertainment, most of it is about a single person, usually with a gun, getting his way using violence instead of methods that are legal.
Maybe with this sad occurrence, CEOs will force their bought and paid for congress critters to do something about gun violence in the US. You know, like real gun control.
Anyone who assassinates is considered "mentally unstable."
Any Adolf Eichmann walking around today is considered an innocent who is just doing business.
Across all religions and philosophies, one simple message is delivered: do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you. In simpler words: don't be an asshole.
Thompson violated this simple rule.
This killing showed that as Chomsky stated, given enough time the police becomes private security for the ultra wealthy. The difference in response when a member of the oligarchy is a victim versus when he is a perpetrator is staggering.
I am glad that finally Americans are seeing with their eyes that unbridled capitalism is shit for everybody except for the super rich, and wish for more and more revolts.
Let's call it a second French revolution.
It's probably closer to what he's charged with, murder "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policies of a unit of government..."
Which I guess is a form of terrorism - Mangione killing a CEO to protest the health system is along the same lines as the IRA killing British military to protest the occupation of parts of Ireland and bad treatment of the catholics.
I'm not sure how it ends. With the IRA they had talks and agreed to be a bit nicer the the catholics. Probably Mangione will be jailed but the popular support for him suggests something should be changed with the health system.
In previous threads here a lot of commentators offered rather poor opinions of UnitedHealthcare insurance. In particular they have a reputation of denying claims at a rate of twice the industry average.
I've noticed that all the comments I've seen from people unhappy with UHC and all the stories I've read are about the kind of plans that most people here from the US would have. E.g., a plan that they got through their employer, or that they bought on the ACA marketplace, or that they bought directly from the insurer.
Question: does UHC's terribleness also apply to their Medigap plans?
My understanding is that if Medicare approves a medical service then your Medigap plan cannot deny payment for their share of the costs. Pretty much all the complaints about UHC are about them trying to deny payment by claiming the service was unnecessary or that a cheaper alternative service needs to be used. So if you are getting a Medigap plan to help with Medicare deductibles and coinsurance and/or to get an annual cap on out of pocket total Medicare costs and don't care about any extras the plan offers then there isn't a reason to not consider UHC.
I know that some Medigap plans provide extra coverage beyond what is required by regulation for Medigap plans. For example some add coverage to things Medicare does not cover, such as foreign travel medical insurance. I would guess that on those extra things they can try to deny claims, so if you care about those extra than UHC's reputation should give you pause.
If Daniel Penny could walk free for defending a Subway car, then why does Luigi deserve any less for stopping the person that was wrecking the health of millions to line his own pockets.
How did you arrive at millions?
Luigi mangione killed a rich, white one.
Maybe my perception of America is wrong, but I bet it's not.
> Neely had an extensive criminal record, including 42 arrests on charges including petty larceny, jumping subway turnstiles, theft, and three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway between 2019 and 2021
> Another witness heard Neely say, "Someone is going to die today."[3] Penny said that Neely repeatedly threatened to kill other passengers.[10] Vázquez said that Neely was frightening but had not assaulted anyone.[6] Other witnesses said that Neely made "half-lunge movements" at other passengers and was within "half a foot of people", and recalled fearing for their lives.[3][11] A mother with a child testified that Neely charged at passengers, and she shielded herself and her child behind a stroller, believing she might die.[12]
He most definitely was a threat to the entire Subway car. The system failed him by not putting him in a mental asylum a long time ago. The Subway system is now this de facto mental asylum, but violent threats are not tolerable.
There are 305 million Americans with health insurance. Most of them only have ever used their health insurance for things like annual checkups, routine illnesses like colds and flus, routine vaccinations and lab tests, cuts, sprains, burns, allergies, prescriptions, routine prenatal care, routine pediatric care, maybe something more serious like pneumonia or an STD or a broken bone, and similar.
Even the most penny pinching insurance companies usually pay for those things without any hassle. As a result polling shows that most Americans are actually reasonably satisfied with their own health insurance in that regard. Lots of dissatisfaction with the high premiums and deductibles though.
It's only a small percent who encounter something that the insurance company balks at.
That's not interfering with the rule of law, it's conducting it.
Interfering would be the insurance companies using money to buy public opinion.
Which is very likely happening. I read that there are two manifestos going around, one real and one fake. The real one is much easier to get behind and sympathize with than the fake one. Yet somehow the fake one is being published in most places and publications refuse to answer the question as to why they're refusing to publish the real one.
Or using money to buy politicians to bring federal terrorism charges.
Though it’s probably covered by the payments they’ve made already