761
Luigi Mangione’s sweater sells out at Nordstrom one day after court appearance
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
761 points (97.9% liked)
Not the Onion
2204 readers
72 users here now
For true stories that are so ridiculous, that you could have sworn it was an !theonion worthy story.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Find him not guilty, the world celebrates the jury that spared Luigi and he goes onto become a hero.
Find him guilty, the world shames the judge that killed Luigi and he goes onto become a martyr.
There's no winning for the corporate elite here
The darker part of my psyche is a little giddy at the idea of CEOs shitting their boots cause there's a man on the loose in the world who is willing and able to murder them and that no one will ever convict him.
unfortunately there always is, and it's almost always the same. wait for it to die down.
Time, bread, and circuses. But, we may soon run low on bread.
The civil suits will destroy him even if he's found not guilty. He doesn't win either way either.
Oh I could easily see him winning the Criminal Case and losing a Civil.
They'd probably not even care during the Civil Case if he killed Brian or not, they'd just talk about how "Because the news cycle about Louie G over here we lost stonks."
I'm with him either way.
Do you think there's a world where his pleading innocent, and his attorneys' arguments that someone else did it will affect his status as a folk hero? It seems like a fine line for him to tow, for him to minimize his sentence, but not negatively impact the message, and his status in bearing it.
I want to see him do it, but that seems like the challenge of his position.
At this point, the idea of Luigi is more important than the man. And it doesn't hurt that the media's been fucking up and forgetting to call him an ALLEGED killer.
So he'd be the reverse of OJ, in that he'd be found innocent of a crime he didn't commit, but beloved by everyone as most believe he did to it. (Whereas with OJ being found innocent of a crime he DID commit made him hated because everyone believe he did, infact, do that shit)
OJ is a lot different. He was a famous celebrity sports figure. He killed or didn’t kill his wife. The public only cared about OJ because of his celebrity status, and because the woman was white, and he is black.
I don’t think it’s a very good comparison.
He definitely did that shit.
Toe*
You toe a line, you don't tow it.
Huh, I did not realize that was the standard usage. TIL.
I really can't see a scenario where the jury don't find him guilty. They really don't have a choice, they have to uphold the law as it is written. It is not within the remit of a trial to make new law.
No matter the ethical considerations he did kill someone. The law is very clear that murder is not acceptable even if you personally think it's justifiable.
They do, indeed. However, the "written law" includes the sixth amendment to the constitution, guaranteeing the accused the right to a jury of their peers. Peers. The purpose of that right is to ensure that We The People are the ones determining if a person should be punished for a particular action. Not a government agent, or legal professional.
The flip side of the 6th amendment guarantee to the accused is that the juror owes that duty to the accused, and the juror is constitutionally empowered to reach a decision.
Constitutional powers supersede legislated law. The juror is not beholden to legislated law. Indeed, if they feel that strictly applying a lower law results in an injustice, they have a constitutionally-imposed duty to reject the short-sighted legislated law.
Right so what part of that would allow them to justify murder?
That question is nonsensical: 1. The jury never has to justify anything; 2. "Murder" is a legislated concept. The jury is not beholden to the legislature, and is constitutionally empowered to reject the laws they create. They do have to follow the law, but the law includes the constitution that demands and empowers them to make their decision as laypersons.
Where the jury feels that enforcing the legislated law would be an injustice, they are free to rule "not guilty", even if they believe the accused's actions violate that law.
To more directly answer your question, though: If the jury felt that the healthcare extortion industry was completely out of control and a clear and present danger to society in general, they could determine that the legislated prohibition against killing did not contemplate this particular killing. They could determine that the accused does not deserve to be convicted just because the legislature was shortsighted in the way they wrote the law. I'm not saying the law is actually shortsighted, nor am I saying that the jury should nullify. I'm saying that they could "uphold the law as written" and elect to acquit him under the authority conveyed to them, in the "written law" of the 6th amendment.
You don't know what Jury Nullification is do you?
It never happens. Least of all for a murder case.
There is precedent.
Something similar happened for a man who killed a Christian Science practitioner for forbidding him from taking his son to the doctor despite getting medical care himself.
This had been done after he tried to have said practitioner charged with negligent homicide and voluntary manslaughter charges over what became of the kid. The Justice System let him walk because of religious exemption, the father took revenge himself and the Jury decided that the man was merely correcting an error made by the Judge of that case.
Disclaimer: Christian Science is neither science nor Christian. It was basically a clickbait name given to a Quantum Mysticism cult that existed before Quantum Physics was really a thing. Please do not "Skydaddy" it up like a common redditor in response.
Does this count as murder? https://www.history.com/news/the-original-wild-west-showdown-bill-hickok-davis-tutt
He got arrested after killing someone and the jury found him not guilty with a lot of witnesses seeing the act.
I don't think something that happened in the 1800s is particularly applicable to the 21st century.
I don't think it will happen, and especially not for something this high profile, but Jury Nullification is essentially the "he did it, but we don't see his actions as punishable". It'd be a huge uproar if that happened too.