this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
188 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19222 readers
2639 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Previously the reporting on this did not have a political angle and so it was removed from Politics and correctly directed to News.

The charges related to terrorism now give this a political angle.

"Luigi Mangione is accused of first-degree murder, in furtherance of terrorism; second-degree murder, one count of which is charged as killing as an act of terrorism; criminal possession of a weapon and other crimes."

The terrorism statutes can be found here:

https://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/ny-penal-law-490-25-crime-of-terrorism.html

"The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BowtiesAreCool 7 points 4 hours ago

So by saying terror, they admit that there is something to be fixed by policy of a government

[–] [email protected] 33 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Terror?

Come the fuck on, Feds. Absolutely fucking not. This sparked joy, not terror, in the populace. This was, to be quite frank, the exact opposite of terrorism.

[–] jordanlund 6 points 9 hours ago

It's not the Feds, it's the state of New York.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 hours ago

Well… guess the family won’t get life insurance now that it’s called a terrorist attack 🤣

[–] [email protected] 137 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (5 children)

Storming the capital or shooting dozens of children are not terrorism, but shooting a CEO who murders thousands is. Got it.

They're clearly trying to send a message to scare his supporters

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 13 hours ago

"One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter"

[–] [email protected] 122 points 16 hours ago (2 children)
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 40 points 15 hours ago

Justifiable homicide.

[–] WoodScientist 24 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Nah. I have an out. Insurance CEOs simply aren't human. The charge should be animal cruelty at the worst. Luigi should get the same criminal penalty as someone would get for stepping on a cockroach. Murder requires the thing you're destroying to actually be a human being.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

That reminds me that you should never make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison

[–] [email protected] 59 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

"The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

These CEOs are quite literally trying to kill us for profit. This is class warfare, and they are the aggressor. They are not civilians, and the terror is not directed at the population or the government.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt 2 points 8 hours ago

In fairness, I think you could argue the second half. But I would have to read the manifesto to see if he actualy intended that, or if it is just the rest of us who wish he had..

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cold_Brew_Enema 82 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Whatever. United Healthcare should be next for the countless murders they've done.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

We don’t put corporations on trial in America, silly billy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Terrorism to bring this to first-degree is very much a stretch in my eyes. The poor civilian CEO population are spooked by one person getting shot.

[–] Ensign_Crab 14 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It makes it harder to prosecute, at least?

[–] Makeitstop 15 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

They aren't dropping the second degree murder charge, so they don't necessarily have to meet the higher bar that this sets.

That said, while they probably want to be able to paint him as a terrorist, that necessarily involves a more detailed look at what he was trying to accomplish, and that might just backfire on the prosecution. It only takes one sympathetic juror to block a guilty verdict.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago

That said, while they probably want to be able to paint him as a terrorist, that necessarily involves a more detailed look at what he was trying to accomplish, and that might just backfire on the prosecution. It only takes one sympathetic juror to block a guilty verdict.

This is a really good insight, thanks!

[–] Bbbbbbbbbbb 64 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

So the jury has their out now, jury nullification on the grounds of the act not being terrorism

[–] [email protected] 18 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

nope. not that one.

there's two charges, only one with 'terrorism' attached.

[–] WoodScientist 14 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Are insurance CEOs really human? Is it even possible to commit murder against one? I think it would be more like killing a flesh-eating parasite. I'm thinking the charge should be animal cruelty at the worst. What kind of criminal penalty would I get if I threw an ant farm in a lake? That's the kind of punishment Luigi should get.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

No. This is us.

This is what we are.

[–] WoodScientist 1 points 4 hours ago

Bullshit. I for one haven't killed 40,000 people.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jordanlund 1 points 9 hours ago

1st & 2nd degree both have the terrorism angle attached.

[–] PunnyName 27 points 14 hours ago

Post bills every-fucking-where about Jury Nullification.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 37 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Okay, so next time just make it look random. Got it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

By the time we have a large enough sample set to definitively prove the killings aren't random, a lot of progress will have been made.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 2 points 9 hours ago

Once again statistics proves its power.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 15 hours ago

"The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

I have no issue with the state correctly identifying this act as terrorism. I take great issue with the fact that this act is being defined as terrorism, while using a definition that clearly defines many things that get a pass as terrorism. Remember last Trump presidency, when his white house published an old-school violent videogames scare video to garner support for his policies while distracting from discussion on gun laws? An act committed with the intent to coerce a civilian population is terrorism.

And let's be real, I picked a low-stakes, innoculous example just to make a point: the state does a LOT to terrorize it's citizens. But when they do it, it's "law and order." When Luigi fights back in self defense? "Terrorism".

[–] [email protected] 21 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

No, see, that's clearly false. The civilian population did not get intimidated or coerced by fuck and all, and the government wasn't threatened.

So, nope. Not guilty.

[–] zib 6 points 13 hours ago

I think what the state is trying to say is that only corporate executives are people.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] robocall 21 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (5 children)

New Yorkers and Pennsylvania residents need to show up to their jury duty summons and get your ass on a trial... You never know whose trial you'll end up on. Don't say nullification during the interview!

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 5 points 13 hours ago

If was considered a peer of Luigi Mangione I would be so fucking honored.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 16 hours ago

This guy is going to get a standing ovation when he enters the courtroom.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 15 hours ago (6 children)

One person getting shot is not terrorism.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

"The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

So it's fine if you use large sums of money but someone goes with the more democratic route of using a gun and suddenly it's not cool

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rapidcreek 6 points 13 hours ago (12 children)

New York Penal Law § 490.25, the crime of terrorism, is one of the most serious criminal offenses in New York State. The statute defines the crime of terrorism as any act that is committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion and that results in one or more of the following: (a) the commission of a specified offense, (b) the causing of a specified injury or death, (c) the causing of mass destruction or widespread contamination, or (d) the disruption of essential infrastructure.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›