this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
777 points (96.1% liked)

Memes

45903 readers
2126 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Seriously a manifesto that starts off by praising the feds is about as suspicious as a cop going "Yeah, the suspect died in my custody, but before you think about giving me suspending me from the force with pay. He wrote this confession letter in his own blood confirming he killed himself and three whole paragraphs affirming that my massive cock is indeed large and super not-small."

[–] [email protected] 5 points 54 minutes ago* (last edited 54 minutes ago)

Between that, the discrepancy of the eyebrows, and the discrepancy of the backpack thing, so much of this doesn't add up. Not guilty.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Maybe it's a staged event. The latest consensus-splitter / distraction.

Look how it has split us. Reddit deleting posts. Unironic discussion of guillotines.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

This event has brought a lot more class consciousness to the masses than anything else imo.

[–] AnyOldName3 4 points 3 hours ago

It doesn't have to have been effective. They might just have overestimated how many people would think killing health insurance CEOs was unacceptable.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 hours ago

I really hope that Luigi does get acquitted. I mean if it is factual that he didn't do it and the real killer is out there... well then, I guess Luigi still got lots of fame, but at the same time we will also be happy that the real guy is not only free, but the mystery of who he is will make him cooler.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Genuine question, but supposing we were to consider this theory, why would there also, one, be complaints about the cops parading him around as a victory, and two, people saying Luigi was a hero?

Whether you love or hate cops, they are not stupid. I'm sure if there was even an ounce of suggestion that they got the wrong guy, the cops would quietly decide not to be so smug about it.

And to those who side with him, he's either a hero/idol or he didn't do anything. Pick one. I myself pick the third choice.

Also, of note, it's quite a coincidence they found the guy, then found out his name, and then found out his wealthy upbringing, evidenced by the fact he was trying to be as low profile as possible at the time, which would've curbed the ability to do all of that in reverse order. If he wasn't the killer, that's like firing a bullseye in the dark.

[–] ynthrepic 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

He's just this guy who has a big chance of being a murderer. He is capable of deliberately planning to kill a person outside of immediate self-defence. However evil CEO A or B may be, the moral calculus isn't hard: society as a whole comes first. Unless we're sure he is innocent, it's not clear he's someone who can be left free safely. He's a flight risk for starters.

Police parade him and his manifesto so that they have an excuse to hold him, they look competent, and they get to keep him behind bars until we know for sure one way or another, or until they can't hold him any longer. In which case we may never know for sure until the statue of limitations had passed and if he wants to confess.

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

The scary part is, supposing he wasn't the murderer and the actual one is out there, under normal circumstances, people could post wanted signs to see if someone might find this "actual" killer, but we aren't under normal circumstances right now, with our circumstances being ones where the turnout for finds would be low in a world where wanted signs of random billionaires hang in random places in New York, with Brian Thompson actually not being a big opponent of society, having come from poor, rural Iowa and wanting to reform the business but lagging due to hoops (only to, then, be killed by someone he had not had under his insurance to begin with).

[–] ynthrepic 2 points 1 hour ago

A scary possibility indeed!

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Luigi is probably working for them. His job is to do all the "right" things, to further the preferred narrative and such. He's a paid actor.

The real infidel will disappear quietly.

[–] feedum_sneedson 44 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

Don't chew your food with your mouth open, holy shit Michael where are your manners

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 hours ago

His manners are somewhere up a small boys anus.

[–] pyre 4 points 15 hours ago

yeah he's known for being terrible at table manners

[–] [email protected] 10 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It's bothered me literally every time I've seen this.

[–] MutilationWave 14 points 18 hours ago

When your teeth are too perfect to hide.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 186 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't get me wrong. After all of this high drama, it would be extremely funny if Luigi Mangione can prove he was in Rochester on the day of the shooting.

[–] Madison420 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I think that's exactly where it's going. Get convicted, real killer confesses and the state can't pursue a crime they've convicted someone for.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Why not? The double jeopardy clause is about prosecuting a single person twice; it says nothing about prosecuting a second person for the same crime. Heck, convicting a second person wouldn't even automatically invalidate the first conviction. (SCOTUS has ruled that innocence is not a sufficient reason to overturn a conviction.)

Remember, we have a judicial system. Calling it a "justice system" is inaccurate.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

innocence is not a sufficient reason to overturn a conviction

WHAT

[–] Madison420 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

They can once they release that conviction but it goes to show ineptitude and malfeasance which casts doubt on any further attempt to convict someone. And yes it would, shadow of a doubt is a high standard and a second conviction is a huge amount of doubt.

Factual innocence is different, it's a positive defense for literally any criminal charge.

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

There's no mechanism to release a conviction. Usually, if prosecutors have convicted somebody for murder, they won't pursue a case against a second person only for reason of not wanting to admit that they may have got it wrong. But there's no legal barrier, and it has happened for other crimes. The Ninth Circuit even ruled that it's legal.

[–] Madison420 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Reversed, released, overturned are all the same thing and happen literally daily. Where did you get your information that a conviction can't be changed?

Ed: reading your source it hinged on the crime technically being capable of being committed by multiple people and this one clearly can't be.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, a conviction can be overturned, but what I'm pointing out here is that it doesn't have to be in order to convict somebody else for the same crime.

[–] Madison420 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Sure. But you said there isn't a mechanism for it, there clearly is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

And there isn't. If prosecutors file a new case against a second person for the same crime, and get a conviction, there's no mechanism by which that second conviction overturns the previous conviction. Depending on the circumstances, the first person convicted may not even have grounds to have their case brought before a court to be re-examined.

[–] Madison420 1 points 1 hour ago

Automatically? No, almost nothing but enhancements are automatic.

What I hear you saying it is not just possible but probable.

[–] [email protected] 231 points 1 day ago (3 children)

There's a part of me hoping dudes going along with it to aid in the others escape, solidarity style, and he's got some iron clad alibi his lawyer plans to deliver in the courtroom that means they can't convict him.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 hours ago

As if they would care. There will be no justice here.

[–] [email protected] 87 points 1 day ago (11 children)

Plot twist: this was a group act all along. The murderer flees the scene. Once the image gets released, a second actor shows up at a McDonald's, a public space. Gets reported to authorities by a third actor, who does actually work at McD's. They waste the authorities' time, and the second actor, having commited no crimes, proves his innocence. The actual murderer, in the meantime, disappears for real, benefiting of the time wasted by the authorities. Second actor represents something, and gets some cool pics getting "arrested"

Idk, the idea just came to mind seeing the comment above

[–] [email protected] 53 points 22 hours ago

the second actor, having commited no crimes, proves his innocence.

Here's the flaw in your plan: This doesn't actually work in the US.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 131 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I want this timeline so damn bad

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 75 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Next time they pick a patsy for a guy with distinctive eyebrows they should find a guy with the same eyebrows.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

If the brows don't quit, you must acquit!

[–] [email protected] 101 points 1 day ago (12 children)

It really is an absolutely bizaare story. Why would he walk around with the murder weapon like that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

Maybe he found the gun lying around and decided to keep it. If I found a fully functional pistol I might do that...

[–] too_high_for_this 29 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

It looks like you couldn't decide on "bizarre" or "bazaar" so you split the difference. Bazaar is a market place, bizarre is weird. Just fyi, not trying to be a dick about it happy holidays love you

[–] punkwalrus 62 points 1 day ago (5 children)

See, I think one of three scenarios might have happened:

  • Luigi didn't do it. He was framed and set up because out of the hundreds of prank tips, this guy looked "close enough."
  • Luigi did it, but the evidence was made up to make the case solid and the police look competent. Luigi wasn't stupid, but he's boned anyway.
  • Luigi did it, and he really was that stupid.

As a writer, one of the aggravating tropes we have to follow is, "make the story believable," when reality sometimes doesn't align with "a good story." Some criminals are really that stupid, and some armchair theory, based on decades of movies, books, and TV shows, you expect "hey, this is what they SHOULD have done is." And they didn't. It's like when a chessmaster has to watch complete amateurs play chess. "Obvious strategies" are ignored, and basically both players are just not thinking past their last move.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

Some criminals are really that stupid,

A lot of criminals are remarkably stupid. It's fun to imagine criminal masterminds making up a lot of their plans with meticulous planning only to be foiled by the heroes. But in real life most crooks are fairly dumb. Even intelligent people who do crimes can make mistakes that come off as remarkably stupid to people learning about them.

I watched a lot of episode of Forensics Files and other shows that document cases that were solved by slim margins. Some criminals on the show really did almost get away with it if it wasn`t for one tiny mistake. In other cases, however, they got caught ultimately because they left behind something that absolutely would have lead to their capture.

Like in one case there was a mugger who killed a college girl while she walking home. The area she walked through was wooded and dark. The episode documents how DNA was used after it had advanced sufficiently to get him and they had to track him down to get a good sample. But there is something absolutely critical that the show didn't point out: He got on police radar because he dropped a bag of his that had a medicine bottle with his name on it. If he just picked up his bag the police would have had nothing to go by at all.

The other problem is that planning a murder like the one for Brian Thompson and getting away with it is hard as balls. Other than the fact that there are cameras everywhere. The guy needed to be at the right place and the right time and be there for only a minimal amount of time (to not draw undue attention) and he also had to be sure that there weren't that many police around so police response times would be extended. I think he did it at the time because he also knew that the police change shifts so there are fewer beat cops around.

Also the silencer obviously doesn't make the gun 100% quiet, but it was done to make it quiet enough to not set off the shotspotter towers. Those towers are more and more common in many cities so that when a criminal fires a gun, they can quickly triangulate where the shot was fired from. This would give away his location very quickly and minimize police response time.

It is meticulously planned. But there could be any number of things that could have gone wrong. The gun could have simply not fired at all. There could have been a few cops working extra hours nearby and ran after him quickly. Someone could have jumped at him to stop him right away. Lots and lots of factors go into it.

Even some people said that why was he using a hostel (which has security cameras and other witnesses) when he could have rented an AirBnB apartment. Some places rent rooms and apartments for people and those people never actually meet the host, meaning there is no one who would see you.

As for how to pay for them... the guy could have used a prepaid cash card, one bought and charged with cash. It cannot be traced back to you easily, if at all.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 20 hours ago

Luigi did it, and he really was that stupid.

Given that he was valedictorian at his school, I find that unlikely to be the option.

I think you're missing a 4th option:

  • He did it, and believed it not worth the anxiety/suffering of living the rest of his life as a wanted man, so did what he could to get away from the immediate scene but ultimately turn himself in so to speak.

And there are almost certainly more nuanced options out there.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

The thing is, whoever did it was pretty smart about much of the crime, which is why the story of how Luigi was caught and what they say he had on is person seems so odd relative to the behavior the previous week.

If it was Luigi, he was pretty disciplined and smart before, during and immediately after the crime with the only leak being showing his face at the hostel (which he may have been required to do when he gave them ID).

If he did do it and really had all that evidence on him, maybe he wanted to get caught? It seems crazy that anyone would hang onto a 3d printed gun when it would be pretty easy to destroy and dispose of it in multiple pieces and locations.

I’ve said it before but I truly believe that Luigi would still be free if he had plucked his eyebrows, regardless of whether he did it.

Edit to add, maybe he thought he’d get shot or captured at the scene and didn’t think too far beyond the immediate getaway? And with the stress of his picture up all over the news and social media, he kinda wasn’t thinking straight?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›