Oof he isn’t convicted but the media isn’t saying “allegedly” in headlines for him. Shows how they’re trying to sway public opinion.
Defense has brought it up multiple times already, it’s biasing the jury pool
Was it supposed to be a direct quote from the DA? Even if so, it shouldn’t be in the headline.
Public opinion is already swayed. Luigi Mangione has become a symbol to a lot of people and as such the super-rich want to punish him.
I bet they are more scared of the symbol than they are of the thought that Mangione is innocent and the real shooter might still be free and plotting another hit.
The “real shooter” would only be one person, but a symbol has the power to create 10 or 100 more or to spark a violent rebellion and that they can’t let happen.
Innocent or not, it’s unfortunately Luigi Mangione they need punished in the most horrific and exemplar way possible.
I guess he’s not getting a fair trial, they’ll have to jury nullify the shit out of it.
That’s actually very surprising - it starts with “DA says” which is presumably their defamation defense, but usually the lawyers wouldn’t let that pass.
Maybe there are no editors left working at BI. This was three days ago
https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/digital-journalism/business-insider-cuts/
Well, I’m sure their new AI editors will protect them against defamation lawsuits going forward…
When the public makes you a meme for assassination and substitutes your first name for the word “assassinate”, I’m going to give them a pass on dropping the “allegedly”.
If the public were swayable, they wouldn’t be talking about “luigiing” people.
“Luigi Mangione killed CEO Brian Thompson”
Objection, baseless speculation.
after Luigi Mangione killed CEO Brian Thompson
Has he already been convicted?
Terrible headline, but I can only guess that “Business insider” would rather defend a corrupt CEO than the victim of insurance hell.
There’s no question the general public already believes he killed the guy, if people didn’t, we wouldn’t have all the Luigi memes and people using “Luigi” as a substitute for assassination.
“DA says”
A little misleading without the quotation marks
Youre skipping the first two words where it says “DA says”. Obviously its the opinion of the DA prosecuting him for murder that he is in fact the killer.
Yet another case of “bad headline” is just people not reading the headline
Youre skipping the first two words where it says “DA says”.
Again, the headline makes it sound as if Luigi has already been found to be the killer, which he has not.
The article could most certainly directly quote the DA saying that “Luigi is a murder”, but the headline really needs to be accurate by saying:
“DA says 40 UnitedHealthcare execs got bodyguards, and one dyed her hair after the accused, Luigi Mangione, allegedly killed CEO Brian Thompson”
Journalistic integrity matters.
Sounds like the DA is going to get sued along with many others if/when the accused is found not guilty.
I would contribute to a GoFundMe if he wanted to sue for libel.
If that’s terrorism then what do we call the death and pain caused by pursuit of profits?
If they want to have a discussion about labels, it’s not gonna go well in front of a jury.
At every step defense should be asking the jury:
If you had been killed, would this be happening? Why are lives valued differently
… what do we call the death and pain caused by pursuit of profits?
The term I’ve heard for this is social murder:
… an unnatural death that is believed to occur due to social, political, or economic oppression, instead of direct violence.
Free enterprise, just like the Atlantic slave trade and the genocide of the Indians.
Social murder. It’s a term originally used by Friedrich Engels nearly 200 years ago, yet still relevant today. Essentially it’s indirect deaths caused by capitalism. Gives some plausible deniability to the likes of United Healthcare because it’s much easier to obfuscate the reason behind somebody’s death when the cause was neglect or denial of life saving care.
This post either needs to be removed or retitled. Luigi is not convicted and this perpetuates a huge problem in the US of assigning guilt to people through public opinion.
There is nothing here stating Mangione has been convicted of anything.
“after Luigi Mangione killed CEO Brian Thompson” is the problem - he allegedly killed that guy
“DA says…” This is not the author making that assessment, it’s the DA. Naturally the DA is going to say he killed the guy, same as I do, or anyone making Luigi memes does.
There’s no obligation for a reporter to insert “allegedly” where it was not stated.
And the DA is wrong for saying that, alongside the reporter for not correcting them.
You sound like the type of person Brandolini’s Law is based on.
It’s saying he murdered the CEO, when he has not been proven/convicted of doing so. How are you a moderator making decisions like that?
If nobody believes he killed the CEO then everyone needs to immediately retract all the Luigi memes.
It’s clear he shot the guy, the only question is how justified it is.
Innocent until some guy on Lemmy says otherwise?
Oh wait, no, it still has to be proven.
Unless you were present at the time, you’ve seen some videos. Perhaps it’s not likely, but videos can be faked, more easily now than ever before.
Proof first.
Lemmy isn’t a court of law, neither is the Internet. It’s pretty much universally accepted he killed the guy, if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t have the hero worship.
What the court is going to decide is if he’s justified or not.
The court is also going to need to decide if the cops planted the evidence he conveniently carried with him several days later.
Any conspiracy theory is going to do some heavy lifting explaining how the highly custom pistol in the video is not the same highly custom pistol found on Luigi.
what defendant considered a deadly greed-fueled cartel," Seidemann wrote.
I mean, what are they, then?
Every individual word is true, that is the dystopian reality we live in, but even when true they’re depending on it sounding too conspiratorial and therefore not credible. The nerve of these people.
Parasites who deserve to be tossed in a vat of acid?
And not a single one of them paused and went “wait, maybe the choices we’re making are the problem here?” Instead, it was “keep being evil, but now with bodyguards!”
They know exactly what they are doing and the choice to gun-up says everything about them. There is no other word but “evil”.
Right? I was hoping more for a “16 people have quite their roles and chilled the fuck out, taking a new job where they don’t have to be evil daily to maintain their positions.”
But I guess they might have trouble sleeping at night, so that’s alright…
Have you ever tried not being an asshole?
Not once.
That sounds like a “Them” problem and has no bearing on the case Mr. DA
Why should 40 assholes hiding from someone who is already in custody gave any bearing on his case?
My gf dyed her hair last week, must be a criminal in chains somewhere!
It’s so the news media can continue to keep up this “story” of how billionaire CEOs are the real victims…
let me guess not one of them decided to have better business practices
There was actually a huge increase in approved claims immediately after.
Not sure how long it happened, but I remember hearing about it
Blackrock is now suing because of that. Shareholder value is not maximized. We need more people dying.
I mean the easiest solution is not to work for a hostile company and a public enemy/threat.
Those companies, and that one notoriously, kill 1000’s so they are a hostile enemy, actively attacking the populace.
Now I know legalese will fancy it up, but shit smells. Can’t hide it.
Job creator.
I wonder if they allowed those bodyguards access to the executive health plan for cheap, or if they hired them as contract employees so as to stiff them on any employee benefits.
Scared CEOs—finally, a guilt-free fetish.
