United Healthcare CEO killed

[+ azdr0710]

after seeing those pictures just upthread, I wonder if Banksy is going to come up with something soon for all this..... some of that street art is very Banksy-esque.......

[+ José Soplanucas]

[Lotus-eater]

10 hours ago, José Soplanucas said:

 

Start the feast with the rich, Ivy League grad in the photo. Looks delicious.

Edited January 2 by Lotus-eater

[pubic_assistance]

35 minutes ago, Lotus-eater said:

 

Start the feast with the rich, Ivy League grad in the photo. Looks delicious.

I don't know if I'd want to EAT him as much as I'd like to just suck the cream filling .😋

[+ José Soplanucas]

On 1/1/2025 at 6:38 PM, José Soplanucas said:

Street art in support of Luigi.

Montreal:

Seattle:

Santo Domingo, DR

Brooklyn, NYC

A train

[+ José Soplanucas]

[+ DrownedBoy]

"I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." - Robert Reich

[dutchal]

This is better than a soap opera.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/07/us-news/sean-diddy-combs-envies-attention-luigi-mangione-receives-behind-bars/

https://nypost.com/2025/01/06/us-news/luigi-mangione-went-to-thai-gun-range-before-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompsons-killing/

https://www.today.com/video/key-hearing-for-luigi-mangione-delayed-until-mid-february-228758597714

 

 

[Km411]

UnitedHealthcare slammed for denying cancer patient while in surgery

 

Maybe moral outrage should be a defense to murder?

[CuriousByNature]

2 hours ago, Km411 said:

Maybe moral outrage should be a defense to murder?

That would be a horrific situation given the subjective nature of morality.  What outrages one person may not outrage another.   My neighbours are outraged when I leave the apartment without a paper bag over my head.  I'd hate to be murdered for that.

[dutchal]

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/09/luigi-mangione-approval-poll-gen-z

[soloyo215]

16 hours ago, Km411 said:

UnitedHealthcare slammed for denying cancer patient while in surgery

 

Maybe moral outrage should be a defense to murder?

Why not? Remember the afluenza case? Ethan Couch was found not guilty because he's too rich and self-entitled to be guilty.

[pubic_assistance]

14 hours ago, CuriousByNature said:

That would be a horrific situation given the subjective nature of morality

Absolutely. Especially in the current state of American culture. Very polarized with some bizarre extremes of opinion.

[Km411]

16 hours ago, CuriousByNature said:

That would be a horrific situation given the subjective nature of morality.

A jury would know it when they see it.

[BSR]

41 minutes ago, Km411 said:

A jury would know it when they see it.

Depends on who’s on your jury.  To avoid politics, I’ll use a baseball analogy.  Imagine a split-second call at 1st base, Red Sox vs. Yankees.  I can say with 100% confidence that 12 Sox fans will say the Red Sox batter was safe at 1st and that 12 Yankee fans will say he’s out.

[Km411]

My comments above were meant to be facetious. But we already have a moral outrage defense in the US legal system in the form of jury nullification. It’s not a defense recognized by law, and defense counsel is prohibited from advocating it at trial, but a jury’s sense of moral justice can and often does result in nullification, and that outcome is not appealable. This is what the defense will be going for in this case. 

[+ DrownedBoy]

It's hard to claim "moral outrage" when Mangione didn't have any known connection to UHC (if he or a loved one had been a UHC denial victim, that would be different).

The only tactic I can see is a combination of diminished capacity (caused by his back injury, isolation, etc.) and a rigorous questioning of the evidence (namely the chain of custody), while also somehow getting UHC and Thompson's wrongdoings in front of the jury. That way, the jury has a legitimate excuse to have a "reasonable doubt," as they did when they nullified in the O.J. SImpson case.

The only problem is that this time, the defendant has a written manifesto/confession. Unless that's suppressed as evidence, any defense will be extremely difficult.

[Km411]

2 hours ago, DrownedBoy said:

It's hard to claim "moral outrage" when Mangione didn't have any known connection to UHC (if he or a loved one had been a UHC denial victim, that would be different).

I don’t know that a direct connection is needed; if the defense team successfully plays the PR game, he’s Robinhood. The manifesto supports this. But it’s not a legal defense; the defense team will also develop and present legal, procedural, and evidentiary defenses as you mention.

[+ ApexNomad]

10 hours ago, Km411 said:

My comments above were meant to be facetious. But we already have a moral outrage defense in the US legal system in the form of jury nullification. It’s not a defense recognized by law, and defense counsel is prohibited from advocating it at trial, but a jury’s sense of moral justice can and often does result in nullification, and that outcome is not appealable. This is what the defense will be going for in this case. 

You’re absolutely correct. While jury nullification is not a formal legal defense and cannot be directly advocated for at trial, it remains an inherent power of the jury to acquit based on their own sense of justice, even in the face of clear evidence. This is likely a strategy Luigi Mangione’s attorneys will consider, especially if they can frame the application of the law in this case as unjust or disproportionate. Though unpredictable, such an approach could resonate with jurors on a moral level, making it a calculated, albeit risky, part of the defense’s overall strategy.

[+ DrownedBoy]

22 hours ago, ApexNomad said:

 frame the application of the law in this case as unjust or disproportionate

That would be another good approach. NYPD should be forced to explain why they perp walked him like a Columbian drug lord, complete with that corrupt mayor, after a massive and expensive manhunt. Plus the extra criminal charges. Apparently, the death of a health insurance CEO is more important than ours.

[+ José Soplanucas]

46 minutes ago, DrownedBoy said:

Apparently

Beyond our moral judgment on Lulu's act, I think it is proved beyond any doubts that the death of a CEO is not "apparently" more important than ours. 

[+ ApexNomad]

1 hour ago, DrownedBoy said:

That would be another good approach. NYPD should be forced to explain why they perp walked him like a Columbian drug lord, complete with that corrupt mayor, after a massive and expensive manhunt. Plus the extra criminal charges. Apparently, the death of a health insurance CEO is more important than ours.

You raise an important point about the optics surrounding the NYPD’s handling of the case. The manner in which they perp-walked the defendant, paired with the high-profile nature of the arrest, could be viewed as excessive and potentially prejudicial. The defense might argue that this treatment reflects an overzealous pursuit of the defendant, designed more for public spectacle than for the pursuit of justice. Furthermore, the additional charges and the disproportionate focus on the victim’s status could very well undermine the fairness of the legal process. While the jury must base their verdict on the law and evidence presented, these extraneous factors could influence their perception of the case’s integrity, making them crucial for the defense to address strategically.

On the other hand, the prosecution might assert that the NYPD’s actions were warranted given the severity of the charges and the potential threat to public safety. They may argue that the aggressive approach was a necessary step to demonstrate the seriousness of the crime and ensure the defendant’s apprehension, especially considering the high-profile nature of the victim. The prosecution could further contend that the extra charges were justified based on the facts of the case and were meant to hold the defendant fully accountable. While the defense will likely challenge the fairness of the public perception, the prosecution will emphasize the need for an appropriate and visible response to a crime of such magnitude.

[+ nycman]

2 hours ago, ApexNomad said:

While the defense will likely challenge the fairness of the public perception, the prosecution will emphasize the need for an appropriate and visible response to a crime of such magnitude.

The kid is a cold blooded murderer.

They could’ve dragged him up 5th Avenue tarred and feathered, chained to a horse and buggy and I would’ve thought "fair enough". 

[+ ApexNomad]

40 minutes ago, nycman said:

The kid is a cold blooded murderer.

They could’ve dragged him up 5th Avenue tarred and feathered, chained to a horse and buggy and I would’ve thought "fair enough". 

And if you’re the prosecution team, you’re exactly the person they want on the jury.

[pubic_assistance]

4 hours ago, ApexNomad said:

The manner in which they perp-walked the defendant, paired with the high-profile nature of the arrest, could be viewed as excessive and potentially prejudicial.

Because it is.

He blew some dickhead's brains out in a premeditated murder.

He didn't blow up a school full of children.

He didn't kill 100 people.

He took out one repugnant CEO who apparently was so gross, few who knew him will miss him. (Maybe some day his kids will be sad about the two or three visits a month they missed ). Probably not.

This was CLEARLY a pageant  meant to help protect the upper class from rogue vigilantism.