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.”
Whatever. United Healthcare should be next for the countless murders they’ve done.
We don’t put corporations on trial in America, silly billy
I mean… we CAN… it just doesn’t happen often enough.
Off the top of my head:
Enron:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Kenneth_Lay_and_Jeffrey_Skilling
Trump Org:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_business_fraud_lawsuit_against_the_Trump_Organization
“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.
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…
I tend to agree with that, the intent isn’t to make the general public afraid, it’s to coerce them into taking action.
So the jury has their out now, jury nullification on the grounds of the act not being terrorism
Jury nullification does not require “grounds”. Jury nullification is a result of the jury’s verdict being final regardless of the details of the trial. It’s also an effect of the fact that you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. The jury is not required to form a verdict strictly on the basis of the trial. The may find the defendant not guilty regardless of actual guilt.
Terror?
Come the fuck on,
FedsNew York. Absolutely fucking not. This sparked joy, not terror, in the populace. This was, to be quite frank, the exact opposite of terrorism.It’s not the Feds, it’s the state of New York.
This is like saying a wife killing their abusive husband is an act of terror. Clearly she’s saying she’s not taking the abuse anymore and any man or woman that treats her so poorly would meet a similar end. The perp that killed UnitedHealthcare’s CEO and those cheering him on are saying the same thing – enough abuse. We’re all terrorists because we want CEOs that do real harm to their customers to be held accountable? The current system is completely ill-equipped to even do so much as shame these abusers (i.e. libel and slander laws).
Okay, so next time just make it look random. Got it.
Manifesto? No sir!
So by saying terror, they admit that there is something to be fixed by policy of a government
Post bills every-fucking-where about Jury Nullification.
Well… guess the family won’t get life insurance now that it’s called a terrorist attack 🤣
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!
If was considered a peer of Luigi Mangione I would be so fucking honored.
You want them to go hiking?
That’s
T-r-i-a-l
Thanks. I love trail mix.
You’re a good sport.
So I know you won’t be mad if I add “whose.” The apostrophe in “who’s” replaces the i of “who is.”
Meanwhile, the point you were making is perfect.
Oh jeez, I need all the help I can get. Thanks again. Follow me for more errors!
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
One person getting shot is not terrorism.
By what definition? It most certainly can be.
By the definition of a reasonable person and that’s the definition the prosecution is going to have to meet.
I think you’d have a hard time defending your statement if a bearded Muslim man shot the POTUS, which by the definition posted earlier, should not count as terrorism.
A lot of people consider murdering an abortion doctor to be terrorism. Or lynching an innocent black person… why would this be different?
Assassination in furtherance of an agenda…
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, © the causing of mass destruction or widespread contamination, or (d) the disruption of essential infrastructure.
Yup, and murder is one of the specified offenses under (a).
Note the OR between coerceing the public and coerceing government. He coerced the public by murdering on the street. Doesn’t have anything to do with the government.
Coercing the population to do something about the CEOs, coercing the government to do something about health policy.
No. In this case they are arguing that the intent was to frighten people on the street. They spoke about it during the press conference. The insurance companies, health policy, etc will not play a part. In fact, the judge will probably prohibit its mention in a murder trial. That’s a subject for you guys. Anyway, it has nothing to do with politics
Terrorism is, by definition, a political action. Charging him with terrorism makes it political.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
“Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1]”
There’s no question that the killing was ideological. I think where the charge has the potential to fall apart is “non-combatant”.
If you argue that the CEO pushing the rejection of insurance claims is causing death, does that make them a “non-combatant”? 🤔
Where it becomes a slippery slope is that this is the same excuse the “pro-life” movement uses for the targeted killing of abortion doctors, and they use the same tactics. Doxing, distributing hitlists, etc.
It pertains to a New York law above. The legal charge is defined.I would hope a judge would not consider an argument about what it is outside the parameters of what is written in the law.
Oh, I’m not thinking about the JUDGE, I’m thinking about the JURY.
