Summary
Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, has asked his supporters to limit the number of photos they send him to 5 at a time due to overwhelming volume and screening delays.
Charged with murder, he has pleaded not guilty. Mangione’s case sparked debate about healthcare, with supporters sending fan mail and donations.
His legal defense fund has raised over $615,000. He expressed gratitude for the letters, acknowledging support across “political, racial, and even class divisions.”
Mangione also faces federal and Pennsylvania charges. His attorney argues he’s being treated differently, held in federal custody.
This is gonna be the crux of the defensive strategy.
At every point this case has been treated differently due to the wealth and power of the CEO. And they’re going to ask every person that sits in the stand why they think it’s been different.
Why this CEO dying is such a big deal, but the huge amount of people that died due to his decisions isnt.
That and pressing the cops on how they really figured out who he was, and the mystery guy that tipped off the person who called it in and a rapid response team “just happened” to be ready and waiting.
They clearly used illegal methods to actually find him, and that can throw out a whole trial on its own.
Like, I’ve been saying it since he was accused, he could very well get off Scott free.
FTFY. I agree with everything you’re saying; I just have this weird compulsion to correct misused homophones. A “scot” is an archaic word for a tax (unrelated to being of Scottish descent, AFAIK), so the term isn’t anything to do with a person named Scott. Pedantic, I know, but I really can’t help myself, so… Sorry? You’re welcome?
Either way, have a nice day.
Nah man. I knew this dude Scott in kindergarten, and that guy just got away with everything…
/S
Thanks for the correction tho, details matter these days
Free Scott and Free Hat!
Oooo member mccullough
Learned something new! Love it.
I agree it’s scot-free, but I always thought it was because under Scottish Law, the verdict in a murder trial can be Guilty, Not Guilty, or Not Proven. In the 3rd case you escape punishment but everyone thinks you did it. Which can be good or bad for your standing in the community, depending on why the jury chose that verdict.
Your answer, being slightly duller and more pedantic, is probably the correct one.
I knew none of this, so I appreciate both of you.
I’m not an etymology expert, but I did see a few sources that all claimed scot came from a Scandinavian word “skat,” which was a redistributive tax (Source)
I do like your explanation, too, though. The other explanation I’ve heard a few times was that it was related to the Dred Scott case regarding an escaped slave who petitioned the Supreme Court in an attempt to gain his freedom (it didn’t work, though, so I’m not sure why people would claim that to be the origin of the phrase “Scott free” anyway)
I knew none of this, so I appreciate both of you.
TIL
Given the fact that law enforcement has provided evidence and interviews for a bullshit pseudo-documentary without even providing it to the defense, it certainly brings up the possibility that they might think that evidence won’t be admissible in court. So they’re trying to taint the public, and thus the jury pool, with whatever story they want.
For sure.
I’d say like a 95% chance they OJ this and fuck it up.
Our justice system isn’t used to doing things the right way, they’re used to people taking plea deals.
So in high profile cases with pressure to solve, they’re sloppy. They rush and use illegal means before a plausible way to have solved it can show up.
Tainted evidence taints everything that comes out from it, it’s a poison tree and none of the fruits are admissible evidence because of that.
The really huge part is when it starts going trump won’t be able to ignore it being a bigger media story, he’s going to weigh in, and he’ll either piss off a lot of regular people, or a bunch of billionaires.
My pessimistic side tells me that the judges see themselves as the same class as the CEOs. They can “overlook” a lot of problems with a case if they choose.
They’ve been holding a system up that fucks us everyday for centuries, they will continue to do it.
Meanwhile the Mayor of NYC gets to prance through the rules. They also have done a shitty shitty job with handling this case. They didn’t read him his rights. They released key information on tv before providing it to the defense! The whole army of people to transport him! The complete lack of any scrutiny on the healthcare industry further about what led to this in the first place! god knows these insurance companies will continue to exploit unabated. Especially during this “administration”.
I seriously doubt that this sentiment will be part of their defense. They will not argue that the victim deserved it. That is not a legal defense for murder in the first place, and it would be based on the premise that Luigi is in fact guilty of murder. That would be a really bad way to defend their client.
They probably will establish that his treatment was unusual and harsher than typical for other defendents through documented facts. They may even bring police or prison staff to the stand to ask them about their views on the case that may establish cause for the unequal treatment (beyond happenstance). They may even extrapolate that into how that bias that led to his unequal treatment may draw into question the trustworthiness of the evidence gathered when so many authority figures have demonstrated an abnormal bias against the defendent and whether all due process and procedure was followed as legally required. Whether the police had probable cause before the arrest, whether the correct court has jurisdiction, whether the jury could have been biased against the defendent by the way the authorities framed the facts and events, etc.
But at no point will they ask about the CEO’s victims or anyone’s feelings on that matter. It just won’t be relevant or helpful in this murder trial. Morally relevant, yes. Legally, no.
That’s different.
They’ll highlight the amount of resources and actions that were taken to apprehend him along with his treatment since arrest to show it is not normal treatment.
But never give a possible reason why his treatment was/is unusual.
It’s going right up to saying what I quoted, but stopping a sentence before the judge has to say “objection”.
Like, that’s what lawyering to a jury is…
Walking them up to the conclusion you want, and making them believe they “figured it out”.
Some as running a con, that’s why the Venn Diagram of succesful lawyers and wealthy conmen looks like a solar eclipse.
They “just ask questions”.
That’s more likely, yes. That is still dangerous though. If the makeup of the jury is generally anti-vigilante justice, then bringing them to that point may backfire.
Yeah, but if they don’t need to get to that step
The defense doesn’t need the “why”, it’s just icing
Judges don’t say “objection”. Opposing council does.
It’ll be interesting to see if they are able to put the CEO on trial here, like they do with rape victims. Was the CEO
dressed sluttycomplicit in the deaths of others? Did the CEO entice him bydancing sexyleading the industry in denying rightful claims? Did the CEO agree tohave sex with himpay peoples’ medical bills and then reneg at the last second?This could be a very interesting trial.
I agree it would be very interesting of they put the corpse of the CEO on the stand and asked those questions.
“find him”. I’m still not fully convinced he did it. He legit does not look like the original pictures from the surveillance footage. His nose looks way smaller and less crooked than that footage.
Asking people on the stand why it’s such a big deal is insanely biased.
He was a dude that got shot. Happens hundreds of times, it’s not any different.
And yet in this case, among so many other discrepancies, they want the death penalty for the shooter. Why is Mangione being treated like a terrorist for one death, but school shooters are not?
Did any of those kids that were murdered have yachts?
If not, it’s probably because they are lesser people, because better people tend to be smarter and make more money or whatever bullshit pathway that allows people that are not billionaires to continually force themselves to feel related to them while cheering for the next shit end of the stick.
deleted by creator