As a British lad, I’ve been keeping tabs on the news about this guy and the wide support he’s getting.

With so much support, surely the public will get him out of jail just to spite the bastard rich kids and their CEO baron fathers?

The Man who was shot allowed a massive corporation to dangle its strings over people’s lives, medication being pulled away which is horrifying to me who uses the NHS as my primary medical service for hearing.

What do you think? Will Luigi “The CEO Reaper” Mangione ever get out of prison?

  • 777@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I expect he will be denied bail if they can show the evidence against him is strong enough. Even if you have enough money, that’s just not a guarantee. They don’t set the bail at $50mn or something, it’s just not an option offered.

    The boring but probably correct answer is he never breathes free air again, and his best case scenario is avoiding the death penalty.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    7 months ago

    The ruling class doesn’t want him martyred but they want him killed so very much.

    My bets are he is given a life sentence with a groomed jury and he is extrajudicially executed in prison by an unknown agent.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          You got to wait for the trial. Throughout history, but especially this year, we’ve seen many famous trials where the cops blatantly lied about evidence of course in press reports as they often do but also in court on the stand under oath. Just because you heard it doesn’t mean it’s true. Just because someone told you they have evidence of something, doesn’t mean they do.

      • Allonzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Those same people conveniently refuse to consider murder with a con (pay us now for Healthcare when you inevitably get sick) and and pen (lol we were lying thanks for all the money go die now) to be murder.

      • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think murder is murder but that doesn’t mean that things like self defence aren’t morally justifiable.

        Murder is murder in the simple scenario but it gets more complicated when the murderer is not the initial aggressor.

      • Meltrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        What is your take then?

        I think that health insurance companies are predatory and cause deaths. They are terrible, medical support should not be a for-profit market, and their existence is one of many many indicators of how incredibly broken our society often is.

        However, I don’t believe individuals should be legally allowed to take matters into their own hands and execute other citizens. Regardless of their reasoning. If this man can execute the CEO of an insurance company because he believes he was wronged by that company, unfortunately the exact same argument can be used for a student to up and execute their university Dean, or a man of one religion can execute the preacher of another.

        Citizens can’t choose when and where it is appropriate to kill each other based on their feelings. That’s lawlessness. As much as I hate, and I mean truly hate, these companies and everything they stand for, you can’t have people just getting shot to death by others and still be a civilized society.

        • Allonzee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Lawlessness is better than what we have, laws that serve a couple million at everyone else’s, hundreds of million’s expense with no legal recourse.

          We get no say in economic policy or regulation, only the how or if to address some of the social issue symptoms of that economy through our legally bribed parties. Arguing over abortion’s legality instead of why productivity per worker has multiplied while the owner class now demands 2 breadwinners in most cases to survive, which is why most abortions happen, not enough to survive. But we don’t legislate the “free” to die in the streets alone market, so the argument becomes forced births or not. The argument should be to fundamentally change what our economy should be oriented to reward like teachers and nurses, and punish like insatiable, sociopathic, antisocial greed and vocations/investments that hurt society for individual profit. But both major parties are well bribed to say that’s evil socialism and tar and feather anyone who would dare say that to either of them.

          Our system is already worse than lawlessness, our system is laws made by the wealthy (see ALEC) to extract the very lives from the poor for private profit, that the poor must simply suffer to remain lawful. It is effectively one way lawlessness from above. They can kill you with a dictate to their sycophants to deny more claims while sipping expensive bourbon on a beach, or by ignoring an expensive product safety issue, or by lowering inspection standards to save a buck and poisoning baby formula, and you and/or your baby can die quietly now that they have your money. That’s the law here and now.

          Makes lawlessness seem pretty attractive given the current intransigent oligarchy killing us for profit legally…

          • Meltrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Ok. Just keep in mind that in a system like that, you likely die. I likely die. All of us outside of that “ruling class” suffer way more than they do when people start getting killed.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Politics aside. The court is not going to grant bail to anyone accused of first degree murder who is a flight risk. And given the current narrative seems to be that he shot a man in NYC and was found in another state. I’d say they’d consider him a flight risk.

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Making bail is the least of his concerns in there. He will be lucky if he doesn’t get “Epstein’d”.

  • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    The working class, no matter how much money they pull together, cannot battle the ruling class in this way. He will not be allowed bail if we even tried

  • chingadera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    7 months ago

    It would be a shame if a few people in NYC started posting signs on every corner with a brief description of jury nullification and a QR code with a link to explain it further until the trial is over.

  • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    You think the poor plebs have any power over the matter? This your first almost incitement of revolution that goes nowhere?

  • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    44
    ·
    7 months ago

    Personally I would prefer that he get out of jail as soon as he is not considered a risk to society, since that is the only valid justification for prisons. Maybe months, probably years. And then he can consider the evilness and futility of his act.

    And for all the people celebrating it here, you might consider your own hypocrisy and outright callousness at defending the indefensible. I still can’t quite get over my shock at the level of hatred and vituperation here. I thought this community would be better than that.

    From a person who knew Luigi Mangione, just published in Unherd:

    But while thousands reacted on social media with laughter emojis to Thompson’s murder, I was sickened. Vigilantism is always wrong. If you celebrate someone gunning down a defenceless person in the street, then you advocate for a world in which this is an acceptable thing for anyone to do. You advocate for a world in which a stranger can decide that you’re also a bad person, and gun you down in the street. In such a world, I promise you, your health insurance would cost much more.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      7 months ago

      Get off your high horse and shut the fuck up. Were you shocked when people celebrated Kissinger or Bin Laden dying or do you only get upset at corporate America?

      You advocate for a world in which a stranger can decide that you’re also a bad person, and gun you down in the street. In such a world, I promise you, your health insurance

      WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE AN UNQUALIFIED STRANGER CAN DECIDE YOU DON’T DESERVE MEDICAL TREATMENT. Healthcare CEOs kill people EVERY DAY but we should draw the line when it’s a gun and not a denial letter? Get the fuck out of here with that logic.

      Go point your outage at the millions of innocent people who die every day from preventable disease. Or if that’s too abstract for you, how about the people getting bombed and starved in Palestine?

      • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        7 months ago

        Palestine? Kissinger? Completely irrelevant. You are advocating first-degree murder. Look in the mirror and start there.

        The bureaucratic plumbing of American healthcare? So fix it then! Vote. Send letters. Get more involved in politics. Protest. What have you done about the problem you seem so worked up about, apart from cheer on a murderer? What?

        If speaking out against vigilante murderers is “being on a high horse”, that’s fine by me and I’ll stay there.

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          Goddamn, you are insufferable.You’re not speaking out against vigilante murderers, you’re pearl clutching that people dare to lack empathy for someone completely devoid of it.

          The “victim” attacked first by denying the killer healthcare.

          • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yes. How dare I have my own opinions and values that contradict yours?

            Someone openly advocates murder and then talks of empathy. The hypocrisy is almost beyond words.

            • Allonzee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              In a perfect world, someone with Brian’s insatiable, murderous greed disease would be put in a psychiatric hospital for public safety, along with every billionaire and hundred million plus inaire that treats society as their exploitation piggy bank, not that many people, but the sociopaths run the asylum here.

              This is a class war, whether you choose to show your belly and say thank you for trading your life for their profit to your enemy or not. Brian was an enemy combatant of this class occupation.

    • lost_faith@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      7 months ago

      The rich and the poor came to an agreement once upon a time, a social contract if you will. That contract was - You treat us with respect and pay us our worth, or we drag you into the street. The rich have broken that contract

      • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        7 months ago

        The world you are advocating is a very dark place indeed. In historical terms, it’s France of 1794. A bloodbath that ended, as it always has in history, with a conservative backlash and a dictatorship. You talk in grandiose terms of the social contract but you seem not to know much about history.

        • lost_faith@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 months ago

          I am not advocating for the world that we find ourselves in, which is a dark place. This is the first of many events that are going to happen due to the lack of care of the C suite that is robbing us at every chance and turning the legal system against everyone but themselves. This is a world of their making along with the consequences. Yes France was bloody due to the financial disparity between the rich and poor, all actions have consequences. The Americans also went through this with unions, where business interests murdered union reps and workers on strike, we came to a deal eventually but as always the deal was reneged. The social contract I “talk about in grandiose terms” was to keep us, rich and poor, from each others throats. It is in their hands what the population does, keep taking and not giving back, it will be taken from them.

          When all other avenues fail, there is only one choice left. Most are not there yet, but more and more are getting to this point. Buckle up, it is going to be a rough ride.

          • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            all actions have consequences

            Yes, they do - bad consequences for everyone. If you take the law into your own hands it always ends in tears. Either you’ll get a strongman who “alone can fix it”, or you’ll get some kind of revolutionary regime which tolerates no dissent and eventually collapses, hated by the very people it was supposed to represent. Every. Single. Time. There is no exception in history.

            I am against extrajudicial cold-blooded killing, just as I am against the judicial variety (capital punishment). But this does not even need to be a moral argument: human history shows very clearly that vigilante justice is a dead end.

            The only way forward is discussion, and compromise, and hard choices.

            • lost_faith@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Well, there is a way out of this. They can stop the anger being rightly directed at them, but they won’t. The law is not in our hands, the law is not there to help us, and here we are.

              BTW to be clear, I am not advocating violence. I am merely pointing out what many others see, we are reaching a breaking point and if compromise is not reached it will push past the point of no return leading to what you are so worried about. Which seems to be happening anyway with the far right starting to take power across the globe

    • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      Replace Thompson with Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

      Our celebratory reaction to Thompson being brought to justice isn’t going to lead to bad things. No, it’s the result of being on the losing end of the world we already inhabit.

      • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Brought to justice? Is this the kind of “justice” you advocate for every transgression or are you making an exception for this one? Who decides what the penalties are? You? What if some other evil CEO committed some other nebulous “crime” but only a bit less serious, what would he deserve? Just a beating in the street? An hour in your personal torture dungeon?

        In a civilized society we have institutions that dispense justice. They operate on the principle that a law must be broken first. If you don’t like the law, then you first need to get the law changed. You don’t get to decide unilaterally who gets punished how much and for what.