Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement on Tuesday that she had directed federal prosecutors to seek the penalty for the “premeditated, cold-blooded assassination”.
In the press release, Bondi said Mr Thompson’s murder “was an act of political violence” and that it “may have posed grave risk of death to additional persons” nearby.
A lawyer for Mr Mangione called the decision “barbaric”, accused the government of “defending the broken, immoral, and murderous healthcare industry”, and said Mr Mangione was caught in a tug-of-war between state and federal prosecutors.
“While claiming to protect against murder, the federal government moves to commit the pre-meditated, state-sponsored murder of Luigi,” said Karen Friedman Agnifilo in a statement.
[These are highlights, for the full article, use link]
The killing of a non-political figure due to that person heading a company that regularly rejects insurance claims of sick people is “political violence” in what way? If this is political violence then every killing is.
His manifesto suggests political motives more than personal ones.
*A manifesto alleged to have been found on the suspect.
If every ideological thought is also political, then so are most murders.
If everything is political, then nothing is political.
I mean, it seems pretty clear that Luigi didn’t have a personal beef with Thompson directly, but moreso with the political system that allowed Thompson to thrive. I’m not really sure why saying this was politically-motivated is so divisive.
So I guess everything is terrorism.
Luigi is a mass murderer?
Analogy. I’m simply applying your reasoning to designate random murders as terrorism.
No, I can see that. What I don’t understand is why. “If the situation were different, then the situation would be different” isn’t really saying anything, so I’m not sure what the point of that was.
The claim was that by your reasoning, situations that are not terrorism would be classified as terrorism.
Allegedly