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]
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.
You used a completely different scenario in which the only commonality is “one person killed another”. The motive behind the two scenarios is entirely different, and literally the crux of the charges he’s facing. I’m not sure what sort of point you’re trying to make.