Trial by a jury of his “peers”… a group of healthy, wealthy businessmen.

Make it an inverse function based on their wealth and the wealth of their spouse.

I wonder how the terrorism charge affects things. Are people going to stop saying they support him out of fear or disgust? Will other people (and/or the government) go after people that say they support him because they can claim they’re supporting a terrorist? Will people become less affected by the word “terrorist” because it’s being applied in this way?

There’s an Atlantic article by Charlie Warzel that references it to try to make his comments seem flippant. The news is heavily trying to create or avoid a narrative on this.

“When Mangione was caught, he had with him a note or manifesto of sorts, less than 300 words long. Near the beginning, it offers the following: “This was fairly trivial.” The phrase is cold, detached, and haunting. It might merely be the garden-variety bravado of a gunman. But the sentence also conjures a possibility that is much harder to sit with (and for the internet to latch onto). Of all the possible outcomes available, the least shared, argued over, and considered is one that the shooter alludes to himself—that what feels to all of us like an era-defining event may ultimately be unremarkable in its brutality, in its inability to effect change, and in how quickly everyone moves on.”

I feel like either of these interpretations is way off the mark. The phrase is more likely him suggesting that it doesn’t take a lot of work or a sharp mind to pull it off, which would be a nightmare for anyone trying to keep it from happening again.

If they’re a person it should go all the way. They should be able to go on trial for homicide. Some states still have the death penalty for people. Disband the company if it commits serious crimes.