(He/They)
Maybe he was on track for that or maybe he would have taken a different path, we don’t actually know. But it doesn’t matter because what did happen is he became radicalized against corporations (or at least corporate healthcare) and took action. What he did and what he believes now are far more important than who else he could have become.
Idk, joking around and feeling relatable are pretty good strategies for making a jury feel more sympathetic to the defense. And as other people have said with how high profile this case being calm and good on camera is important. So far I’ve thought he seemed great.
I’d honestly even say killing Bin Laden was less morally acceptable than killing Thompson tbh. One had 0 additional casualties, and one was preceded by a war which fucked the entire middle east, created multiple power vaccuums, killed thousands of civilians, and involved literal warcrimes.
I mean honestly the being knee deep in blood because a revolution started after one guy was acquitted for killing a CEO sounds way more like a movie plot to me but idk.
Regardless, the point of that wasn’t that “the CEO is dead, now everyone is saved!!!” Right now we literally have a situation where a dictator was removed from power in Syria. The outcome of that is still unknown, and could turn into something worse or something better, time will tell. But either way no-one is really saying “how dare they violently overthrow the government, don’t you know that violence is bad”, because that would be a stupid reaction to Assad being removed.
In any of these situations saying that the person using violence to respond to violence deserves to be imprisoned doesn’t make sense. Luigi Mangione would not be someone I’d feel unsafe walking past in the street, so why should they be locked up? The point of a prison system should be preventing someone from committing crime again, but I wouldn’t be worried about that in the case of Mangione so it makes no sense to sentence them to prison.
I also don’t want a violent revolution to come from this. Some violent actions leading to a government making large reforms as a concession to avoid further violence is something that happened all throughout history, and is how we got the New Deal. Something like that coming out of actions like this would be great, but my ideal system of change is more based on mutual aid and setting up dual power to allow people alternatives to replace corporations or weak government programs. But if a violent revolution does happen, it still doesn’t make sense to blame the people being oppressed and not the corporations doing the oppressing.
Imagine if someone was living in a dictatorship. The dictator was passing laws and policies leading to thousands dying yearly. They were embezzling funds from the country and stealing money from citizens, putting them in debt and leading to all the consequences that would entail. They increased the prices of essential goods like medicine in order to skim off the top. They never directly killed anyone, all of the pain and suffering and death they caused was due to policies that technically seperated them from the outcome, being enforced by courts, banks, police, hospitals, and prisons. And they also never broke any laws. Sure people died, or were forced into debt causing them to lose their homes, but all of that was allowed since they helped make the laws.
You’ve heard stories of other distant countries which don’t have these problems, but your country spends a considerable amount of time and money to convince you that those other governments are worse or impossible. Even so, the people tried voting this dictator out, but they rigged the elections so that no matter the outcome they still kept power. Some tried leaving, but all the neighbouring countries have the same type of government, so it was futile.
If in this situation someone kills the dictator very few people would believe that the assassin should be in jail. They didn’t kill someone because they were violent or dangerous, they did so out of desperation and a desire for improvement. This assassin won’t be a threat to any other citizen, only to other dictators doing the same thing. Why imprison someone who was fighting for a better future?
It’s crazy how many articles I’ve seen that just casually imply or outright say he did it.
“Candidate for elective public office in the state of Missouri” could be read either as can’t be a candidate on the ballot in Missouri or can’t be a candidate for a state position. It depends on if it means [candidate for public office] in Missouri or candidate for [public office in Missouri].
I don’t like how laws are always written very formally like that, I feel like English (or any language tbh) is able to be misinterpreted easily enough as is, and the stilted way it’s used in legal speak just leads to questions and misunderstandings like this. I’d much rather they be written as plainly as is possible and in ways that attempted to remove ambiguity instead of add it, though a lot of the time that’s the point I imagine lol.
Saying the crime was “broadly condemned” in the same article about the flood of money and support he’s received, with a large section of said article being about the praise given online, is an interesting way to frame things.
With Mangione’s action having the “capability to inspire a variety of extremists and grievance-driven malicious actors to violence,” the NYPD encouraged companies to increase precautions and security for executives.
Isn’t this straight up saying that Mangione is the assassin? Obviously innocent until proven guilty has always been bullshit, but where’s the bare minimum “alleged” at?
I’ve always found that so stupid yeah. “Cop killing” is always painted as this ultimate evil and so much worse than killing a regular person, especially in all the copaganda shows. But theoretically the whole reason cops have so much legal leeway and can use so much force and whatnot is because they’re taking on a risk by putting themselves in the line of duty (even though you’re actually more likely to die as a pizza delivery driver).