In December, Luigi Mangione was arrested for shooting health insurance executive Brian Thompson. Last week, Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, announced that she was seeking the death penalty. It’s a highly unusual announcement, since Mangione hasn’t even been indicted yet on a federal level. (He has been indicted in Manhattan.) By intervening in this high-profile case, the Trump administration has made clear that it believes that CEOs are especially important people whose deaths need to be swiftly and mercilessly avenged.

  • yarr@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    I mean, it’s somewhat defensible, right? He did kill someone, so isn’t it symmetric if he gets killed? You can obviously make an argument against this but isn’t the tone of the article written to make it seem like this is just laughable, when it’s really not?

    I’m sick of these hyperbolic headlines just to capture clicks.

    • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      No. You are fundamentally incorrect in that HE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY FOR KILLING ANYONE AT ALL AT THIS TIME. You, talking “past” the conclusion as if it is foregone–just like the fascists are, are part of the problem.

      I’m sick of dipshits like YOU skipping over due process.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      The state killing its own citizens is never morally defensible.

      It’s even more egregious when political influence tries to exert pressure on the legal process in an effort to prejudice that verdict.

      • yarr@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        The state killing its own citizens is never morally defensible.

        A citizen killing another citizen is never morally defensible, and yet, here we are.

        • rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          A citizen killing another citizen is never morally defensible

          That’s just plain not true. There are situations that are not just morally defensible, but legally justifiable.

          For example: If an active shooter (a citizen) is killing people (or threatening to kill people), any given citizen is morally and legally justified with taking the shooter’s life to preserve the lives of others.

          See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

    • Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      You’re calling him guilty. He hasn’t even been tried yet. You’ve let these hyperbolic headlines make up your mind for you and convince you of a verdict. That’s exactly what Bondi and this article is trying to do, think for you. Forget the click. You’ve already given them what they want.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Did he?

      I’m completely serious, I have legitimate doubts about if Luigi is the adjuster. Everything about the arrest and (apparently illegally) collected evidence is extremely skechy.

      After almost a week, the guy who escaped NYC cleanly (while leaving a backpack full of monopoly money in central park and signed bullet casings at the scene) is carrying around a signed confession and the murder weapon at McDonald’s?

      There’s literally no other evidence than what they allegedly found on his person. The guy doesn’t look that much like the person/people in the videos, the way they found him (an old man reporting to a cashier that a person with only their eyes visible looked like the shooter from the security cams) is sketchy as hell, and the evidence is straight up out of a police wet dream about the perfect arrest

      This guy deserves a trial, like everyone does. The state apparently has no case against him at this point too

      So why does every conversation start with assuming he did it?

      • yarr@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        I don’t assume he did it. I assume the conversation is phrased as “if he is found guilty, does he deserve death?”. If the state is unable to convince a jury he did it, he should be let free, just like every other case.

        • Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          He did kill someone

          I don’t assume he did it

          You posted both of these. One isn’t true. Did you change your mind between your original post and your second?

        • Baguette@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          If he is found guilty does not mean he is guilty. That’s the problem with the death penalty. You can release someone if future evidence disproves the conviction. You can’t bring someone back to life if you give them the death penalty.

    • tmyakal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      The issue is that he’s only been indicted in New York, and New York abolished the death penalty more than twenty years ago.

      The Feds would need to press their own charges if they wanted to pursue the death penalty, which they have not done yet. That’s the laughable part: they’re trying to dictate sentencing before they pressed charges, gathered evidence, or secured a conviction. And the only way to get a death sentence is by unanimous jury vote during sentencing, which, let’s be honest, is going to be very difficult to get rid Luigi.