- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.ca
You must log in or register to comment.
Its fucked up the news is acting like Sandy Hook wasn’t a decade ago. All this guy is accused of is shooting a CEO.
Maybe if it happens enough, we can normalize billionaire CEO murder as well.
CEO or not, billionaires gotta go
Ya you don’t have to be a CEO to hold massive investments across the board
Sandy hook was instead normalized, and happens multiple times over across the nation annually. Pew pew ‘muricuh
The problem here is the frequency of the crimes. If CEOs were being shot on a weekly to bi weekly average in groups of 3 or more, this crime would become one of the many others the American media wash over.
That sounds like a challenge
We’ve come a long way with fun trends. Planking, owling, cat breading, an now CEOing, what a time to live in
They got Luigi’d!
Indeed, the powerful would be left on their own like they left our children on their own. Only unlike our kids, they could do something about it…
The billionaires would be totally “scrooged”, better share the wealth assholes. A poor man, isn’t a murdered man.
cackle
Well, I can dream…
pretty sure the affect on stonks would make congress address it differently
This is the disheartening part that highlights the class divide. Shootings of common folk barely make the news where I’m from. How much have taxpayers paid for this so far? Justice clearly isn’t being applied equally.
I don’t really think it’s a conspiracy of sorts, it’s just news media being news media. They want the most clicks, doesn’t matter much what for or what the consequences are. it’s the same reason why trump yet again got so extremely much news coverage. Had news organizations all decided not to waste their time with trump, we wouldn’t have his presidency now. In reality though, everyone and their mother had to talk about trump, it was trump before and after and now we have yet again to deal with this fuck face for a other 4 years. I know that news media aren’t the only ones to blame, theyight now even be the worst, but he’ll do they have a large share of the blame for all the shit that had been happening lately, and it’s all about the clicks, it’s all about the money
Like you mentioned, it’s the biased part of the business which wrestles with journalistic integrity.
ie. Return on Investment, special access or limited access compared to your competitors depending how your piece is written.
It’s not entirely surprising when journalistic integrity is at odds with the finances that fund said journalism, but it most certainly can be disappointing.
I think governments should fund multiple independent foundations that can fund news organizations and journalists. This way, news can focus on just that: actual news. If the organizations are 100% independent, then so can be the news organizations. It might need some tweaking here and there but anything is better than what we have now
Totally agree. Unfortunately it’ll still be attacked as “government funded media” like NPR gets even though from my understanding what you’re describing sounds more international. And I’m sure there will always be pressure from countries demanding veto power or they’ll cut their funding similar to the issues the UN has, but we can’t let searching for the best solution keep us from implementing one that’s better than what we have now.
This makes me believe it really wasn’t him. If he actually wrote a manifesto, he’d have declared himself guilty, taken credit, and done a speech about how he was now a martyr for the cause.
If he’s sticking to his story, then I believe him. They couldn’t find the real killer so they just went with whoever “fit the description”, as per usual.
Innocent until proven guilty. It’s the government’s job to prove him guilty. He doesn’t have to help them.
If Innocent until proven guilty, why the fuck do we lock people up to await their court date?
Because it makes money, and a splash of long standing racism
You can plug this answer verbatim into almost any “why does the US do this bad thing?”
Wouldn’t be surprised if he was in New York on some legitimate business, they caught him on camera at a Starbucks near the murder, blasted his image all over the news and social media, and just waited for someone to call.
Then when they got the call, they grabbed a backpack with “evidence” and claimed he had it on him when they arrested him.
Did anyone believe that he was wondering around for 3 days with a bag that was holding the murder weapon, fake IDs, and a hand written manifesto? He ditched another bag, and escaped on an e-bike. Why would he then run around for three days with the rest of the evidence.
Either he is the dumbest man alive, or the police really wanted to just go with the first guy who fit the description knowing that they’ll look like heroes to their corporate overlords, and that if another guy bites the dust they can just say it was a copycat.
Of course it was him. That doesn’t mean from a legal perspective he is best served by pleading guilty. Pleading not guilty also means he’ll get a jury trial and his lawyers can introduce evidence that embarrasses private health insurance providers, or proves his state of mind, or otherwise casts doubt.
I tend to think it’s because they charged him as a terrorist. I assume it’s a different law in which case he might be able to prove it’s not terrorism.
That doesn’t explain why he keeps mogging the camera, or what he yells to the journalist in that one video.
I don’t know if it’s him, but I think whoever it is, is just following their lawyer’s advice, not trying to be a martyr
The thing is they’ve actually made a mistake charging him with terrorism. It is surprisingly narrowly defined so even without a sympathetic jury he might get a not guilty verdict for it and it weakens the whole case against him. But most of all by including it they’ve made all his intentions and politics central issues to the case. All the evidence and his statements about this will have to go into the public record. If he had pleaded guilty that wouldn’t happen nor would there be a chance for jury annulment. Pleading not guilty is simply the smarter option to take.
A jury could just find him not guilty on that one count but guilty on all others. Not seeing how it weakens any other part of the case.
I think it’s along the lines of ‘if the prosecution presented an accusation that is obviously false, how well standing is the rest of the case’
If I were in the jury, a case that is part bullshit would definitely compel me to think again about how well the investigation was done
Hope this is true
That’s the one thing that tells me he’s not just going to walk, he’s going to walk on fucking water where he’ll be able to look down to see the Prosecution drowning
I mean, if he can away with it while not undermining his original intentions, why not do it?
There’s various ways he could go unpunished that would prevent a retrial and so he’d then be set up to be influential in some kind of healthcare reform.
Heavy on the cope though.
Personally, I am sad that is all it takes for you to believe something. Businesses, media, governments, and more are trying to make people believe things (unrelated to luigi) that aren’t true. You need to raise the bar, not lower it. Maybe you want to believe he didn’t do it, but I hope you don’t actually believe that based on so little information.
There’s too much that doesn’t add up, it’s just too convenient that he had the gun and manifesto on him.
Its obviously NOT him, footage from the murder shows thin eyebrows, white skin (like Irish white) and way smaller dude than Luigi… I still cant understand that people still believe Luigi could be the killer…
That’s now how it works: In the US “justice”-system there are only extremely limited cases where it makes sense to plead guilty, because it pretty much just means that you skip the trial and get sentenced directly. Especially if you want Jury-nullification, you have to plead non-guilty so that the Jury can find you innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What overwhelming evidence in this case? The evidence made public definitely seems to imply he’s not the one who shot the CEO.
Why would a person take such a carefully planned route through the city to Central Park, change clothes and dump their bag, only to keep their gun, fake IDs and hand written manifesto/confession on their person three days later while eating lunch at a restaurant? If Luigi was the shooter and looking to take credit as what has been released of the manifesto implies, why hide out for three days instead of publicly turning themselves in after informing the press so it’s recorded and likely televised?
The terrorism “charges” are laughably flimsy and clearly contrived. Trumped Up, you might say.
The terrorism charge is absolutely the dumbest thing they did. Now it’s on them to prove it was more than just murder.
Maybe the lack of quick access to life saving resources, procedures and experts immediately after the shooting, aka ‘healthcare’, was what actually killed him?
He is so hot
Someone commented that they’re REALLY trying to take a bad photo of him. Literally anything they can play off as malicious, unhinged, or even “thuggish,” but every single time the man pulls a barney stinson. They tried putting him in a suicide smock (which I strongly question, even in psychiatry I’ve only had to use one a handful of times in almost ten years). They even tazed him until he pissed himself and he’s standing tall with his chin up. The man cannot take a bad photo and while I hate to say it’s true it probably will actuality give him an advantage in the court proceedings.
I wonder if he had any acting or modeling experience.
In addition to a long stream of journalists waiting for the suspect to appear, members of the public - almost all of them young women - were in court, some of whom told CBS, the BBC’s US partner, that they were there to show their support.
(emphasis mine)
They’re really trying to say that “Oh he’s handsome, that’s why people like him.”
No it’s not his looks, it’s the fact that he lit the fires of rebellion just be being accused of this act of self-defense.
Ain’t hurtin’ his case though. Imagine the incels:
Classrooms are for pricks, boardrooms get chicks.
Classrooms get you shade, boardrooms get you laid.
Classrooms are for pussies, boardrooms get pussy.
Can confirm. He didn’t do nuthin
And he looked fabulous doing so
Just leaving this link here for no particular reason:
I keep wondering why the shooter had a different color backpack than the one Mangione was caught with. The jacket and hoodie seemed like they were potentially different, but the nose and eyebrows matched.
Holy shit. Do his lawyers believe he can beat these charges?? What’s going on
The evidence against him appears to be that the guy who murdered the CEO might have similar eyebrows to Luigi Mangione, but it’s hard to tell from the security video. There’s nothing else that puts him at the scene. They can say it’s him all they want, but they’ll have to reveal some better evidence if they want us to believe it.
Didn’t he have the burner gun still on him? Honestly asking, I know a lot of disinformation tends to go out early, and I haven’t followed up on verified facts.
Thats what they said, which is extraordinarily suspicious. The weapon is to be disposed of, literally everyone knows this. And to carry it to another state for days?
They said he had a gun, but a) I’m not convinced of the accuracy of techniques like striation matching which are used to determine whether a bullet was fired by a specific gun, and b) it could have been planted by the police, even if it was the murder weapon (they might have found it in NYC, lied about not finding it, and then planted it on their preferred suspect to construct an evidentiary link where none existed).
The whole gun planting take seems like conspiratory nonsense to me. And I’ll trust the forensic science on the striations.
the famously rigorous and well tested field of forensic “science”.
Rofl. OK. So forensics is fake science now, too? Because it could implicate someone you’d rather see go free?
How is this kind of mental gymnastics any different than the covid deniers.
It’s famously subjective. My highschool taught it and showed how you could push any narrative as long as the evidence was gray. It’s almost always gray in these situations.
a lot of forensics is legitimately junk science that’s been disproven by much better science
tacking the word “science” on to something doesn’t make it scientific. much of it is based off of wild assumptions and “common sense” that was never actually studied or confirmed through testing. its about as scientific as alchemy.
I am all for science but yeah, forensics shouldn’t be considered a science. It has some scientific elements. And a lot of bullshit.
It does seem weird to me that he would still have all the evidence on him in Middle-of-Nowhere PA, a couple days later, but I mostly just talk about that as a way to point out this is all still allegations
Eh. He could have intended to use it again, or didn’t find an opportune time to ditch/destroy it. Or maybe he’s not the master People’s assassin that everyone wants him to be.
I don’t have a source, but I’ve been hearing for a while now that there is a lot of pseudo science in matching barrels to bullets.
Polygraphs ended up being pretty much complete bullshit and roadside drug tests are real bad about false positives.
IDK, it’s basically a tool mark. I’ve looked at those under microscopes. They vary a whole lot when things are running well. I would think you could only really match something if there was a distinctive abnormal feature.
If you’re going to court for any criminal charge, you plead not guilty. The DA is going to have laid the strongest charges they believe they can get a conviction on, but there is always risk in going to trial. The prosecution generally cares a lot more about getting a conviction than what charge that conviction is on, or what penalty that conviction carries.
So. You’re caught dead to rights, charged with a crime. If you plead guilty, you are also waiving your right to trial, and taking whatever conviction and (probably) penalty the prosecution advises the judge.
On the other hand, if you plead not guilty, now you have the opportunity to accept a plea deal from the prosecution - changing your plea to guilty - which would include what charge and what penalty. Depending on what you’ve done, this can save you a lot of money, reduce or eliminate probation or incarceration time, or take the death penalty off the table.
You can always change your plea from not guilty to guilty. You can’t do that the other way around. Whenever you see headlines about “So-and-so pleads not guilty,” that doesn’t (in most cases) mean they intend to beat the charge. It’s just what you do.
Another huge, important, but subtle distinction to make here is that the trial is not to decide whether you did the thing. It’s not always a mystery who perpetrated an alleged crime. Even if you pull out a gun and shoot somebody on the 50-yard-line at the Super Bowl, and 300 million people see it, they can’t just take you off to prison for murder. They have to give you a trial to determine whether you violated the law.
There’s a thing called an affirmative defense, as in, “yes, I did the thing, but it wasn’t a crime, because…” If you can, say, convince a jury that you’re a time traveler, the ref was going to make a bad call in the 4th quarter that cost your team the Super Bowl win, and that justified shooting him, well, then it wasn’t a crime. That’s what a jury is ultimately charged with deciding.
This is not to say that Magione’s attorney plans to present an affirmative defense, just that there are a number of good reasons to plead not guilty, even if it’s 100% certain you did the thing.
(Edit: Typo.)
Judicial system working like this (including the previous comments about pleas) is something I would’ve probably doubted if I read it in a fiction, but here we are
Thank you for your comment
Guilty or not, always plead not guilty at the start. You’ll often have a chance to accept a better plea deal before trial if you want. Or you can go to trial.
Unless you are looking forward to serving time (free food, warm bed, access to healthcare).
free food, warm bed, access to healthcare. I’d kill for that right now.
You can kill for that
A Healthcare CEO if you wouldn’t mind
Plead not guilty, then wait for jury nullification. This is the way.
NYC residents:
If you are picked for a jury, I know it can be annoying and take time out of your busy life. But honestly, it is the last purely democratic area of our life. The jury has the power to ensure the laws are fairly and equally applied.
Remember that your job as jury is to not only find the facts of the case but also to make sure that the charges fit the crime.
There is one more job you have: is the law correct in this specific crime?
Judges won’t tell you this. Prosecutors will make you leave this choice outside the courthouse. But you have it.
The responsibility of the jury is protected so that you cannot be held accountable or even questioned (in an official setting anyway) as to why you voted the way you did. You have the power to view the facts, know that the defendant is guilty, but vote to acquit because you believe the law is wrong in his case.
Don’t let prosecutors or the judge trick you.
All in Minecraft, of course.
Yeah, the absurd terrorism charges are probably possible to beat, so no reason to plead guilty to them. They are probably not questioning the murder charges, but that’s beside the point.
I’m sure they’re contesting all of it. There isn’t a downside and a conviction depends on the state having all it’s ducks in a row, which they do fuck up sometimes.
There is also even a real possibility that he’s innocent and they’re trying to pin it on him.
What’s the downside exactly? Pleading guilty doesn’t really come with any upside especially if they’re putting the death penalty on the table.
Speaking to CBS, the BBC’s US partner, on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said that the online rhetoric has been “extraordinarily alarming”.
“It speaks of what is really bubbling here in this country,” he said. “And unfortunately we see that manifested in violence, the domestic violent extremism that exists.”
Did he care about the domestic violent extremism before it started to affect the wealthy? What about the domestic terrorists who go after the queer community, POC communities, women, doctors providing reproductive healthcare…the list goes on.
Violent extremism isn’t new here. It’s just that this one affects people with power.
You’ve got far right militias blowing up America’s electric grid infrastructure, threatening politicians, having standoffs on federal property, and patrolling hurricane impacted areas trying to capture federal employees that are there helping, and I’ve never heard those people referred to as terrorists.
Because they’re only making the poor unhappy.
They’re not only making the poor unhappy, the chaos they sow disproportionally affects the working class, the majority of the population. The more fragmented the majority, the better for the leech ruling-class minority. Chaos provides opportunity for those with power to consolidate further power - financial, social, and political.
Those people are terrorists!
Did he care about the domestic violent extremism before it started to affect the wealthy?
No, not at all. They’re only mad because for the first time, the elite feel mortal.
You ever heard of the “less dead”, well, Brian Thompson is “more dead”
And for those who haven’t “Less Dead” is a saying used to describe people who’s deaths the police don’t look into because they’re “not important enough”
Many serial killers get away with their crimes simply because they’re smart enough to only kill those who would be deemed “less dead”
If someone would say this shit on the news in real time, I might actually watch it. But it’s all so scripted and tame I can’t bring myself to care.
Mayorkas said white nationalists are the biggest threat to domestic security. He was impeached by Nazis. He doesn’t repeat bullshit about immigration. Not necessarily a standard asshole that fails upwards.
deleted by creator
Yeah, the rules of society say they won and they think all the losers beneath them just have to accept it. The social order and status quo are great for them. That something would violate it is extremely disturbing to them and provokes an emotional response.
I think that’s why they seem to be so clumsily overreacting to the murder. Maybe it’s working in segments of the population I don’t see, but everyone in my social network is either outright happy it happened or at least get why it happened. Some will have perfunctory “murder is wrong” statements, but the thrust is about what a corrupt and evil business health insurance is. That’s all the way up to the boomers and crosses political boundaries.
Things like the perp walk, excessive charges, and corporate comedy pretending everyone just thinks Mangione is a bad guy just highlights the us vs. them of class war rather than trying to somehow quell or redirect the bubbling unrest. I think they’re doing this because their peers and masters are emotionally demanding a visible and recognizable show of power and obedience. If they knew what was good for them they’d be triple-timing it to make some token effort to reform the system, but even a token effort in response to the killing of a rich person would infuriate them, so clumsy performances it is.
When my usually “civil” boomer dad said he gets why he did it and wasn’t outright condemning him, I knew the ruling class wasn’t in control of the narrative as per usual this time.
My 75 year old Canadian aunt laughed when I showed her this
Everyone hates these people except the people who want to be these people.
I’m actually rather impressed that so many people get what’s actually happening here. I don’t know if it’ll ultimately amount to anything, but it shows that it is actually possible to get through to people sometimes. It’s a shame that no avenue but violence has been left to us to do so.
I think most people have known about the situation for years. Apathy isn’t a result of disinterest or lack of care, it’s a result of lack of agency and lack of hope. Now both of those are slightly more on the table.
By making a big show of this arrest, they’ve ensured that what they don’t want to happen will happen.
They will share out of fear.
They’re worried if they give that we’ll go all the way and demand total equality and they’ll have to be plebs with real jobs. Boo fucking hoo assholes I’d make you do my job but you’re not good enough. Also you’ve hurt my patients enough already.
It’s going to happen.
I know two things.
- Luigi didn’t do it
- What happened was a Christmas miracle, the rich will only share if it’s profitable or if they’re scared.
If we learn something from “A Christmas Carol”, it’s that a rich person must go through at least 3 traumatic events before they repent.
Spot on
What about the domestic terrorist corporations who assassinate whistleblowers? Or are there so many hands involved there that it’s not worth the trouble to dismantle those terrorist organizations?
Just as long as the shareholders stay happy and the line goes up.
“Nah, they cool.” - these assholes, almost certainly
What about them? They just got their picks elected as the next president and dipshit-in-chief.
His lawyer made a great point about how law enforcement and the media threw “alleged” out the window and just insisted he did it…
What’s disappointing is it’s apparently working because when I do see and “allegedly” thrown in, people are down voting it like it’s a conspiracy.
People always want to act like propaganda can’t effect them, but the whole country immediately accepted that he was guilty because of a tiny change in reporting from the norm.
But especially with the wrinkle that someone brought it up to the McD’s worker and then she snitched…
I think the cop’s have a reason they’re sure, it’s just they got that reason illegally thru means we’re not supposed to know they have. Which explains a lot of shit.
I’ve been noticing this on NPR, but they’re weirdly cagey about it. Kind of like if a shitty editor went over the script and added “allegedly” to where it needs to, but only in places that are phrased in a specific way (not saying they’re doing that).
Would you say they’re allegedly doing that?
A lot of people are asking this question
They realize by treating him like a special case, they’re basically letting him walk.
Yeah the only reason I think he did it is I was already pretty sure they would catch him. When I first heard about it I knew there were probably already hundreds of FBI agents just looking for the one guy. The mcdonalds story is hinky as shit but I almost guarantee they got the right guy. They just don’t want to have to be honest about whatever weird backdoor they’ve got installed on all of our technology a) because they don’t want to give up their strategy but also b) its probably super illegal and not even remotely admissible in court.
Yea we got the guy! And he had the same kind of weapon on him so we know how he did it! And he had the same fake id! And a hand written manifesto! He just takes all that stuff to breakfast at mcdonalds. Totally normal thing to do
Is he even claiming they got the wrong guy? I feel like if he had a different story or an alibi, we’d have heard it by now. He did it.
That said, if I’m on the jury (hypothetically. I can’t be.) I’m voting not guilty. I wouldn’t convict any of the soldiers who went after Osama. Same thing. You’ve got an enemy who has killed thousands of Americans and is conventionally untouchable. So someone took him out. That’s a hero, not a criminal.
Im not going to pretend to know legal strategy or that the media is conveying what hes saying. He has entered a “not guilty” plea, so you could say that hes saying it wasnt him. Other than that, ive heard no actual statement from him or his attorney on the matter
Edit for clarity
I’m thinking they either violated the 4th Amendment so hard that any conviction would be impossible, or this isn’t their guy.
They want to idolize him, it’s hard to idolize the falsely accused.
Yet I’d say the fact that they’re just saying “He did it!” at the first guy who fit the description… Is even more proof that the system is fucked and highlights the very thing Brian was rightfully slain over.
I’m not so sure the cops are actually sure, there are enough questions around how all this shook out, none of it really adds up well, so either they’re hiding the evidence that links this shit together, or they’re railroading someone who looks like the guy who flashed a smile (who we don’t even know for sure is the shooter) so they can look good by closing the case fast and making an example of him.
Frankly I still question if he’s a lookalike scapegoat so the police can save face and try to put it to bed. May also explain the odd “planted” evidence that is being mentioned.
Eh, if he was a real random fall guy, they wouldn’t have picked a rich handsome guy in his mid 20s.
Like, it’s almost most definitely him…
But fuck the cops, fuck the wealthy, and fuck the healthcare industry. They need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt and all those groups are habitual liars.
So if I was on the jury, they’d need a lot of evidence and need to be able to explain how they got it. They used some illegal spy tech shit because it’s a rich victim? Then all evidence gained after gets thrown out.
they wouldn’t have picked a rich handsome guy in his mid 20s.
Why not? Luigi Mangione is closer to pleb status than billionaire status. He’s not in the class that the police protect, why would they have any qualms about framing him?
Yeah, and NYPD wouldn’t have gone so far out of state so quickly. If I was trying to grab a fall guy as fast as possible, I would have picked up the nearest criminal I knew that looked vaguely like him and might have had motive.
wouldn’t have gone so far out of state so quickly
Nah, that part I get, they knew shooter came in on a bus, so they grab someone on a bus.
The gun, silencer, and manifesto could have been from the central park bag.
It’d just be crazy they wrapped the one guy on a Greyhound bus with generational wealth.
His best defense is pushing that angle, the “but how did you find me?”
Like, this part has barely been mentioned:
Authorities said a customer in the restaurant thought he matched the description of the suspect in Thompson’s killing and notified an employee, who called 911.
https://www.newsweek.com/mcdonalds-worker-luigi-mangione-private-security-1999217
To me it’s more likely that customer was a fed or law enforcement, they already knew he was there, they just needed a legal way to act on that. There’s been a big push to put all the blame on the fast food worker, but I have a feeling stuff like that would have kept happening and may not even have been the first person told.
It’s no “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”, but you could build a legal defense on this that results in all charges thrown out.
No doubt all kinds of face recognition NSA spy shit without a warrant
They don’t need facial recognition, there’s gait recognition that’s just as good.
However I don’t think that’s what it was because Luigi’s back issues would have introduced variations in gait that make it much harder.
It’s 2024 bro…
That’s all stuff we knew about 20 years ago, I think what they used is something we can’t even guess at. Once we find out it’ll sound like common sense like gait recognition and savvier criminals will account for it by doing things like wearing different sized shoes or even putting tacks in their shoes.
But until people know what’s being used, they can’t beat it reliably, which is why they do these parallel investigations to hide how they really do it (only applicable when one of the elites are victims).
There’s another case I have a strong suspicion about. Some “random guy at the bar” tipped off the FBI about a guy they’ve been watching for years. They claim they printed out the picture matching the name/description and the agent recognised him immediately as someone he had questioned once and snapped him up. Was one of those guys planning to blow shit up but I don’t get why they couldn’t get a fucking warrant for that.
I suspect the Ministry of Silly Walks will start receiving a lot of new grant requests soon if you’re correct about gait recognition being used in this case.
Wouldn’t shock me. Police always want things to be done in open and shut cases all of the time. Makes their job easier.
This conspiracy theory doesn’t make any sense to me. All the “real killer” would have to do would be to kill someone else and the entire deception would fail.
Or be happy they know they got away with it.
But the cops wouldn’t know that. Why would they take the gamble that their entire ruse could easily be undone? Again, it doesn’t make sense to me.
Cops: “That’s just a copycat/nutjob.”
Who looks like the guy in the original images?
I mean if we’re going to go all crazy conspiracy, maybe they gave Mangione super fast plastic surgery too?
Let’s hope there are a lot of “real killers” out there waiting for their chance.
“So Luigi has a copycat eh? This is why the people who idolize Mangione are the problem! Never forget Bob Thomas or whatever that fucker’s name was.”
A copycat who looks just like the person in the first images?
Again, this just doesn’t make sense to me.
He doesn’t though
Is this one of those “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes” situations?
I’m not the first to point out that the guy in the security camera footage isn’t even the same skintone as Luigi
I feel like people want it to be him because they want to know who did it, not because they’re angry but because they want someone to identify with.
Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy nut, the evidence against him is too convenient. I mean sure he probably did it, but who plans the murder of a high-profile target, escapes the initial manhunt, and then walks around carrying the murder weapon, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto basically confessing to it? And if you’re the type of person to write a manifesto and expect to be caught, why would you run away in the first place?
Yeah, the whole thing doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. He went through all that effort to not get caught in the first place, but then just kept the murder weapon, backpack, same outfit, and everything? Unless he wanted to get caught, but then why did he run at all?
Yeah, it doesn’t fit with me either. It’s like a professional did the killing and then they apprehended a clueless imbecile.
Because it’s planted and this aint the count
My money is on illegal surveillance from an alphabet agency
I mean last I counted he had like 200000 alibis so…
Luigi Mangione was with me December 3rd, 2024 through December 7th, 2024. He couldn’t possibly have been in New York since i don’t live there.
