They might as well charge him with fraud, forgery, money laundering, embezzlement, and jay-walking, too, while they're tossing names of random irrelevant crimes around.
Seems like a reasonable move for the prosecution. To defend against terrorism charges he'd need to admit to a non-political motive. I bet they'll get a plea deal for murder w/o terrorism.
I'm hoping for a big public trial, but I don't expect it because 'the man' doesn't want that. Mangione will negotiate a super lax plea deal that avoids a trial.
I am not a prosecutor obviously but I think there's danger here in overcharging a defendant that for a large part of the US at least has an understandable motive. There's some risk that this makes him look even more sympathetic.
Don't understand why people are taking offense. Whether you sympathize with the killing or not, killing someone because you believe what they do harms the society is a textbook case of political terrorism. If, say, someone kills a prime minister in Europe for their country's foreign policy, nobody will have any problem calling it an act of terrorism.
You may not condone it, but it is relatively easy to understand. No collateral damage, single victim -- people get flustered when there is attempted moral equivalence with the goto decaptitating standins of Al Q and Islamic State brigades and acts with indiscriminate collateral damage.
>nobody will have any problem calling it an act of terrorism
Perhaps, but this slightly different than saying "people will prefer to call it an act of terrorism". I'm pretty sure that, depending on degree to which the prime minister or leader is deemed "authoritarian", some people and some media outlets will prefer to call it an "assasination".
28 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 70.9 ms ] threadI know, surprising.
The govt has shown that they can legally do pretty much whatever they want with someone they deem a terrorist, 0 accountability
Like all those peeps in Guantanamo
More recently, Snowden showed us what the consequences of something like the patriot act are
It’s a very slippery slope
so, like, Luigi Mangione and Osama Bin Laden are on the same level now?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42413559
Also interesting how Trump says this is “a sickness” but turns around and is totally okay with folks like Kyle Rittenhouse.
Indeed this was caused by sickness. Spondylolisthesis was the cause of his back pain. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spondylolisthesis
I'm hoping for a big public trial, but I don't expect it because 'the man' doesn't want that. Mangione will negotiate a super lax plea deal that avoids a trial.
Like getting mad from untreated searing pain? https://www.medpagetoday.com/painmanagement/backpain/113435
>nobody will have any problem calling it an act of terrorism
Perhaps, but this slightly different than saying "people will prefer to call it an act of terrorism". I'm pretty sure that, depending on degree to which the prime minister or leader is deemed "authoritarian", some people and some media outlets will prefer to call it an "assasination".
Sure. And the law here also says that if someone kills a politician, they can be charged with terrorism
But the law doesn’t say anything about CEOs or other private citizens
Sure, charge the guy with all the murder counts you want, but terrorism is a big stretch
However, “never let a good crisis go to waste”. So the terrorism concept is going to get milked here for sure