Realistically yes, he did murder. However he is not a criminal in my eye. The CEO was responsible for more deaths that were preventable.
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
31 points (97.0% liked)
Asklemmy
50844 readers
859 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
he seems pretty blatantly innocent to me. as to whether he'll be found guilty of anything, idk, but i really doubt he'll be able to get a fair trial in this country, so, probably.
I still find it so hard to believe a person at a McDonald's in a different state was able to ID him with the information publicly out there at the time. Putting on my conspiracy cap, I have to imagine that some sort of tracking of him was done that the feds don't want people to know about, or it was something that may be ruled unconstitutional and risk the case against him. If a random person calls in the tip, then there is reasonable suspicion on the local PD part, which would result in questioning and a search.
some sort of tracking of him was done that the feds don't want people to know about
That "tracking" is all the work they did to find a suitable fake perp. If they had any real evidence and Luigi did do it, it would've been admitted almost immediately. They have very little to lose.
it was something that may be ruled unconstitutional and risk the case against him
And besides, if that were true and Luigi truly did it, don't you think the current SCOTUS would use this great stroke of luck as a way of undoing some "dangerous" precedent?
the circumstances of his arrest were indeed kinda weird, but the luigi was framed argument doesn't make much sense to me. they would certainly choose someone more leftist to blame, right?
and with all the cameras and tracking and stuff going on right now, i can't see someone just easily vanishing from the authorities somewhere like ny.
It doesn’t matter. Once the legal circus ends, he’ll be executed anyway. The rich want him gone and they don’t have to follow the same rules the rest of us do.
they would punish anyone for even daring to try shit like this.
Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually right. So obviously Bryan Johnson was killed by Charlie Kirk
Well...
CK did want guns readily accessible. CK did say gun violence deaths were a sacrifice he was willing to make.
Given the fact that Luigi might be pinned for the crime, it's equaly likely that CK truly has had a larger share of responsibility in the killing at hand.
I'm skeptical. They couldn't find the shooter. Then they found a bag that looked like his, filled with monopoly money (no weapon). Then somebody at a McDonald's calls because Luigi kinda looks like the guy. Luigi decides to hang out and eat his shitty fast food at a leisurely pace. Cops show up and supposedly find the weapon on him.
I think it's more likely that they found the weapon with the bag, but opted to keep that quiet so they could plant it on whoever they grabbed. If Luigi is the shooter, and he still had the gun when he left NY, then why the fuck wouldn't he have tossed it into a random river along the way? Wasn't it a "ghost gun" that he could easily dispose of and not have traced back to him? Wasn't that the point of it? Isn't that why it would've made sense to leave it with the bag?
The job of the jury is to either find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or let him go free. I have reasonable doubt. I'm not sure what evidence they're gonna reveal that will convince me, but I'm also not gonna be selected for that jury. I just don't believe in ruining the entire life of somebody whose only provable crime was that he enjoyed McDonald's in Altoona.
It’s also crucial to point out that the chain of custody of “his backpack” was utterly fucked - the cop in question apparently started searching the bag at the McD’s, then just chucked it in her car, drove back to the station, and “continued the search there”. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Combine this with how DESPERATELY they tried to portray him as a super dangerous criminal, as well as how some of the surveillance footage of him is like… kinda obviously not him, and I’m extremely suspicious that he was just a guy who fit the description and they pinned it on him.
But also, even if he actually did it, if I were on the jury, I’d vote to acquit.
From the motion filed yesterday by Luigi's lawyers, it seems like this is the avenue they're taking showing reasonable doubt about the events surrounding the search of his backpack.
At 9:54 a.m., Patrolman Detwiler walked out of the McDonald’s to discuss Mr. Mangione’s identification with another officer. During this conversation and without any explanation, Patrolman Detwiler covered his body-worn camera with his hand to prevent the camera from recording twenty seconds of his conversation.
At 9:58 a.m., several officers started searching through Mr. Mangione’s jacket and pockets and searched him again. At the same time, Patrolwoman Christy Wasser and Patrolman Fox began searching through the backpack that law enforcement had placed on a table out of Mr. Mangione’s reach more than 17 minutes earlier.
Wouldn't the jury take it at face value that the gun was found on him? The other pieces you mentioned are speculation.
It's the defence's job to argue that chain of custody was broken and that the evidence is sketchy at best and sow doubt in its validity. The gun was found in his bag, after the initial search, after the cop had brought the bag to the police station. Not on his person at the time of arrest. There's definitely reasonable doubt there. That's a significant piece of evidence that they may be able to paint as unreliable.
Think he's a patsy
Too much piggy incompetence
I would say that there's enough doubt about the situation that if I were on the jury, I don't think I could in good conscience find him guilty.
That being said, if the actual trial brought out really good evidence, we'll see how it goes, but from what I've seen on the news? No.
Probably and yes. From what I have seen there's too much incriminating evidence for it to all be faked without assuming a level of competence from those involved that is very improbable.
This
Don't get me wrong, ethically this situation becomes very complex, but let's not kid ourselves: the evidence is unfortunately very strong. In fact this is one of the easier cases for the prosecution to try imo.
To prove intent under the statute of Murder 2 in NY they have:
- a weapon him
- matching shell casings
- video evidence
- cellphone data linking him to a route away from the scene
Cause of death is self-evident.
There is no legal justification applicable here (self defense, ...)
There's also a chance this will get a terrorism enhancement. Supporting evidence would be the targeted nature, the casings and manifesto.
He can go for an insanity plea or extreme emotional disturbance, however this usually goes to the punishment phase and not the trial phase, making this almost irrelevant for the conviction.
The one thing he has going for him is jury nullification. This is legally dubious and usually can and should not be argued, for very legitimate reasons; however the jury can make their decision basically without justification and therefore this is very plausible. The probability is a different question which is hard to answer.
I do not like murder, but I sympathize a lot with him, however especially because of that I also have to keep it realistic and accept that legally the case against him is pretty strong.
TL;DR there's strong evidence against him, and if there's no jury nullification he will most likely be convicted.
What I believe doesn't matter.
You know you can just not participate. No reason to type out a whole comment you just don't have to comment at all
Believing that my belief doesn't matter is no more or less valid than believing that he either did or did not do it.