UnitedHealth CEO shot (2 Viewers)

[SWJJ]

I also take it further and consider my afterlife/karma/heaven, not just the here and now.

I am also thinking about Luigi's mother. I still dunno if that manifesto where he goes through his mother's health issues is legit or not; but if it is, is she really jazzed that he's allegedly done this on her behalf and also in the process aired her health issues? Again, what a guy.

Also, the murder trial? Won't be putting the "healthcare" industry on trial.

I can PROMISE you a good defense attorney will absolutely put the healthcare industry at the crux of the trial. They won't be named as a plaintiff or a defendant, but they will be a focal point of the defense. It's gonna be how you make the jury sympathetic to his cause.

Unless he takes a plea deal of some kind.

 

[SWJJ]

Ok I am definitely leaning towards forking nuts

Luigi Mangione came from privilege. Then his spine gave out, he went off the grid, and he got a gun.

Handwritten notes, classmates, and social media posts reveal how Luigi Mangione went from Ivy League student to murder suspect.

www.yahoo.com

This article give a bit of a timeline. The only insurance claims found were Blue Cross...nothing in his writings or claims involving United Health. Furthermore, he stated that his 2023 surgery went better than expected and he was free of pain illustrated by the trip he took to Asia earlier this year. There appears to be no issue with medical debt or insurance claims....just complaints about doctors and the medical profession in general.

It seems like only recently did his back issues become debilitating and the surgery he had for it took care of it by his own admission.

WHOA, This article says he suffered from Lymes disease too. That's kinda significant, because it causes nerve inflammation (Pain like from his back issues) and neurological disorders. People have been misdiagnosed with a wide variety of mental illnesses that have turned out to be Lymes Disease:

The Blurred Line Between Lyme Disease and Mental Illness

The psychological symptoms of Lyme Disease can sometimes mimic mental disorders, which can lead to misdiagnosis.

www.discovermagazine.com

 

[SWJJ]

Study Shows Lyme Causes Severe Mental Health Problems

Lyme disease patients who received a hospital diagnosis had a 28 percent higher rate of mental disorders and were twice as likely to have attempted suicide.

www.lymedisease.org

Can microdoses of psychedelics effectively treat neuro-Lyme?

According to Dr. Daniel Kinderlehrer, microdosing psilocybin holds the potential to help Lyme patients suffering from various mental health issues.

www.lymedisease.org

Unraveling the mystery of Lyme disease

Research shows the oft-misdiagnosed tick-borne disease can lead to health problems such as fatigue, muscle aches, and memory difficulties that can erode a person’s quality of life and lead to mental health issues.

www.apa.org

 

[Dago]

WHOA, This article says he suffered from Lymes disease too. That's kinda significant, because it causes nerve inflammation (Pain like from his back issues) and neurological disorders. People have been misdiagnosed with a wide variety of mental illnesses that have turned out to be Lymes Disease:

The Blurred Line Between Lyme Disease and Mental Illness

The psychological symptoms of Lyme Disease can sometimes mimic mental disorders, which can lead to misdiagnosis.

www.discovermagazine.com

Good catch on that

 

[superchuck500]

I can PROMISE you a good defense attorney will absolutely put the healthcare industry at the crux of the trail. They won't be named as a plaintiff or a defendant, but they will be a focal point of the defense. It's gonna be how you make the jury sympathetic to his cause.

Unless he takes a plea deal of some kind.

I don't think that's how it will go down - trials are not wide-open shows to compete for the sympathy of the jury. There are legal elements of the charges and legal elements of the defenses and the trial will only involve evidence as to those elements. And there are pre-trial motions (called motions in-limine) where the judge will rule on what the scope of the evidence will be and what evidence can be introduced to the jury.

It's possible that the defense will be able to raise some aspect of his state of mind (perhaps in arguing murder 2 instead of murder 1) that may touch on his feelings about the healthcare industry but there's really no aspect of the murder case that relates to the healthcare industry. The victim didn't personally do anything to the suspect - so it's not a case where a history between the victim and the suspect is relevant to the suspect's motivation and acts as a mitigating factor. There may be openings here and there to get to it (most likely his own testimony if he takes the stand) but there's just no basis for it to be the focus of the defense. The state is going to seek to preclude that line of presentation to the jury and I think the judge will agree. Of course, it's also just there - the jurors will most likely know about it. If they want to apply some sort of Robin Hood mitigation, they will be able to.

But you know, people with mental illness get obsessive to the point of murder - Mark David Chapman grew so fixated on John Lennon and his comment that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus that he decided he had to kill Lennon for retribution. We don't really know the fully history on Luigi Mangione, but it's quite possible that he grew similarly obsessive about Thompson. Is the basis for the obsessive behavior that led to the murder of a human being that had no interaction with the killer really relevant? Should a jury consider whether John Lennon was a bad person because of what he said about Jesus - and that mitigated Chapman's culpability? It is different simply because more people can relate to the direct harm one can feel when dealing with the healthcare industry?

 

[sfidc3]

I thought that we all agreed that gun deaths were ok after nothing happened to the people who stood around and waited while the kids in Uvalde were gunned down.

We did nothing. We don't care. If we did, that would have been the line in anybody's sand.

Naw, we agreed way before that.....Sandy Hook.....and some d-bag judge in TX just gave Alex Jones a break. If there was anyone on earth who deserves that type of karma? I can't think of anyone more deserving than Jones....

 

[First Time Poster]

This situation and the spectrum of reactions to it are similar, for me, to when a riot happens. When there is a riot, inevitably, people fall in two positions, "for" the riot or "against" the riot. Now, I know that is a really simple reduction of what can be a nuanced topic, but ultimately, from my perspective, those are the sides with varying degrees on both.

For the riot normally can be summed up in 3 beliefs:

"I hate to see the violence but I understand why it is happening."
"I understand the violence and I'm not mad about it."
"Burn that mother down, this is what it has come to."

Against the riot:

"I understand why it is happening, but violence isn't helping."
"I hear their pain but the violence makes it worse and doesn't solve anything."
"They are criminals and should be dealt with as such."

It's my personal belief that where you fall in reacting to these situations, riots or this murder, is probably influenced by the amount of privilege you hold and your proximity to that privilege and the amount of privilege that exists in your bubble. For me, I have mostly found myself falling on the "for the riot" spectrum and that is admittedly greatly influenced by my experience of being a black American. And honestly, that experience has radicalized to me to hold all 3 of those beliefs at one time or another.

I won't drop the MLK quote about riots because that feels stale but I've always seen riots as a symptom to a larger, much worse disease. And, personally, I can never allow my feelings towards the symptom outpace my feelings towards the disease. I remember when my mom went through her first bout of breast cancer and all of the doctors encouraged us, as the family, to keep her spirits up. That her mental disposition was a key factor in recovery. Yet, there were days where she was really depressed and didn't get out of bed. And my dad, early on, was really hard on her. "You have to get out of bed and move around. Fight this thing. Don't give up." And I had to have a hard conversation with him and remind him that her being depressed wasn't the enemy, the cancer and the chemo recovery was. Being depressed was just a symptom of that and we needed to have empathy and compassion for that. Railing on her depression would only further push her there.

As a black man, I don't want anarchy in our streets. Anarchy will disproportionately affect marginalized communities more heavily. My life holds less value in our society so unchecked violence puts me more at risk. Yet, for me, this murder feels more like the symptom than the disease. And as distasteful as someone being gunned down in the back is to me, as wrong as it is, I can't let my feelings towards that outpace my feelings towards a more disgusting and distasteful reality. People are being killed, in far greater numbers, by this healthcare system for profit. We tiptoe around that or talk about it in very tepid terms (negligent, unethical) but lives are being ruined by denials of something that, in my opinion, is a right (healthcare).

So, in those terms I can't condemn the "burn the mother down" people, or in this case, the ones championing this murder. My proximity to the marginalization gives me insight to the depth of the depravity that they are reacting to and in this moment I feel they deserve more of my empathy, understanding and compassion than my judgement. Because I will always be "for the riot."

My thoughts.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

t.

I don't think that's how it will go down - trials are not wide-open shows to compete for the sympathy of the jury.

Yes juries are composed of entirely rational, dispassionate people who can't be moved by emotion or sympathy for the defendant

 

[SWJJ]

I'm no lawyer, but I watcher a lot of lawyer TV shows so obviously that makes me an expert

I think it will be a big part of the trial, because it's part of his motivation. While I'm not a lawyer, I do understand that the prosecutors aim to establish motive.

 

[superchuck500]

t.

Yes juries are composed of entirely rational, dispassionate people who can't be moved by emotion or sympathy for the defendant

That’s not what I said or even suggested.

Yes, of course jurors have emotion and sympathy. But the purpose of a trial is not to compete to win that sympathy. Lawyers may aim to do that and it may naturally be part of a trial, but they can’t simply say “I’m gonna do X and Y to win sympathy from the jury.” They don’t have liberty to put on any show they choose - it is limited by the elements at issue and how the judge rules on the limits of what can be presented.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

I'm no lawyer, but I watcher a lot of lawyer TV shows so obviously that makes me an expert

I think it will be a big part of the trial, because it's part of his motivation. While I'm not a lawyer, I do understand that the prosecutors aim to establish motive.

Motive is irrelevant. Intent is all that matters. TV has screwed that up for decades.

Defense will certainly try to bring in as much extraneous information as possible though

 

[superchuck500]

I'm no lawyer, but I watcher a lot of lawyer TV shows so obviously that makes me an expert

I think it will be a big part of the trial, because it's part of his motivation. While I'm not a lawyer, I do understand that the prosecutors aim to establish motive.

It just depends on the elements of the charges and the defenses but typically motive is not an element of a murder charge - that’s more for the investigation and probable cause to arrest than it is for the conviction. Apparently Luigi has been charged with second degree murder. In NY, a defendant charged with second degree murder can assert that he “acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse.”

That might potentially set up a basis for him to put forward that case - but I’m not sure, just because someone is disturbed enough to kill doesn’t mean it’s reasonable. It will depend on what the case law says about that defense. I strongly suspect that the state is going to want to avoid the issue altogether and will attempt to limit that evidence.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

 

[bigdaddysaints]

and not to mention the court of public opinion. the case will be covered with high profile. will be talked out a lot while its going on and that is where the dark side of the insurance racket will come in. it will be talked about heavily. a lot of people just don't wanna hear about it, but the amount coverage it will get will be hard ignore. it will get people talking and the mor ethey talk the more the bad light is shed on the insurance (and hopsitals) failures that people typically would't care to hear because it isn't affecting them directly... I hope it causes the insurace companies to be dragged through the mud way more than it is now. which is what i think the shooter's main goal was to do.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[bigdaddysaints]

It just depends on the elements of the charges and the defenses but typically motive is not an element of a murder charge - that’s more for the investigation and probable cause to arrest than it is for the conviction. Apparently Luigi has been charged with second degree murder. In NY, a defendant charged with second degree murder can assert that he “acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse.”

That might potentially set up a basis for him to put forward that case - but I’m not sure, just because someone is disturbed enough to kill doesn’t mean it’s reasonable. It will depend on what the case law says about that defense. I strongly suspect that the state is going to want to avoid the issue altogether and will attempt to limit that evidence.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

plus, as far as i can tell, at this point, the lawyer is stating his client isn't the shooter. so you can't really argue the 'fault' of the system if you are arguing he didn't do it.