Previously the reporting on this did not have a political angle and so it was removed from Politics and correctly directed to News.
The charges related to terrorism now give this a political angle.
“Luigi Mangione is accused of first-degree murder, in furtherance of terrorism; second-degree murder, one count of which is charged as killing as an act of terrorism; criminal possession of a weapon and other crimes.”
The terrorism statutes can be found here:
https://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/ny-penal-law-490-25-crime-of-terrorism.html
“The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”
So by saying terror, they admit that there is something to be fixed by policy of a government
Terror?
Come the fuck on, Feds. Absolutely fucking not. This sparked joy, not terror, in the populace. This was, to be quite frank, the exact opposite of terrorism.
It’s not the Feds, it’s the state of New York.
Well… guess the family won’t get life insurance now that it’s called a terrorist attack 🤣
“One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter”
New York Penal Law § 490.25, the crime of terrorism, is one of the most serious criminal offenses in New York State. The statute defines the crime of terrorism as any act that is committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion and that results in one or more of the following: (a) the commission of a specified offense, (b) the causing of a specified injury or death, © the causing of mass destruction or widespread contamination, or (d) the disruption of essential infrastructure.
Yup, and murder is one of the specified offenses under (a).
Note the OR between coerceing the public and coerceing government. He coerced the public by murdering on the street. Doesn’t have anything to do with the government.
Coercing the population to do something about the CEOs, coercing the government to do something about health policy.
No. In this case they are arguing that the intent was to frighten people on the street. They spoke about it during the press conference. The insurance companies, health policy, etc will not play a part. In fact, the judge will probably prohibit its mention in a murder trial. That’s a subject for you guys. Anyway, it has nothing to do with politics
Terrorism is, by definition, a political action. Charging him with terrorism makes it political.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
“Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1]”
There’s no question that the killing was ideological. I think where the charge has the potential to fall apart is “non-combatant”.
If you argue that the CEO pushing the rejection of insurance claims is causing death, does that make them a “non-combatant”? 🤔
Where it becomes a slippery slope is that this is the same excuse the “pro-life” movement uses for the targeted killing of abortion doctors, and they use the same tactics. Doxing, distributing hitlists, etc.
It pertains to a New York law above. The legal charge is defined.I would hope a judge would not consider an argument about what it is outside the parameters of what is written in the law.
Post bills every-fucking-where about Jury Nullification.
“The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”
So it’s fine if you use large sums of money but someone goes with the more democratic route of using a gun and suddenly it’s not cool
The real offense was being poor.
“The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”
I have no issue with the state correctly identifying this act as terrorism. I take great issue with the fact that this act is being defined as terrorism, while using a definition that clearly defines many things that get a pass as terrorism. Remember last Trump presidency, when his white house published an old-school violent videogames scare video to garner support for his policies while distracting from discussion on gun laws? An act committed with the intent to coerce a civilian population is terrorism.
And let’s be real, I picked a low-stakes, innoculous example just to make a point: the state does a LOT to terrorize it’s citizens. But when they do it, it’s “law and order.” When Luigi fights back in self defense? “Terrorism”.
The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion
No, see, that’s clearly false. The civilian population did not get intimidated or coerced by fuck and all, and the government wasn’t threatened.
So, nope. Not guilty.
I think what the state is trying to say is that only corporate executives are people.
The government is run by corporatism, so maybe? But as for the public, this is most solidarity we’ve seen from US citizens in a while. We weren’t the target, nor did we feel like we were. We were Spartacus.
For a moment, I thought “hmm. What if we all said ‘No, I shot Brian Thompson’” sort of like what happened in Spartacus, but then I remembered that all 6000 slaves or whatnot were executed
“The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”
These CEOs are quite literally trying to kill us for profit. This is class warfare, and they are the aggressor. They are not civilians, and the terror is not directed at the population or the government.
In fairness, I think you could argue the second half. But I would have to read the manifesto to see if he actualy intended that, or if it is just the rest of us who wish he had…
I tend to agree with that, the intent isn’t to make the general public afraid, it’s to coerce them into taking action.
New Yorkers and Pennsylvania residents need to show up to their jury duty summons and get your ass on a trail… You never know who’s trail you’ll end up on. Don’t say nullification during the interview!
If was considered a peer of Luigi Mangione I would be so fucking honored.
You want them to go hiking?
That’s
T-r-i-a-l
Thanks. I love trail mix.
You’re a good sport.
So I know you won’t be mad if I add “whose.” The apostrophe in “who’s” replaces the i of “who is.”
Meanwhile, the point you were making is perfect.
Oh jeez, I need all the help I can get. Thanks again. Follow me for more errors!
Storming the capital or shooting dozens of children are not terrorism, but shooting a CEO who murders thousands is. Got it.
They’re clearly trying to send a message to scare his supporters
New York law vs. Federal Law. ;)
Without a doubt, “;)” is the most passive aggressive emoticon in the history of the written language.
What’s the most directly aggressive one?
👁️👁️
“😜” or ;P
One person getting shot is not terrorism.
A lot of people consider murdering an abortion doctor to be terrorism. Or lynching an innocent black person… why would this be different?
Assassination in furtherance of an agenda…
A lot of very incontrovertible terrorism was in the form of a single very public murder. The difference was that it was against vulnerable groups and the murderers were rarely charged.
By what definition? It most certainly can be.
By the definition of a reasonable person and that’s the definition the prosecution is going to have to meet.
I think you’d have a hard time defending your statement if a bearded Muslim man shot the POTUS, which by the definition posted earlier, should not count as terrorism.
Terrorism to bring this to first-degree is very much a stretch in my eyes. The poor civilian CEO population are spooked by one person getting shot.
It makes it harder to prosecute, at least?
They aren’t dropping the second degree murder charge, so they don’t necessarily have to meet the higher bar that this sets.
That said, while they probably want to be able to paint him as a terrorist, that necessarily involves a more detailed look at what he was trying to accomplish, and that might just backfire on the prosecution. It only takes one sympathetic juror to block a guilty verdict.
That said, while they probably want to be able to paint him as a terrorist, that necessarily involves a more detailed look at what he was trying to accomplish, and that might just backfire on the prosecution. It only takes one sympathetic juror to block a guilty verdict.
This is a really good insight, thanks!
As happy as it made everyone with a brain: That was definitely the legal definition of terrorism (if he did it).
From a quick google, criminal possession of a weapon is because NY has laws against ghost guns (3d printed firearms).
Don’t get the logic on both first and second degree for blapping the same guy though.
Eh. I really don’t consider insurance CEOs to be human. If you so thoroughly abandon your own humanity, why should we even legally consider you a human being anymore? As such, I would argue that it’s no more possible to murder an insurance CEO than it’s possible to murder a cardboard box. Hell, at least a cardboard box does some minimal good for the world. Frankly, Thompson’s doing more good for the world as worm food than he ever did as a CEO. I consider the worms feeding on Thompson to be more human than Thompson himself. Does Thompson technically have a family? Sure, but so do the worms.
Throw the book, see what sticks. First degree in NY is very narrow IIRC.
