645
DA says 40 UnitedHealthcare execs got bodyguards, and one dyed her hair after Luigi Mangione killed CEO Brian Thompson
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
645 points (96.8% liked)
News
29923 readers
4024 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is nothing here stating Mangione has been convicted of anything.
"after Luigi Mangione killed CEO Brian Thompson" is the problem - he allegedly killed that guy
"DA says..." This is not the author making that assessment, it's the DA. Naturally the DA is going to say he killed the guy, same as I do, or anyone making Luigi memes does.
There's no obligation for a reporter to insert "allegedly" where it was not stated.
It's apparently too hard to have proper journalism I guess.
"DA alleges...". There fixed it
And the DA is wrong for saying that, alongside the reporter for not correcting them.
You sound like the type of person Brandolini's Law is based on.
If you ever created, shared, or upvoted a Luigi meme, then you agree with the sentiment.
Do you have some evidence to suggest that they've created shared or upvoted such a meme?
Nope, I'm saying it's been prevalent on Lemmy and that everyone who created, shared or upvoted that content has absolutely no basis for going "Presumed innocent!"
If you think Luigi's a hero, you have no basis for saying he didn't shoot and kill thr guy.
You're making speculations about random commenters to justify speculations about Luigi
I'm addressing the hive mind who simultaneously believes Luigi is a hero but also somehow did not kill a guy.
Both of those statements cannot be true at the same time.
Lemmy loves Luigi and cannot stand the idea that he's anything but an avenging angel sent from heaven.
If you believe that, you can't also believe he didn't kill anyone.
This is different from the common phrase "he didn't do anything WRONG." Which recognizes that, yeah, he killed the guy, but it was justified.
Wrong, it's entirely possible for a person to make memes celebrating him as a symbol of resistance while also acknowledging the very real possibility that he's innocent
We can celebrate the ideal of a person willing to fight back while still defending the actual person who may or may not have been the person who did it.
"Luigi" is gestalt:
We hail as heroes those who fight against oppression even when, and often because, their fighting breaks 'the rules.'
If Luigi shot this CEO, then he deserves our respect as a hero: A person who has sacrificed to remove a serial killer who was above the law. If Luigi did not shoot this CEO, then he deserves our support as a victim of the above system.
Sharing memes and keeping him in the public zeitgeist supports both.
Imagine changing your perspective based on new evidence? That really couldn't be you.
I'm open if there is new evidence, so far I'm not seeing it.
We have photographic evidence, clearly showing his face, of Luigi in the area wearing the same clothing as did in the shooting video.
Then, on capture, they find the gun used in the shooting.
So, yeah, he plugged the guy. Criminal liability is a different question. Murder? Manslaughter? Justifiable homicide? That's where the court comes in.
You don't need a guilty verdict to say he killed the guy.
Whenever I read your posts I become a little dumber.
No, you have the cops word that those things are true and nothing else
No, we have video evidence and are fully capable of seeing things for ourselves.
Also lol @ "we" as if you aren't completely alone here in your absurd defense of the police narrative and the media presentation of the case, literally everyone here is telling you that you're wrong and carefully explaining why in detail, it's really just not plausible for a person to be this stubborn/stupid, pretty sure you're just a fucking cop
Your eyes did not and can not confirm the source of any of the video or the actual time or place of its recording, you're choosing to accept the police narrative at face value and you're choosing to enthusiastically present and defend it all as fact, which makes you either an incurable fucking moron or a lying sack of shit. Either way you should be ashamed and silent, in that order.
It's saying he murdered the CEO, when he has not been proven/convicted of doing so. How are you a moderator making decisions like that?
If nobody believes he killed the CEO then everyone needs to immediately retract all the Luigi memes.
It's clear he shot the guy, the only question is how justified it is.
It's clear he shot the guy because people make memes??
No, people make memes because it's clear he shot the guy.
I agree that "DA says..." is equal to "alleged," but you lost the thread with "it's clear he shot the guy."
There are two groups of people:
People who think Luigi's a criminal who needs to be imprisoned or executed.
People who think Lugi's a hero who was fully justified in his actions.
Both groups agree he killed the guy. There is no argument outside tin-foil-hattery that he didn't.
The only question remaining is if it's justified or not.
Mangione has not admitted to the act nor has he been convicted. He has a right to the presumption of innocence. The state must prove his guilt. Trial by public opinion in the media is not a replacement for a jury of his peers. That is an elementary democratic principle, not a conspiracy theory.
Of course he's not going to admit anything, he's not a dummy. But it should be obvious to anyone with 1/2 a brain he's the shooter, the only question is "was it justified?"
In that regard, he seems to be winning the battle for public opinion and has been even before he was ID'd.
I keep half expecting this moment at trial:
https://youtu.be/mCjBspxuUmU
It's really not...
You cant say for sure it's him in the video, and while cops say he had a bunch of evidence on him, they also say they didn't find that evidence till after the chain of custody was violated. Nothing in his backpack is admissible.
Like, this is America bro, corrupt cops isn't anything new. They lie all the time, you can't fault the majority of Americans for not caring what they say as a result.
It's not up to you or me to say what's admissable or not. The gun in the video is the gun in the backpack. If you want to argue the cops planted it, then you have to explain how they got it.
Occams Razor - Luigi failed to ditch the gun.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-shooting-suspect-thursday-hnk
"Marked shell casings from the assassination scene match the gun found on the suspect. His fingerprints match some key items investigators found nearby. And he was arrested this week – after going silent from his mom and friends for months – with a fake ID and a handwritten “claim of responsibility” referencing the crime site."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/28/us/luigi-mangione-evidence-illegal-search
It might be the gun.
It might even have been in the backpack and Luigi just had it on him.
But it doesn't matter, the cops pulled a Mark Furhman. They're not used to having to follow the law, so they fuck up high profile shit.
Nothing in the backpack will be admissable. And all the evidence was from the backpack.
Ideally. Fruit of the poison tree and all that.
You don't have a clue if they're the same gun, shut the fuck up clown
Shell casings from the crime scene match the gun found in the backpack. It's the same gun. See the cited article above.
If they planted the gun, shell casings wouldn't be too hard to plant either.
Innocent until some guy on Lemmy says otherwise?
Oh wait, no, it still has to be proven.
Unless you were present at the time, you've seen some videos. Perhaps it's not likely, but videos can be faked, more easily now than ever before.
Proof first.
Lemmy isn't a court of law, neither is the Internet. It's pretty much universally accepted he killed the guy, if it wasn't, we wouldn't have the hero worship.
What the court is going to decide is if he's justified or not.
Proceeds to cite general Internet opinion as proof of guilt.
Again, this isn't about "guilt". Guilt implies some level of wrongdoing, and the court is still out on that.
The question they will determine is "was he justified", not "did he do it."
The court is also going to need to decide if the cops planted the evidence he conveniently carried with him several days later.
I should add too... nothing in the headline is saying Luigi "murdered" anyone. The word is "killed" and that's not the crime.
The act of homicide on it's own isn't a crime. The circumstances will determine if it's murder, manslaughter, etc. etc.
You don't need a conviction to say someone killed someone else, that part is self evident.
Was it justified? Was it murder? That's what the courts will determine.