this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
2089 points (99.3% liked)
Luigi Mangione
2060 readers
214 users here now
A community to post anything related to Luigi Mangione.
This is not a pro-murder community. Please respect Lemmy.world ToS.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I just point blank don't believe he did it.
Let's say I kill a high profile individual on the street you know, hypothetically.
Do you seriously believe that I'd be casually hanging out in public at a McDonalds with a manifesto and loaded gun in my bag? I'm pretty sure that my first port of call if I was assassinating someone would be "Burn all the evidence in an alleyway somewhere, get new clothes on, and lay low for pretty much the rest of my fucking life, possibly in Mexico"
Not only that, Luigi's fake ID which he did not use in an illegal way any known time was not linked with the shooting, just linked to a NY hostel.
Also Luigi was not marandised, hes also charged in NY, Pennsylvania and federally at the same time, double (triple?) jeopardy
And his bags were searched without him being able to see the search, which puts into question the search, but they didn't find any gun or manifesto at that time. 6 hours later, they did find a gun and a manifesto after being contact with NYPD. And the paper work for this evidence is also not properly filed. In addition the inventory of his belonging was also not descriptive.
He was arrested by a rookie cop that didn't get help from a supervisor to avoid mistakes either, lots of adrenaline in a huge profile case like this. He said he knew right away that this was the killer, and he had only the propaganda NYPD had posted to the media. And NYPD didn't know who the killer was
I dont know how long it took, but it took well over 100 days before the defence was able to even see the evidence against him. A huge red flag that the prosecution dont think the evidence holds water. And when they did get it, it was terabytes of data, and Luigi wasn't allowed to use a computer without hus lawyer present, blocking him from seeing what weaksauce they have against him
The aid to the prosecutor also listened in, they say it was an accident to a whole telephone conversation with Luigi and the lawyer, how is this even possible. The prosecutor rebuked him self from the case after they were caught doing this, so they do a new prosecutor
The feds even call for the death penalty before Luigi is even indited, let alone convinced.
I'm just very skeptical this is the shooter, why would they screw up everything so bad every step on puropuse like this. Its just a hail Mary that the judge who is married to a CEO will convict anyway
and you think my manifesto would start praising with how amazing the cops are and we need to thank them, and we should not rise up?
Luigi in the released CCTV photography is already wearing different clothes to the shooter. Not very different though.
Bit strange to change clothes and backpack but keep the same styling and colors.
That's the problem though. Everyone's playing "If I were him".
The thing is, we don't know what was going on his mind. Say he actually was the one who did it. Maybe he wanted to get caught. Maybe he assumed he was going to get caught within minutes, and didn't bother throwing away the evidence because he didn't think there was any point. Maybe he kept changing his mind about what he was going to do, and in the end that indecision caught up with him.
Assuming he's actually the one who shot the CEO, I already have trouble understanding his thinking. He shot a guy in cold blood who may have been scummy, but hadn't actually hurt Mangione or anybody he cared about, AFAIK. He didn't do it as part of a community. I know he's not a mass shooter, but shooting a stranger for ideological reasons is most similar to mass shooters or bombers. Most of the times people do that, they're egged on by a community. He apparently just did it on his own.
So yeah, I don't get it, but the fact I don't get it doesn't convince me it can't be true.
this sounds like lots of maybes that does covering, where there is talk of plenty of reasonable doubt. We are saying we are confused and there is reasonable doubt, sure you could be correct, but thats some mental gymnastics to get out of that reasonable doubt
I'm sorry it reads that way. What I'm trying to say is that you have to look at the whole picture.
"Let's say I kill a high profile individual on the street you know, hypothetically."
If you say that, you have to take into account what kind of person might do that. It's a person who is not thinking normally. It's something that people thinking normally might be tempted to do, but they wouldn't actually do it.
"Do you seriously believe that I'd be casually hanging out in public at a McDonalds with a manifesto and loaded gun in my bag?"
This is something that someone who's thinking normally wouldn't do. But, we've already established that someone who kills someone else on the street isn't thinking normally. You can't start from an assumption of normal thinking for someone who you've already hypothesized is a cold-blooded killer who killed a stranger on the street.
I would disagree, I would say it is normal to kill someone who is responsable for thousands of deaths, thousands of people dieing so you can make more money. It is only a collective cowardace, one that I have to admit also have. But I would argue within the history of humanity, and just normal human emotion, that that would be someone thinking normaly, you are killing a, truly stagering amount of people for, no real reason, someone has to stop you and there is no reason why that person should not be me.
Once agian i want to point out how truly insane it is that more of us do not do this regularly, how this is seen as a rare and shoking event and killing healthcare CEOs and other Billionares, who ammase their weath on mass exploitation is.
If it was normal, it wouldn't be newsworthy.
You have it because you're normal. He didn't, meaning he wasn't normal (he being whoever shot the CEO).
Insanity is an abnormal mental or behavioral state. By definition, if it's how everyone acts, then it's not insane. It's normal.
You can say that we ought to act differently, but that's not how people are wired. Normal people don't act that way.
In other words, it's abnormal. That's why we're paying attention.
That sounds like backwards logic - you're postulating guilt based on the lack of evidence of innocence (if I'm understanding your point correctly.
You're not. I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm just saying that it's silly to imply there's a conspiracy or something just because some of his alleged actions seem abnormal, when cherry-picking which of his actions you're looking at.
Mangione supposedly had chronic health issues that may have been the basis of hatred for the health insurance business - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/12/11/luigi-mangione-back-pain-healthcare-shooting/
I've heard that, but he doesn't seem like the kind of person who kills someone due to their medical issues. For that, I picture someone confined to a wheelchair, or forced to use crutches, or severely addicted to pain meds.
Though on the other hand I don't know of anyone who became murderous over being forced to use a wheelchair / crutches / pain meds either.
I do agree with your overall point where you'd prefer to be agnostic regarding this whole issue, but that's also exactly why I wouldn't go off into theorising either about what is required to make a man want to kill a healthcare insurance CEO, or what kind of a person Mangione "seems like".
Yeah, the real shooter is probably in the woods somewhere barely surviving off what they can find. At least, that’s more reasonable than doing a high profile assassination and going to McDonalds for a burger after (I know it was days later, it’s hyperbole).
...it's mushrooms. Which is just super.
I've said this a few times now, but it's entirely possible he's just not the criminal mastermind we want him to be.
I mean no one is saying mastermind, but he did get all the way out of the main search area, he would have been essentialy home free.
Also this is reasonable doubt, and saying "he isn't a criminal mastermind" is not enough to remove it, someone going "I likely would have done this" is a reasonable doubt.