This story seems to have faded in the wake of events ad nauseam. We are all aware of Senor Luigi. However, most folks can’t recall the full name of the guy that allegedly Luigi gunned down. Mission accomplished.
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2025
643 points (98.1% liked)
Explain Like I'm Five
17673 readers
3 users here now
Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
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
Source? It sounds like a conspiracy theory based on nothing
What indicates that would be the case? Who would be the murderer?
There was no murderer. He died of natural causes
After all, shootings are just a natural part of life.
What’s up with the misinformation and low effort trolls regarding this topic?
It’s satire based on the types of things the rich and powerful say to get away with stuff on a regular basis. The guy he allegedly killed had allegedly killed thousands through the policies he intentionally put in place, that were defended with similar language.
Thanks
I believe not helping/providing service to people in need of help is a lot less worse than killing people directly
The guy was probably a massive dick but glorifying his death and the killer is wild
Defending a mass murderer who did it for profit is wilder
Nah. They're the same type to poison us all while laughing on the way to the bank. Fuck em
Oh yea fuck em by all means, I just think comparing what they did to murder is fine
If all greedy people were dead, there wouldn’t remain a lot of people on earth
I’m sure you knew someone at some point that could have done it
Would the world be better without them? Certainly. Is killing them okay? I find it excessive
Laws are certainly required to stop this behavior
No there are certain individuals in life who we are far better off without. Normalize killing exceptionally evil people
~~certain individuals~~ many individuals
It’s evil but it’s all legal. Can’t kill them, too authoritarian. They should be in jail instead
No I don't think we should waste resources feeding such people just kill them lol
Well look at it this way, the guy that got shot indirectly killed thousands and made a lot more peoples lives miserable through needless suffering and financial ruin, the guy who shot him killed one, in an attempt to stop the indirect killing. The first reaction of the company the guy that got shot worked for was to allow compensation for medical claims more easily ("rectified" since, but a bunch of people got essential help early in) therefore the shooter saved a lot more people than he killed. So why would anyone not glorify the killing as it was a net win.
Because it wasn’t his role, and he still is a murderer
If the situation was the same, but the killer didn’t know the person he killed did all that, would you believe the same? Does intent really change anything? Else, some crimes could go unpunished
And "indirectly" can be stretched far. Employer not paying enough, lawmakers enabling this, food makers putting dangerous additives in food
Should we also kill hotel managers that put expensive rooms, so homeless or poor people can’t buy them, have to sleep outside, and could die from it?
Same for flat and house owners. Putting an expensive rent, therefore lowering the money of the person living inside, and not allowing them to afford proper medical care would be considered indirectly killing, and the owner should be killed?
It has huge implications, and we all have a role in it
The one who shot is still a murderer, yes. I don't know if it was Mr. Mangione, I have not reviewed the court file and only know what I read in the media, which is a bit hit or miss. I know that the shooter resembled Mr. Mangione and that Mr. Mangione has been arrested, and that police reports some evidence found, that is all.
The act certainly was murder, an intentional premeditated killing. One could argue that it was justified as the actions of the one who was killed led to a lot of death and suffering. While it was not the assigned role of the murderer to execute this person, it can be argued that the ones who's job it is to protect the public from such as the person who got shot, (notice that I refuse to call him a victim, he was not) remained passive and did not fulfill their task, this includes the justice department, police investigators and policy makers. By all accounts the person who got shot was a leading figure in an organization that extorted money from both the state and the public. In any other country the would be considered a criminal organization and prosecuted as such. It can be argued that the killer, whoever he might be, took it upon himself to take an action necessary to protect society, at the risk of his own life, safety and prosperity, If you look at the arguments that serious gun rights activists have advanced for keeping the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the actions of this killer checks nearly all of the boxes. Since in the US the policy makers and judicial system is openly bought by wealthy large corporations to such a degree that it surprises me they don't wear the names of their sponsors on their suits, it really surprises me that what happened in this case does not happen constantly all over the place.
Your strawman argument about hotel owners does not really hold water, as we don't suddenly have a condition that requires us to stay in a luxury hotel, which is not the same for hospitals, medication of other medical care.
I know it's anecdotal but I have an different points in my life required medical services, if I had not been able to get those services, I would not be alive today. I have never had a desperate life threatening situation that could only be solves by a stay in a very expensive hotel.
However you do have a point. There are murders, like these, that can easily find a moral justification. The problem with this, is indeed where you draw the line. Who is bad enough that we should kill them, and who is not. We could start killing the really bad ones, but where do we draw the line? Who gets a pass?
The person who gets a bunch of people killed for his annual bonus seems easy. However does the drunk driver who endangers a lot of other people on or even beside the road get a pass or a bullet? What about the person who we think corrupts the morals of our children? You can easily end up in a system where anyone can be killed on any grounds real or imagined. It reminds me of the situation in revolutionary China and France, where anyone could get lynched by a mob or convicted by a hasty court for being counterrevolutionary, having sympathies for the old nobles, etc.
What is clear from this case and the reaction of the public is that the way money for healthcare is handled in the US is atrocious. The governments in the US spend more money per citizen than any other nation and the costs for healthcare for the average American are spectacularly higher than in any other nation. The quality of the healthcare provided is not so exceptional that this high cost is warranted, the high cost seems entirely due to the for profit organizations that govern the care and the insurance who priorities their major share holders over the actual service provided.
I don't think people who work to keep this system around and profit of it need to be shot. They need to be fired, prosecuted and forced to return all the money that they embezzled over the decades. The companies need to be dissolved and their funds used to provide free healthcare for all. The US can not keep supporting this parasitic system.
You think that not helping someone up who is clinging onto the edge of a cliff, about to fall and die, is not as bad as pushing them off?
Sure, its not my fault that they are holding on, about to fall. I didn't put them in that situation. But here i am, fully able to save them, nobody else around to do it instead of me. Do you think that i am less guilty of killing them if i refuse to help them?
Heck, they are even paying me money every month to ensure i dont fall off cliffs. They will even have to pay some of the money it costs me to pull them up from the edge.
Think about what you are saying mate... thats fucking ridiculous.
You created a medicine that can save sick people. Are you forced to sell it to sick people? If you ask for a lot of money, way more than it cost you to make it, is it killing them?
I would say it’s shitty, but you don’t owe people anything.
Now yea, not covering medical expenses for people in life threatening situations is really bad, but doing it when they’ll be okay and have to pay is less evil.
And yea, about the cliff, I believe not helping is not the same as killing someone. You didn’t put them in this situation, and acting could affect you negatively. (But they would suffer a lot more from you not acting)
America needs social healthcare by the government, not private companies
I dont think you should be forced to sell it. But it does defeat the purpose of making a new medicine. Like who is it for, if not the general public? But in terms of costs, that's not a fair argument because the US pays significantly more for the majority of drugs due to lack of government regulation and insurance companies' negotiating prices.
I dont think i can agree about your assessment of the cliff problem. I accept that you are not to blame for the situation, but given that you are now the only person who can help them, does that not create an obligation for you to act? If you then choose not to help, you are condemning them to death.
The judge passes the sentence but does not swing the axe. Is he less culpable than the executioner?
Would you also argue that since the judge passed the sentence, that the executioner is not also reaponsible for the murder, despite carrying out the sentence?
I think there are distinct parallels here.
Insurance companies who deny healthcare for arbitrary reasons should be held accountable for that. And i personally believe that even the workforce should be held to some account. I know jobs are hard to come by, but your own moral compass must be faulty if you opt to work for a company whose sole purpose seems to be harming people who need help.
Agree with your last point. Private for-profit companies should have no place in healthcare.
I believe they are accountable, but shouldn’t be punished by death obviously
Ah, to be clear, i am not saying the workforce deserves the death sentence. Absolutely not. But i do think that ceos of companies that consistently make decisions tbat harm and cause the death of millions of people deserve a harsh form of punishment. And whilst i wouldn't personally say that it should be death, i also dont have a problem with someone else believing and acting upon that belief. I would have more reservations on the type of punishment, but i dont think a more pragmatic approach is necessarily the wrong approach.
I haven't come across that. Do you have examples?