The sad thing is that I am sure they will pass the cost onto the customers.
They systematically made millions of people fear for their lives. I’m glad shared that for a moment.
what these execs do to the American public is more worth of a terrorism charge than anything mangione ever did.
Oof he isn’t convicted but the media isn’t saying “allegedly” in headlines for him. Shows how they’re trying to sway public opinion.
Defense has brought it up multiple times already, it’s biasing the jury pool
Was it supposed to be a direct quote from the DA? Even if so, it shouldn’t be in the headline.
Public opinion is already swayed. Luigi Mangione has become a symbol to a lot of people and as such the super-rich want to punish him.
I bet they are more scared of the symbol than they are of the thought that Mangione is innocent and the real shooter might still be free and plotting another hit.
The “real shooter” would only be one person, but a symbol has the power to create 10 or 100 more or to spark a violent rebellion and that they can’t let happen.
Innocent or not, it’s unfortunately Luigi Mangione they need punished in the most horrific and exemplar way possible.
I guess he’s not getting a fair trial, they’ll have to jury nullify the shit out of it.
When the public makes you a meme for assassination and substitutes your first name for the word “assassinate”, I’m going to give them a pass on dropping the “allegedly”.
If the public were swayable, they wouldn’t be talking about “luigiing” people.
after Luigi Mangione killed CEO Brian Thompson
Has he already been convicted?
Terrible headline, but I can only guess that “Business insider” would rather defend a corrupt CEO than the victim of insurance hell.
There’s no question the general public already believes he killed the guy, if people didn’t, we wouldn’t have all the Luigi memes and people using “Luigi” as a substitute for assassination.
I would contribute to a GoFundMe if he wanted to sue for libel.
The media is doing this intentionally
“Luigi Mangione killed CEO Brian Thompson”
Objection, baseless speculation.
This post either needs to be removed or retitled. Luigi is not convicted and this perpetuates a huge problem in the US of assigning guilt to people through public opinion.
There is nothing here stating Mangione has been convicted of anything.
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.
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.
The court is also going to need to decide if the cops planted the evidence he conveniently carried with him several days later.
Any conspiracy theory is going to do some heavy lifting explaining how the highly custom pistol in the video is not the same highly custom pistol found on Luigi.
Lemmy isn’t a court of law, neither is the Internet.
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.”
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:
-
It’s clear he shot the guy,
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.”
It’s not up to you or me to say what’s admissable or not
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.
It’s clear he shot the guy because people make memes??
No, people make memes because it’s clear he shot the guy.
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.
He was dead the moment he got caught. Nevermind guilty. I don’t care how many technicalities or strategies his lawyer might have. There’s no way in hell the powers that be will let him have anything other than being made a harsh example for all of us plebs.
This isn’t about him commiting the crime of murder. This about scaring us into submission so we don’t get any ideas. Even if he’s actually innocent because of they don’t catch the killer they can’t use it as an example, so they need someone.
He’s not walking. Get ready for the inevitable. Even if the word of the law is on his side they’ll pull something last moment. It’s really naive to think they’d ever allow themselves being made a joke by us.
If that’s terrorism then what do we call the death and pain caused by pursuit of profits?
If they want to have a discussion about labels, it’s not gonna go well in front of a jury.
At every step defense should be asking the jury:
If you had been killed, would this be happening? Why are lives valued differently
… what do we call the death and pain caused by pursuit of profits?
The term I’ve heard for this is social murder:
… an unnatural death that is believed to occur due to social, political, or economic oppression, instead of direct violence.
That’s a really long way to say Capitalism.
So how many of the execs said, “This job isn’t worth risking my life for” and quit? How many of them said, “Maybe we should examine how we do business and change.”? How many of them said, “My God. We’re killing people. I’m out.”?
Nah if literally murdering people for profit didn’t stop them then really nothing will. These people are sociopaths that only see the career ladder.
Exec: Hey Claude, are we killing people?
ClaudeAI: Yes.
Exec: Are you sure? I think were doing great things for them, i don’t see it as killing
ClaudeAI: Of course you aren’t, you’re doing great things!
deleted by creator
40x~$75$/hr = $3000/hr they’re willing to spend instead of giving you insurance you paid for
Apparently they did start approving more right after it. And now they are getting sued by blackrock, a majority shareholder, for hurting profits. As much as I dislike these CEOs, the system breeds them to be this way. And there will always be more to take thier place. But holding them accountable will also mean that doing the right thing becomes good for the shareholders.
Alls I’m saying is you’d probably save more money paying out claims over hiring full time security for 40 different executives who cant help but deny claims
Its that thing, you know? You caused a problem and instead of fixing that problem you fix the next problem.
The issue is for profit healthcare. Instead of making the choice which would remove the executives from the crosshair, they decide adding bodies between us and them is the best option. Id assume those people care about their lives not ending, and the cheapest way to do that is to provide coverage to the people paying for it. $3000/hr is not just a throwaway expense, and that was a rough estimate erring on the extremely low end of private security.
I was simply spelling out how much they’re willing to pay just for the privilege of denying healthcare to Americans. That’s your money (hypothetically.) They would rather spend that money on defense forces than do their fucking jobs. I understand they are being sued by blackrock, but blackrock isn’t the one creating a need for private security. Interesting choice is all I can say.
I think you underestimate how much the “save” from denying claims the way they do. Thier net income is about $2.25 million per hour. I don’t know where the $3000/hour came from, but that is a drop in the ocean to them
where the $3000/hour figure came from
I just pulled a number out of my ass lol reality is that they’re spending significantly more for this security, I just wanted to give an example of what it costs to have one security guard getting paid $75/hr (guesstimate hourly rate for mid level security) for each of these 40 executives.
Scale that as far as you want $3000/hr is just the bare minimum for something like this
I dont disagree with your point though. They could pay to send a monkey into the sun. Its not a matter of what they can afford; it’s about sending a message.
When you get to silly levels of wealth, it’s less about the money and more about power. You’re right that £3000/hr is an absurd amount to spend, and that suggests that they value the power they have within this inhumane system more than the monetary cost of private security.
Exactly, its more a flex than even an actual security measure. They’re making it clear: your life is worth less than this. “We will spend more than you make in a year to keep our executives safe from people, like you, who are sacrificed to keep us rich”
Don’t be giant greedy pieces of shit, you won’t need body guards.
#MakeBillionairesFearAgain.
If your job requires armed professionals and costumes,you shouldn’t be in business
That sounds like a “Them” problem and has no bearing on the case Mr. DA
Did they consider not being evil shitbags?
But the profits!!! Won’t anyone think about the profits!
So you’re saying that whoever Luigi is taking the wrap for is a job creator?
