Summary
Luigi Mangione, charged with the December 2024 murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, released his first public statement through a new website launched by his defense team.
He expressed gratitude for widespread support and acknowledged the letters he has received. The website provides case updates and a fundraiser, which has raised over $400,000.
Mangione has gained a following among those frustrated with the U.S. healthcare system. A poll found 41% of voters under 30 viewed the assassination as acceptable.
His next court date is Feb. 21.
I wonder what the options were. I have really complicated feelings about this, ones I could not possibly boil down to simply acceptable or unacceptable. All I can say is that I do not feel bad about the CEO, and I think Mangione is overcharged because the powerful want to make an example of him, a warning to anyone else considering the same.
At the same time, there is a cost to murdering someone. And sometimes, you are okay paying it. Maybe you feel justified, maybe you do not. Maybe a lot of people think you are. But there is still a cost. The lesson to the powerful is simple: never make taking your life worth the price.
My thoughts: Completely and utterly acceptable without hesitation and the only nuance here is that it’s a shame it didn’t become a trend. Not that I’d condone violence. I clearly don’t, I condemn the violence these rich fucks inflict upon society
If we had a justice system (one that actually uh, delivered justice), then letting the courts deal with the CEO(s) would be the correct thing to do. We absolutely don’t have such honorable courts and have little other recourse except this.
Luigi’s only crime was denying Brian Thompson due process. His crime was the same as that of a police officer that illegally searches someone’s car. Morally, that’s the level of offense of what Luigi did.
In a just world, Brian Thompson would have been charged, tried, convicted, and hanged for the thousands of people he killed. Make no mistake, he was a murderer. If there is a Hell below, he is burning there now. The number of people he killed make Osama Bin Ladin’s numbers look like amateur hour. Brian Thompson, in any justice system that endorses the death penalty, absolutely deserved to die. Luigi’s main crime was denying Thompson his day in court and the ability to face his accuser. But, then again, it’s not like we gave Osama his day in court either. We shot that like a dog and dumped his body in the ocean, and no one batted an eye. We all celebrated it, and no one wept for him being denied a fair trial. Osama never got his due process and day in court.
I did… Not so much for him personally, but for the number of high ranking CIA and other officials that might have been exposed along the way…
I understand it. You’re in good company. I just can’t be so cavalier about it. If everyone is running around playing Batman, it won’t only be criminals who suffer.
It’s only the extremely wealthy that can kill with impunity in our legal system. If someone shoots a relative of mine, I don’t need to go hunt them down and take care of them myself. For that type of crime, the justice system will try to hold them to account. It is only the crimes of the wealthy and powerful that are not punished by the law. Kill one person with a knife? Life in prison. Kill tens thousand with a pen? You’re a job creator.
I am not worried about a mass campaign of bloody violence unleashed upon the entire population. The kinds of grievances ordinary people have against one another can already be handled in the criminal and civil courts. It is only the crimes of murderers like Thompson that go unpunished. They are the only ones at risk in such a campaign.
To you, the evil is Thompson. To someone else, it’s Biden. Or Obama. Yeah we can just go full French Revolution and murder every single one of them, but that’s not a world I want to live in.
Sure, but conservatives are by n’ large, spineless cowards.
be the change, my friend
I agree somewhat, that ‘an eye for an eye’ is just awful. Violence begets violence. However, as the CEO was single-handedly responsible for the deaths of a whole bunch of people, the only way to stop him from doing more harm was to rid the world of him. There’s a line, and he crossed it. Society, and our justice system, would never have a trial for him, and would never sentence him for his crimes. Luigi was the one to force him to face judgement for his crimes against humanity, and as such I fully believe he should be set free as a result.
It’s kinda like Trump and Elon in my eyes. These two have done immeasurable harm and our justice system will never hold them accountable. To allow them to live is to allow them to continue perpetuating their crimes. Now, I’m not saying by any means that I would be the one to ‘do the deed’ as it were, but I sure as hell would look the other way if someone else did.
You make a thoughtful argument. If you haven’t already, I suggest reading up on jury nullification to add even more depth to the situation.
Murder is wrong, but it doesn’t have to be an endless cycle of violence if the jury agrees that the situation leading up to it was unjust to begin with.
And that is maybe an ideal outcome. Sometimes the right and necessary thing isn’t the legal thing. If you make that decision on your own, better hope to fuck most people agree. And, if they do, that’s the point of the fucking jury. You done good.
What about batman? If the joker didn’t kill his parents he wouldn’t have become the bat and how many murders and crimes has he prevented?
Yeah. I get it. I agree. My comment above is better than approve/disapprove but my feelings probably could extend to a manifesto level. Particularly given the low bar Mangione set for length. It’s certainly the case that the system is designed to make some people above the law. And when those people do bad things, your only recourse is to change the system (which could take decades and resources you simply don’t have) or go outside the system.
I guess I’m saying, I think Mangione has to pay a price for what he did—certainly not his life based on similar crimes, but I think it was a based decision.
Shaggy defense:
It most likely was him. And the prosecution likely has solid evidence
It’s just they likely didn’t get that evidence thru legal means so it won’t be admissible.
Like, at first they said a fast food worker recognized him, then she said she didn’t. She said someone walked up to her. Told her it looked like the shooter that has a big reward, and left
That 100% smells like law enforcement needing a legal way to say he was found when they 100% knew it was him and where he was.
So you attack the evidence they can share with a jury. Which isn’t great.
You attack all the shitty things the cops did, like tazering him till he pissed his pants and then releasing a cell phone pic to taint the jury pool.
His family is loaded as fuck, they’re gonna be able to afford good lawyers, it’s very likely he’s not found guilty
I would be okay with that. He is entitled to a vigorous defense, and if it goes the way of OJ, so be it.
Not only is his family wealthy, but his defense attorney in NY was a prosecutor for years and knows all their tricks.
Why though? By attaching an inherent moral cost to opposing the status quo you raise the bar necessary for resistance, which only benefits the powerful.
I didn’t read it as being necessarily a moral cost; rather, simply acknowledging that there is a cost of some kind, and that a particular person might find that cost worth paying.
I don’t think this raises the bar on resistance. It just clarifies where the bar actually is.
Exactly. If murdering someone costs my life, all the time I would otherwise have with my wife and kids, what history might think of me… that’s a big fucking cost. It shouldn’t be hard to make killing someone not worth that.
And yet…