Luigi Mangione Accepts Nearly $300,000 in Crowdfunded Donations for Legal Defense
Luigi Mangione Accepts Nearly $300,000 in Crowdfunded Donations for Legal Defense
Luigi Mangione accepted donations from 10,000 people to fund his legal defense after being accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
You're viewing a single thread.
Celebrating the murder of an unarmed man is not "uplifting". You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
You're right! But we're celebrating the murder of a serial killer
You kill one person its murder, kill 10s of thousand its a statistic.
Not a statistic, shareholder value.
That's literally a statistic.
He's kind of a stickler meseeks...
The person he killed was responsi6for many deaths. His big push as CEO was specifically to deny care to people with medical needs that were paying his company specifically so they would have medical care.
When legitimate means of justice are denied, people will eventually take matters into their own hands. And when millions of people support that vigilante justice, it means the law is failing. This whole incident should be seen as the canary going silent. Shit's about to get bad on the streets.
Legitimate means of justice are denied? You live in country with the rule of law, a constitution that dates back 240 years, regular changes of government during all that period. And as an aside, you're all but drowning in material abundance. Do you realize how fortunate and privileged you already are compared to most of the world's people? What is this utopia that you need in order to be able to agree with the simple proposition that it's wrong - always wrong - to kill unarmed defenseless people in the street?
If legitimate means were available, the man would have been serving a life sentence instead of being gunned down in the street. Or even better, prior CEOs being jailed would have scared them into not sentencing customers to death for profit.
Instead, the barbarism of unchecked capitalism lead us to a situation where someone getting murdered in cold blood is seen by millions as an act of heroism because we never see these monsters held to account for the harm they cause.
Luigi and the reaction to the assassination are symptoms of a failing system on the verge of becoming terminal, and more recent developments are not encouraging.
This murder victim, because let's not lose sight of what we're talking about, committed no crime, so of course he should not be serving a "life sentence". Unless it's you who personally writes the laws now - is that it? He was a part of a system. You too are part of that system. If what he did was legal, that's also your fault, as a citizen. And since we're talking about you, I'm absolutely certain that you personally have done something that had a pernicious second-order effect in society. Would you be happy for some random stranger to decide that, laws notwithstanding, you therefore merit murder? You are openly advocating for a world of vigilantism and lawlessness. In that world, the cost of your healthcare would be the least of your problems.
Are you Dora the Explorer on an acid trip?
I ask because you seem incapable of not licking Boots
I spit my coffee laughing at this lmao. Great burn comrade
You're conflating legality and morality. The fact that killing people in the way Thompson did it was not a crime is exactly the problem. We're already in a world of lawlessness for the elites. The Thompson killing was reminding them that what goes around comes around, and frankly we need more of it until they start making actual good-faith efforts to fix the society that they broke for all of us.
We elect the Bernie's and the AOC's to correct the bloodthirsty capitalists, they get sidelined by the status quo and fight hard for scraps. Our popular vote gets overridden by the Electoral College. The US Supreme Court, whom we don't elect and can't remove for blatant corruption, take away our rights and allow corporations to be "people" (Citizens United case)...
We try to elect people who run on fixing things and enshrining into law the rights we've fought for. Sometimes those people get elected, switch parties and/or their votes, and fuck over the voters (look up state representative Tricia Cotham in NC for a blatant example)
Vigilantes happen when the system and rule of law fails the people instead of protecting, serving, and holding accountable.
Vigilantes are the result of a complete leval, moral, and ethical failure against society. (Look up Ken McElroy for an example that seems made up to prove a point, but isn't)
The average person, not in politics, trying to work and live, has the power of their vote and their voice. Some want change & safety nets, some want fascism & power, some are silent - apathetic or overwhelmed. What happens when our vote and voice isn't enough?
We see UHC deny care in a system we are paying into. What are our options? March? Write letters? Vote? How do we change the system and make a UHC cover the medical costs we need and that we are paying them to cover?
Where is the moral, ethical, legal fix for people having their quality of life trashed or losing their lives to delayed or denied treatment?
I agree that the answer should not be a vigilante. But this is an unfair world and there should not be a lot of things. Give me a solution other than "murder is bad guys, mmkay"
Should the alleged perp, should he be found guilty spend a certain amount of time in prison? Yes. And whomever did it probably knows that and is prepared.
Should the alleged shooter have terroism charges? No. Especially when people like Dylan Roof (who sat in a church service before opening fire to start a race war did not get those charges)
The system is worried right now. It's pushed people to the breaking point. What happens next will directly affect the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, for our children and our grandchildren.
Will the system compromise or put a boot on our necks?
The people who can actually change things have to think it's in their best interest to do so.
Wow, I'm glad I read that Wikipedia page on Ken McElroy. Crazy stuff and definitely relevant.
And you're conflating yourself with the law. Who decides what's a crime? You? A vote in this discussion thread? Personally I think you're deeply immoral in your apology of cold-blooded murder - does that mean I get to take justice into my own hands and arraign you on the street? You don't have a leg to stand on.
Congress is supposed to decide what's a crime. They've been... less than receptive to what the people need of late. This disconnect between what society considers just and what the law states is clearly demonstrated by the lack of public condemnation for Luigi - the only people you hear being upset about it are the ones who are paid to be.
You're making the Lawful Evil argument. That's a bold move, cotton.
LOL, this bloke thinks US citizens have rule of law.
US citizen here confirming that no we fucking do not
Killing people in power who are overly greedy is a tradition, it's how civilizations advance! It doesn't matter if they are unarmed or not if they are destroying the lives of the people below them
It's been America's M.O. since the the '40s. Kill fascists in Germany and Japan, kill communists in Korea and Vietnam, kill the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, kill anyone who sounds like they rule with an iron fist. Deliver freedom to people! It's the most patriotic thing you can do: Kill people in power
Why should that time-honored tradition start for us overseas? Why not bring that tradition home?
There's a lot of irrelevant apologism going on here (from which I will take that, deep down, you probably feel a little guilty about excusing cold-blooded murder - which at least proves that you're human). To respond to just the first point: no, chaos and vigilantism are not the only way that "civilizations advance". Some of the most advanced civilizations (let's say: Switzerland, Japan, even Britain) have managed to reform incrementally, without the need for the bloody revolution you are advocating. Recourse to lawless chaos (France 1793, America soon apparently) is a sign that one's civilization is a failure not that it's "advancing".
Some of the most advanced civilizations (let's say: Switzerland, Japan, even Britain) have managed to reform incrementally,
You might want to read up on Japan pre-WW2. They reformed from looting and razing other countries and having a self-professed rape problem due to getting trounced.
Irrelevant. Japan's civilization was already "advanced" and the reforms were entirely peaceful. Unless you're advocating for foreign wars of conquest as a solution to America's feckless inability to get itself universal healthcare?
Lol, you can't even stay on your own topic. ADHD mate. Look into it.
Rule of law has not worked to fix the system, and material abundance does not help the sick and injured who are being scammed out of their savings for the promise of living.
I agree with you that killing defensless people in the street is wrong. I also do not see this specific murder as wrong, and am prepared to defend that opinion from the standpoint of reducing the totality of human suffering. I would not perform such murder, but I would not assist the police.
If you think I'm evil, so be it, but pearl-clutching does nothing but waste bandwidth, so give your best effort to convince people that your view is correct.
Finally, a minimally thoughtful argument. I'm disappointed you think I'm wasting bandwidth. Not least because I'm the only voice here defending a person's right not to be murdered. Do you think that having a debate on this subject is a "waste of bandwidth"? And if you look carefully, I think you'll find I've been very concise in responding to specific arguments.
I don't think you're evil. I'm not sure I even believe in evil. I think you're wrong, in the profoundest possible sense. And also misguided, on the grounds that political assassinations will get you exactly the opposite results to the ones you want.
This is not "a" person, this is a specific person who has perpetuated a corporate policy that directly affects the livelyhood of its medical customers. Many customers died because they were denied care, as a result of said corporate policy.
This assassination did get me a positive result. Were I to go into surgery, I am garuteed anesthetics for the full surgery, even if it goes into overtime. This is due to United reversing a decision they made before the shooting. It was only through Brian Thompsan's death that the company made this decision, as they have a reputation for denying care they are responsible for giving.
The only legal recourse would be lawsuits. This does not work, as corporations of United's size pay fines as if they were taxes - the fines don't get the intended result.
Are you against all violence, or unnecessary violence? History has many examples of necessary violence as a means of protecting one's home or life. Violence is often inevitable, as desperate people become commonplace. And since there is no line dividing functional and dysfunctional societies, one must use their own judgment to determine if using violence will get them the change they want, and if that change is worthwhile.
Even if you aren't desperate, good luck explaining to the growing homeless how legal reform works better than insurrection, when they could easily steal to meet their need for food. The desperate don't think long term, since humans prioritize immediate food and shelter over abstract economic stability. And since fewer housed people can afford retirement, their ability to believe in a stable future for themselves wanes.
To invoke "necessary" and "inevitable" violence is a dangerous slope to be on. Yes, I can see such hypothetical scenarios, for example at a moment of maximal tension when peaceful protests are being violently repressed by the secret police of dictatorial regime and suddenly someone breaks the gates of the presidential palace.
The USA in 2025 is absolutely not in that situation. You live in a country with functioning representative institutions. You have a thousand more boring and more ethical ways to try to bring about change than murdering an unarmed executive in the street. And doing things your way, apart from being plainly wrong in itself, will be counterproductive. There's nothing that Trump wants more than more assassinations like this one. Every wannabe dictator dreams of civil unrest and lawlessness - it enables them to step in and grab more power in order to"fix it". This scenario has played itself out over and over again in a ton of places, the only surprise is that nobody here seems to know.
In the end, what you are all excusing here is both bad and dumb. It's seems to be mostly about assuaging your (plural) own rage and frustration. It certainly will not solve anything. Anyway, I've said what I have to say here. Good night.
BCBS changed their policies regarding sedation days after the assassination when no other methods of protest had worked. Insurance pre-authorization denials dropped across the board instantly.
The assassination of Thompson, as ugly as it is, has instantly lead to a net benefit to society when all non-violent attempts had failed and things were actively getting worse.
People are alive today because Thompson was publicly killed and his assassination had widespread support.
Then maybe celebrating the legal defense fund for paying lawyers to defend the accused person is?
You should be ashamed were you to insinuate that getting a good lawyer is a bad thing.That's a disingenuous argument and you know it is.
No, I really mean it.
We don't know whether Luigi did what he got accused of.
And we're not the ones who judge.
Given that the trial is held in a country where only lots of money gets you good medical support and good legal representation, I'm glad there a funds to pay for good legal representation.
That's it.The headline is "crowd raises money to defend innocent man accused of crimes".
I don't know where you're getting that we're celebrating murder. You won't even accept that you're jumping to conclusions. You've got a lot of assumptions built into that head of yours sir.
Again, this is plainly dishonest, but I'll read it as repressed guilt. After all, you're (presumably) a human being with a moral compass.
Sure, anyone who disagrees with you is evil or dishonest. That's how you know that YOU'RE the only one engaging in honest open discussion.
But I don't say you're evil, I say you are dishonest. You just want to defend an "innocent man accused of crimes", but this particular man and this particular crime - pure coincidence! Your dishonesty is plain as day. You want to defend a murderer because you think he was right to murder, you think that his unarmed victim deserved to expire in a pool of his own blood on the sidewalk. At least have the courage of your convictions.
I don't see you standing up for all murder victims. You're ONLY here in this thread defending this specific murder victim. Your dishonesty is plain as day. It's clear that you think the rich should not face the social consequences of their actions. You think that as long as someone follows the law they should be able to harm as many people as they want as long as they create shareholder value. The fact that this is the murder victim you're defending is pure coincidence! You act like you just want everyone around you to have "honest discussions" but you hide your own convictions. At least have the courage of your convictions.
My convictions are easy to express: I'm against first-degree murder. It really is that simple. And you are not.
To be clear, I'm also against judicial killing (capital punishment) in all circumstances. For exactly the same reason: it is never right to kill a defenseless person who poses no immediate threat to you. End of story. This is about as watertight a morality as you could ask for.
This is also roughly the teaching of the Catholic church. But I'm not a Catholic, nor even a pacifist.
I'm looking forward to your "honest debate" in every thread related to murder and capital punishment, but I know this is the only victim you'll be defending in the near future. While you accuse others of dishonesty, it's classic projection of your own moral fallings.
When posters say their convictions are simple "innocent until proven guilty and having the right to competent defense" they're dishonest because "this is the only thread we're in, what a coincidence /s". Why the same logic doesn't apply to you is a mystery.
Also this wasn't first degree murder in New York, that is reserved for the premeditated murder of specific classes of people such as law enforcement. If you're going to have these "clear and easy to express convictions" at least be accurate and clear about it.
I had you tagged as "conservative pseudointellectual" from previous interactions and it's been accurate EVERY TIME I run into you. You consistently defend capitalism and conservatism, and now Catholicism for some reason? Against the interestes of the population in general.
Brain Thompson's death made me so happy. 🙂 Glad he's rotting.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
No thanks. Appreciate the offer though.
I've never been set up for such an enjoyable downvote. Thanks!
You should be ashamed of defending this murderous system that has left us no peaceful recourse due to regulatory capture of both parties and therefore no vote to end it ever. Vote Red, vote blue, it's a vote for murder for profit either way. We don't get a vote on our murderous economy, just the social symptoms that don't effect quarterly metastasis expectations.
You would have this healthcare insurance confidence scam murder their marks who trusted them and paid them in advance in perpetuity when they actually need care and become a threat to profits.
People like you get more offended when people are murdered in a straightforward manner than with a confidence scheme and a claim denial letter. At least a gun is demonstrating honest intent that isn't trying to gaslight people into shutting up as it ends their life prematurely.