Previously the reporting on this did not have a political angle and so it was removed from Politics and correctly directed to News.

The charges related to terrorism now give this a political angle.

“Luigi Mangione is accused of first-degree murder, in furtherance of terrorism; second-degree murder, one count of which is charged as killing as an act of terrorism; criminal possession of a weapon and other crimes.”

The terrorism statutes can be found here:

https://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/ny-penal-law-490-25-crime-of-terrorism.html

“The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”

  • @Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    65 days ago

    New York Penal Law § 490.25, the crime of terrorism, is one of the most serious criminal offenses in New York State. The statute defines the crime of terrorism as any act that is committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion and that results in one or more of the following: (a) the commission of a specified offense, (b) the causing of a specified injury or death, © the causing of mass destruction or widespread contamination, or (d) the disruption of essential infrastructure.

      • @Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        25 days ago

        Note the OR between coerceing the public and coerceing government. He coerced the public by murdering on the street. Doesn’t have anything to do with the government.

        • @jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          25 days ago

          Coercing the population to do something about the CEOs, coercing the government to do something about health policy.

          • @Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            45 days ago

            No. In this case they are arguing that the intent was to frighten people on the street. They spoke about it during the press conference. The insurance companies, health policy, etc will not play a part. In fact, the judge will probably prohibit its mention in a murder trial. That’s a subject for you guys. Anyway, it has nothing to do with politics

            • @jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
              link
              fedilink
              45 days ago

              Terrorism is, by definition, a political action. Charging him with terrorism makes it political.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

              “Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1]”

              There’s no question that the killing was ideological. I think where the charge has the potential to fall apart is “non-combatant”.

              If you argue that the CEO pushing the rejection of insurance claims is causing death, does that make them a “non-combatant”? 🤔

              Where it becomes a slippery slope is that this is the same excuse the “pro-life” movement uses for the targeted killing of abortion doctors, and they use the same tactics. Doxing, distributing hitlists, etc.

              • @Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                5 days ago

                It pertains to a New York law above. The legal charge is defined.I would hope a judge would not consider an argument about what it is outside the parameters of what is written in the law.

  • bbbbbbbbbbb
    link
    fedilink
    675 days ago

    So the jury has their out now, jury nullification on the grounds of the act not being terrorism

    • @adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      205 days ago

      nope. not that one.

      there’s two charges, only one with ‘terrorism’ attached.

      • @WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        145 days ago

        Are insurance CEOs really human? Is it even possible to commit murder against one? I think it would be more like killing a flesh-eating parasite. I’m thinking the charge should be animal cruelty at the worst. What kind of criminal penalty would I get if I threw an ant farm in a lake? That’s the kind of punishment Luigi should get.

        • @zbyte64
          link
          45 days ago

          Yo, he’s a piece of shit human that didn’t deserve to play Minecraft. Making him less than human could justify targeting his children or the terrorism charges. This the CEO knew what he was doing was bad for people because he was a human.

    • @phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      14 days ago

      Yeah I’m pretty sure they’ll somehow end up with a jury comprised entirely of CEO’s or their immediate family, “randomly” selected of course

    • @Jyek@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      44 days ago

      Jury nullification does not require “grounds”. Jury nullification is a result of the jury’s verdict being final regardless of the details of the trial. It’s also an effect of the fact that you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. The jury is not required to form a verdict strictly on the basis of the trial. The may find the defendant not guilty regardless of actual guilt.

  • Rentlar
    link
    fedilink
    555 days ago

    Terrorism to bring this to first-degree is very much a stretch in my eyes. The poor civilian CEO population are spooked by one person getting shot.

    • @MutilationWave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      34 days ago

      The second part of the statue, to cause government action, does seem kind of appropriate. But I highly doubt he thought he could pull that off and it’s going to take a lot more 2nd player characters to get there.

    • @WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      26
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Nah. I have an out. Insurance CEOs simply aren’t human. The charge should be animal cruelty at the worst. Luigi should get the same criminal penalty as someone would get for stepping on a cockroach. Murder requires the thing you’re destroying to actually be a human being.

      • @runiq@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        55 days ago

        That reminds me that you should never make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison

    • @Jyek@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      54 days ago

      Nullify the jury. A man can break the letter and spirit of the law if the jury decides he should not be punished for it.

  • @Kowowow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    115 days ago

    “The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”

    So it’s fine if you use large sums of money but someone goes with the more democratic route of using a gun and suddenly it’s not cool

      • @MutilationWave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        That’s the funny thing, he wasn’t poor at all. His family is fabulously wealthy. We don’t know how much access to that money he had, but he was able to get two degrees from a very expensive school then move to Honolulu and join an intentional community while not having a job. Then disappear for months while not having a job.

        I think he had no intention of getting away with it. The ideal way to do this would be acting like he planned nothing, don’t disappear, then go visit an old friend somewhere who would give an alibi. Instead he’s hanging out in bumfuck Pennsylvania with the murder weapon and fake ID.

  • circuitfarmer
    link
    fedilink
    224 days ago

    You can tell the corpos are really upset when the government they own brings out the T word.

  • @Glide@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    225 days ago

    “The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”

    I have no issue with the state correctly identifying this act as terrorism. I take great issue with the fact that this act is being defined as terrorism, while using a definition that clearly defines many things that get a pass as terrorism. Remember last Trump presidency, when his white house published an old-school violent videogames scare video to garner support for his policies while distracting from discussion on gun laws? An act committed with the intent to coerce a civilian population is terrorism.

    And let’s be real, I picked a low-stakes, innoculous example just to make a point: the state does a LOT to terrorize it’s citizens. But when they do it, it’s “law and order.” When Luigi fights back in self defense? “Terrorism”.

  • @NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    65 days ago

    As happy as it made everyone with a brain: That was definitely the legal definition of terrorism (if he did it).

    From a quick google, criminal possession of a weapon is because NY has laws against ghost guns (3d printed firearms).

    Don’t get the logic on both first and second degree for blapping the same guy though.

    • @WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      75 days ago

      Eh. I really don’t consider insurance CEOs to be human. If you so thoroughly abandon your own humanity, why should we even legally consider you a human being anymore? As such, I would argue that it’s no more possible to murder an insurance CEO than it’s possible to murder a cardboard box. Hell, at least a cardboard box does some minimal good for the world. Frankly, Thompson’s doing more good for the world as worm food than he ever did as a CEO. I consider the worms feeding on Thompson to be more human than Thompson himself. Does Thompson technically have a family? Sure, but so do the worms.

  • @peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    225 days ago

    The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

    No, see, that’s clearly false. The civilian population did not get intimidated or coerced by fuck and all, and the government wasn’t threatened.

    So, nope. Not guilty.

    • @zib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      95 days ago

      I think what the state is trying to say is that only corporate executives are people.

    • Rhaedas
      link
      fedilink
      75 days ago

      The government is run by corporatism, so maybe? But as for the public, this is most solidarity we’ve seen from US citizens in a while. We weren’t the target, nor did we feel like we were. We were Spartacus.

      • @peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35 days ago

        For a moment, I thought “hmm. What if we all said ‘No, I shot Brian Thompson’” sort of like what happened in Spartacus, but then I remembered that all 6000 slaves or whatnot were executed

    • @jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      15 days ago

      A lot of people consider murdering an abortion doctor to be terrorism. Or lynching an innocent black person… why would this be different?

      Assassination in furtherance of an agenda…

    • Pennomi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      55 days ago

      By what definition? It most certainly can be.

      • @xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        65 days ago

        By the definition of a reasonable person and that’s the definition the prosecution is going to have to meet.

        • @krashmo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          I think you’d have a hard time defending your statement if a bearded Muslim man shot the POTUS, which by the definition posted earlier, should not count as terrorism.

    • @Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35 days ago

      A lot of very incontrovertible terrorism was in the form of a single very public murder. The difference was that it was against vulnerable groups and the murderers were rarely charged.