7 ms·
Luigi Mangione Prosecutors Have a Jury Problem: 'So Much Sympathy'
- healsdata 2y agoIt won't happen, but jury nullification seems appropriate for a case where barely relevant charges are being added to send a message.
- mft_ 2y ago"Terrorism"...
- pstuart 2y agoFor a very small subset of the population.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cuteboy19 2y agoI mean it kind of is. with a manifesto and everything. the idea was to send fear through the action
- healsdata 2y agoThere are many more-prolific killers who had manifestos and weren't charged with terrorism. That charge is being selectively applied here for pretty obvious reasons.
- dttze 2y agoI guess US and western foreign policy is terrorism then.
- cr125rider 2y agoWe just put “counter” in front of “terrorism”
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoBut the intent of 5e murder wasn’t to strike terror. Well, it did strike terror into CEOs of health insurance companies. It doesn’t feel like that alone would meet the bar.
- cuteboy19 2y agoi know we do non tech news as well but this doesn’t seem notable or interesting enough to qualify. maybe an article about the history of jury nullification would be better
- OmarShehata 2y agothe interesting part is the ramifications of propaganda on the justice system. This is a very concrete example of how you can interfere with the rule of law if you can sway public opinion enough on an issue (this is true regardless of whether you believe the zeitgeist on luigi is organic or not). It's a dynamic more of us should be aware of. The public generally has more agency than we realize.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoPublic opinion IS an intentional and legitimate part of the rule of law in the US. That is why the jury is composed of peers, and has the ultimate veto power. That's not interfering with the rule of law, it's conducting it. Interfering would be the insurance companies using money to buy public opinion.
- noprocrasted 2y ago> Interfering would be the insurance companies using money to buy public opinion. Which is very likely happening. I read that there are two manifestos going around, one real and one fake. The real one is much easier to get behind and sympathize with than the fake one. Yet somehow the fake one is being published in most places and publications refuse to answer the question as to why they're refusing to publish the real one.
- jdenning 2y ago> … insurance companies using money to buy public opinion Or using money to buy politicians to bring federal terrorism charges. Though it’s probably covered by the payments they’ve made already
- cr125rider 2y ago
- shadowgovt 2y agoThat's not a problem; it's a feature.
- psuedo_uuh 2y agoNow that’s democracy
- droidist2 2y agoCould you also call it mob rule?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago12 randomly selected unarmed people sitting in room is hardly a mob.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bitwize 2y agoI kind of half expect him to be acquitted under the "needed killin'" doctrine.
- OutOfHere 2y agoI do believe it was a self-defense killing, with self referring in a selfless sense to the entire nation. If Daniel Penny could walk free for defending a Subway car, then why does Luigi deserve any less for stopping the person that was wrecking the health of millions to line his own pockets.
- tzs 2y ago> the person that was wrecking the health of millions How did you arrive at millions?
- OutOfHere 2y agoUnited healthcare is used by many tens of millions. Anyone who has had it for a few years has a very high probability of having a pre-authorization or a claim unfairly rejected, certainly including me. Even if the personal probability of a denial is 5%, that's still millions. United is not equipped to play doctor.
- orwin 2y agoDaniel penny murdered a poor, black person. Luigi mangione killed a rich, white one. Maybe my perception of America is wrong, but I bet it's not.
- OutOfHere 2y agoHere's the truth about the person you refer to (Jordan Neely), straight from his Wikipedia article: > Neely had an extensive criminal record, including 42 arrests on charges including petty larceny, jumping subway turnstiles, theft, and three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway between 2019 and 2021 > Another witness heard Neely say, "Someone is going to die today."[3] Penny said that Neely repeatedly threatened to kill other passengers.[10] Vázquez said that Neely was frightening but had not assaulted anyone.[6] Other witnesses said that Neely made "half-lunge movements" at other passengers and was within "half a foot of people", and recalled fearing for their lives.[3][11] A mother with a child testified that Neely charged at passengers, and she shielded herself and her child behind a stroller, believing she might die.[12] He most definitely was a threat to the entire Subway car. The system failed him by not putting him in a mental asylum a long time ago. The Subway system is now this de facto mental asylum, but violent threats are not tolerable.
- neilv 2y agoIt's not just about one CEO. Thoughts on why not to condone vigilante justice: * You might have mixed feelings about one particular target, but what about emboldening all the people who would choose other targets? Think of all the mentally unstable people, with access to firearms, who believe the most ridiculous propaganda that's being shoveled to them, about being under existential threat from domestic enemies. Won't any surge of political murders presumably be by the sickest, stupidest, and shittiest people? * What about ostensible threats against CEOs and other powerful people being used as a pretext to give them special protection by the state, and corresponding encroachment on the liberties of others? Could this elevate a fascist overclass even more?
- glimshe 2y agoThe healthcare situation is so difficult for so many people that most would probably agree with everything you're saying but still create an exception for health insurance executives. Your might see more sympathy for vaping companies than health insurance.
- neilv 2y agoMaybe we can't create an exception in isolation. Sure, you can jury-nullify conviction of a particular one. But if that inspires a dozen unstable other people, to think they'll be heroes for killing some prominent liberal/ethnic/gay/trans/etc. person, then, even if you later convict those murderers, it won't bring back the victims. What we should instead be doing is figuring out how to regulate and prosecute some of the many awful abuses and injustices in society. We have the government framework for it. It's just not been working as well as it could.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago> we should instead be doing is figuring out how to regulate and prosecute some of the many awful abuses and injustices in society There's nothing to figure out. We know what the abuses are and we know how they can be fixed. Its just that the abusers are in control of the system and will prevent any attempt lesson that power. If you know of way that can be overcome, let us know.
- minidang 2y ago[dead]
- minidang 2y ago[dead]
- CLiED 2y agoI'm sure they can find a jury of 12 CEOs/(m/b)illionaires who are far removed from such downstair people things as being denied insurance.
- tzs 2y agoThey can probably easily find a jury of ordinary people who have never been denied insurance or don't have anyone in their friend or immediate family group who were denied insurance. There are 305 million Americans with health insurance. Most of them only have ever used their health insurance for things like annual checkups, routine illnesses like colds and flus, routine vaccinations and lab tests, cuts, sprains, burns, allergies, prescriptions, routine prenatal care, routine pediatric care, maybe something more serious like pneumonia or an STD or a broken bone, and similar. Even the most penny pinching insurance companies usually pay for those things without any hassle. As a result polling shows that most Americans are actually reasonably satisfied with their own health insurance in that regard. Lots of dissatisfaction with the high premiums and deductibles though. It's only a small percent who encounter something that the insurance company balks at.
- tzs 2y agoOT: A question about UHC. In previous threads here a lot of commentators offered rather poor opinions of UnitedHealthcare insurance. In particular they have a reputation of denying claims at a rate of twice the industry average. I've noticed that all the comments I've seen from people unhappy with UHC and all the stories I've read are about the kind of plans that most people here from the US would have. E.g., a plan that they got through their employer, or that they bought on the ACA marketplace, or that they bought directly from the insurer. Question: does UHC's terribleness also apply to their Medigap plans? My understanding is that if Medicare approves a medical service then your Medigap plan cannot deny payment for their share of the costs. Pretty much all the complaints about UHC are about them trying to deny payment by claiming the service was unnecessary or that a cheaper alternative service needs to be used. So if you are getting a Medigap plan to help with Medicare deductibles and coinsurance and/or to get an annual cap on out of pocket total Medicare costs and don't care about any extras the plan offers then there isn't a reason to not consider UHC. I know that some Medigap plans provide extra coverage beyond what is required by regulation for Medigap plans. For example some add coverage to things Medicare does not cover, such as foreign travel medical insurance. I would guess that on those extra things they can try to deny claims, so if you care about those extra than UHC's reputation should give you pause.
- muchosandwich 2y agoFrom several doctors and elderly people I talk to, UHC absolutely will deny payment for Medigap. They take advantage of gaps in state systems delays in reporting or will outright fake not receiving evidence of Medicare approval.
- dogma1138 2y agoNo they don’t, there is no limit to how many jurors you can strike for cause. It would take them a long ass time to select them but it’s not unusual in cases like this for the process to take as much as a year. But at the end of the day the prosecution will have a jury that holds little sympathy. Anyone who did has already posted on social media about this which will be used to strike them. And that is assuming the prosecution won’t find additional grounds for striking them such as anyone who had their claim denied recently. Jury selection always favors the prosecution and for high profile cases it favors them more since the public is naturally tainted. The jury will end up being made up of 55-65 white male executives from up-state New York simply because they will end up being the only ones who have not tainted themselves with shitty takes on Twitter. The murder 2 charge is a slam dunk, so are the weapon charges. This will not be a case of jury nullification since it requires a unanimous consensus. Any ideological holdouts would likely won’t pass selection and for sure won’t hold up to sequestering since there is no way a judge would call for a mistrial after an already lengthy selection process until weeks and maybe even months pass in deliberations. Anyone who thinks this guy would get off needs to get out of their bubble.