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.”
Coercing the population to do something about the CEOs, coercing the government to do something about health policy.
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
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.
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.
Oh, I’m not thinking about the JUDGE, I’m thinking about the JURY.
The judge explains the law to the jury, along with the idea that they shouldn’t apply their own standards for meaning as you do.
I think it won’t get to a jury anyway. I have a hunch that he’ll plead guilty at some point. Like his idol Ted Kaczynski did. I think a jury would be bad for him in any case. Manhattan has the world’s largest concentration of FIRE (Financial, Insurance, Real Estate) employees.
It will definitely be interesting to see where it goes, it looks like he’s got expensive representation, and they’re already fighting extradition.
Again, that’s not what is being reported. What is being reported is that he’ll wave extradition and be in NY very soon. I find this story mildly interesting, but not to the point where I want to be bombarded by every jackass tat wants to provide a take for the clicks.
Currently, he’s fighting extradition:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/12/10/nyregion/unitedhealthcare-ceo-luigi-mangione
““He is contesting it,” said his lawyer, Thomas Dickey.”
Will he waive it? Probably. I don’t see how contesting it will be successful.