Why would he? We were playing stardew valley together at the time, and he was showing me how to reel in the legendary fish.
Can confirm. I was working as an Uber driver at the time of the killing, and clearly remember delivering a pizza to a guy named Luigi and a surprisingly kinky fish-shaped sex toy to a guy with the username Gullible. They were both playing Stardew Valley.
I was watching a streamer and saw this all happening in the background of their livestream
I can confirm, I was the fish shaped sex toy.
Luigi is innocent anyway
Even in the completely off-chance that he wasn't, we don't give the death penalty to first-time murderers who committed one murder and no other crimes. No, the death penalty is for fishermen who are suspected of smuggling drugs.
~~suspected~~ accused
~~accused~~ randomly murdered and accused after their murder to excuse the random murdering
We are luigi mangione
This is the way
Luigi is innocent anyway
Obviously. No innocent person should get the death penalty.
What a strange requirement for a murder charge
Yes very interesting detail.
Judge Margaret Garnett also ruled Friday to allow into Mangione’s trial evidence recovered from his backpack at the time of his arrest.
Law enforcement seized several items from Mangione’s backpack, including a handgun, a loaded magazine and a red notebook – key pieces of evidence that authorities have said tie him to the killing.
Probably not a good thing.
IANAL, but that's surprising to me. He wasn't read his rights at the time, and there were chain of custory issues
Any lawyers know if it's common for evidence to be allowed in situations like with Luigi?
Ok, but why start by saying you like it in the butt?
Some lawyers made a video explaining that if the evidence was likely to have been found in a legal search anyways, it can usually still be admitted. I also ANAL
Heh Anal
Doesn't that kind of go directly against the purpose of lawful searches?
It would be expected that he would be read his rights and the bag searched in due course. It wasn’t like they looked in a random person’s bag then decided to arrest him.
If the purpose of lawful searches is to prevent police from harassing just anyone on the off-chance, that purpose is still intact here.
I thought it was like Uno rules: if someone calls you out before you read them their Miranda Rights, you have to toss all your evidence...
The issue is that a key piece of evidence that should have been a very obvious find at first glance wasn't found at the scene, but only later after the officer had stopped searching the bag and driven to the police station.
You would need to produce reasonable suspicion of tampering with the evidence to have it removed as evidence. Some random local cops in buttfuck nowhere wouldn't need to frame the murder of a New York private healthcare CEO on some schmuck, and there is other related evidence from Luigi's computer and banking records which help legitimize the evidence in the bag.
It depends. It gives the defense a chance to destroy their case in front of a jury.
They now get to show the jury the unlawful search, the turned off body cam during the search, and the broken chain of evidence.
That sounds like reasonable doubt to me.
Well that is bullshit, but gives good grounds for an appeal later
It's funny seeing people simultaneously say "these charges are bullshit" and also "jury nullification can free him" because the jury nullification bit acknowledges he would be found guilty with the evidence presented.
So i think it's accurate to say there are some real doubts he did it (eyebrows don't match) There are also some issues with the collection of evidence. Then you have a little bit of memeing.
There's a good chance that the evidence presented could convince a jury he did do it. But they still have the option to nullify.
Honestly I've haven't seen one person state both those views in the same comment. I think you should interpret what you're seeing as people having different opinions to arrive at the same outcome. That outcome being luigi going free
Those were definitely his ridiculous eyebrows lmfao don't lie
Disagree, this may blow your mind but we can draw different conclusions without either of us lying to the other.
Also truthfully I don't care if he did do it. He should go free either way
I think he should go to prison for life, unless proven reformed after a couple of decades. I say this for two reasons: He definitely did the crime, and his freedom is inconsequential to anybody else.
But Jonathan Ross should (I'm actually against the death penalty, even for those ice murderers, just venting)
It's hard to not think this way when people like Renée Good and Alex Pretti were effectively sentenced to death, with no trial.
I agree that venting can be quite cathartic, and I respect the fact that you make it clear that you are just venting. I think drawing those kinds of boundaries for yourself can help to prevent you from slipping into genuinely believing these things.
But we can all agree Charlie Kirk cashed a check he himself wrote?
ERIKA sure did after his death.
LETS GOOO
Wahoo!
Evil empire full of child killing pedofiles trying to kill the man who showed us the only way out ….im surprised people aren’t more pissed
A lot of his support is being censored by the corporations we keep sucking off.
Understanding the Scope of Stalking Conduct
The federal statute defines the prohibited action as a “course of conduct,” requiring a pattern of behavior made up of two or more acts over time. A single, isolated incident of unwanted contact is not sufficient to meet the elements of the federal crime
Source: https://legalclarity.org/what-is-18-u-s-c-1801-federal-interstate-stalking-laws/
Could he get off since it only happened once?
I wonder how that applies in the digital age
If someone is using press briefs to digitally follow where someone is, does that count?
Yeah wishful thinking, following him online probably counts as multiple instances.
The 1984 crime control act is kind of interesting. It was written to walk a line and really limit the death penalty for federal cases. The death penalty requires murder to be stacked with something like robbery, kidnapping, mob shit, etc.
Even though a premeditated murder would be considered a violent crime, the crime control act requires premeditated murder to be sandwiched within another violent crime to unlock the death penalty as a punishment option.
This is one of those things that appears to go right up to the line, but the judge ruled on precedent.
Finally, some good fucking news
Not really since the obviously planted evidence with a broken chain of custody is allowed to be presented at trial.
Is it a jury trail where the defence can seed reasonable doubt on the obvious chain of custody issues?
Luigi has requested trial by jury and plead innocent.
The files on his computer to print his "untraceable" gun mod, and his banking records, will likely show that no reasonable doubt exists.
Yes, maybe people can stop trying to martyr this libertarian douchebag once he's in prison.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.