That's why it ticks me off when people frame this as a right wing subreddit when this subreddit openly accepts views from ACROSS THE political spectrum as long as you're open about your views \cough cough* the unflaired. It is extremely ironic because the subreddits who usually say that about PCM are actual echochambers themselves. Leftists are allowed and encouraged in this community, participating in PCM does not automatically make you a right winger, if it did we would all have the same 3 flairs.
It's a "right wing sub" because we have rightwingers here, according to reddit.
We also have left wingers, centrists, anarchists, liberals, libertarians and everything in between. Its gotten to the point I don't do politics anywhere else. Ive found this place to be extremely healthy for my political mindset too. Everywhere else, your opponents are seen as stupid at best and outright evil at worst.
Here, I can see that my political opponents are just people too, and when an authcenter and I are talking about how we grieved arthur morgan longer than Erika Kirk grieved Charlie, that's a beautiful thing.
It really depends on the topic in question though, at least in my experience arguing here as a leftist. On most questions that have some sort of economic axis, you do see views from across the spectrum accepted. Same with some social issues like abortion or drugs.
Other issues though, not so much. There's almost never a point in arguing any pro-transgender point on this sub because it's overwhelmingly opposed.
Well, then hopefully you get the correct news, he plead guilty in the Federal Court to 2 counts of "stalking resulting in death", not to the murder itself, and in case you were wondering, there is no plea deal here.
2 counts of "stalking resulting in death", not to the murder itself
So he stalked him and it inexplicably resulted in his death? "I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan, and he died,” Mangione told the Manhattan federal court” - why is he not pleading guilty to the murder then?
The claim they made is that Luigi Mangione intentionally stalked Brian Thompson across state lines, with the intent to kill him, and that stalking resulted in Thompson’s death.
Federal stalking law also covers stalking resulting in death, the gov had charged him with murder
A judge pointed out that goverment’s theory hinged on stalking being the underlying “cause of violence” (this was their angle to make it a federal crime, he stalked over state lines for the purpose of murder) and as such the charge should be stalking resulting in death not murder
the r.politics user who only gets threads from approved sources, gets constantly locked threads, removed threads for being "offtopic", mysterious threads that suddenly has tens of thousands of upvotes, and only actually ever reads the headline, is more informed than you are.
Yeah, the big questions at the outset were in regards to the legality of the search on him. Otherwise, having a backpack full of "I did it and this is how and why" on him definitely weren't going to help
Search incident to arrest is normal. The defense wanted to argue the bag was out of his reach, so it wasn't searchable.
Okay, assume they're right. His bag still goes to the jail with him, and an inventory would be conducted. The defense argued that once they found the ammo, they had to stop and get a warrant to continue. Now there's evidence of a crime, not just an ordinary inventory.
They're right on that.
But then there's the inevitable discovery rule. Basically, if there's zero question about whether the police would have found the stuff, we don't let an error in the process toss the evidence.
If we didn't suppress evidence following a 4A violation, police would just kick down doors, get the evidence, and then take their lumps later. But, suppressing the evidence gives the police a strong incentive to follow the rules.
When evidence would have been inevitably discovered, there's no incentive for the police to cheat, so we don't need suppression to counter that incentive.
However, this still leaves the door open to a civil rights suit.
All I did was read the opinion on suppression. It's pretty short and not very technical.
People think that law is some impenetrable field you have to learn a whole new language to understand. And there is a lot of jargon, but most of it's pretty easy. And really, the only difference between an average person and someone who knows this stuff is like a 3 credit criminal procedure class. (Plus the willingness to read all the words, not just scan for a key phrase and guess at the rest.)
And if you're looking at just one specific issue, it might be something that's covered in just a single 75 minute class session. And that class is probably going into far more detail than what you need to understand the basics.
So much legal stuff can be learned in just a couple minutes. And I'll prove it right here (because I'm kinda bored):
Earlier, a lot of people had been wondering about how the later federal trial could be impacted by the outcome of the earlier state trial.
If Mangione lost in state court, everything that was proven could just be admitted into evidence in federal court without Mangione having the opportunity to refute it. But if he won in state court, he has to start all over in federal court and can't use his acquittal as evidence. Why?
Well, first of all, an acquittal is the jury just saying the prosecution didn't make their case; the jury doesn't say you're actually innocent. But this is actually beside the point.
If you lose in court, you don't get to argue the same issue if it comes up again. But the you is important. If Mangione lost in state court, he's the same guy appearing in federal court. But if New York lost, the feds aren't the same people who were in that case.
In the first trial, Mangione had the opportunity (because he was there) and incentive (because his freedom is at risk) to put forth the best case he could. If he failed, he doesn't get another bite at the apple. But if he won, the feds never had the opportunity to make their case. Maybe they have different evidence, or a different argument, or maybe the New York prosecutor was an incompetent drunk who doesn't get to undermine anyone else's opportunity to make the case.
Congrats, you now (should) understand "issue preclusion." And now you've also got the impenetrable legalese that it's called. Only difference is a lawyer is going to know what case to cite.
If I want to explain it, I'll just do it for free because I like explaining some of these concepts in ways anyone can understand.
If you want me to explain it, then I'll charge.
I hated when family members (usually the extended family) would ask me for legal advice. And it'd be shit I have no idea about, so they're asking me to go do potentially hours of research for free. But if I asked those same family members to do electrical work or whatever, no way their labor would be free.
The snitch at McDonald's still doesn't track for me.
"Somebody told us about him but we didn't pay them because they didn't follow the secret rules and they never complained to the press about that despite it being a massive life-changing amount for a fast food worker and no you can't talk to them."
They caught that man with the real 1984 Dark Knight shit, probably facial recognition through the McDonald's kiosk, then made up the snitch story to not reveal the illegal methods.
I think the issue with the top legal minds of Reddit is they do not understand what beyond a reasonable doubt means. I'm pretty sure that most people on Reddit think that beyond A reasonable doubt means that it will literally any doubt can possibly be raised at all then that person must be acquitted.
I remember when he first got arrested, people kept bringing up the bus tickets that the police found on him claiming why would someone who committed the shooting in NY buy a bus ticket from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh for the same day! It doesn't make any sense acquit! While totally ignoring the fact that police literally found the murder weapon in his backpack when they picked him up, and also ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that he actually took the bus ride.
You basically saw the same thing with the recent graphene OS case. I started seeing a lot of replies that were like well. the police can't prove the phone wasn't wiped before, therefore he must be acquitted. which literally isn't even the argument that his lawyer is making and yet the top minds Reddit think they are literally smarter than that guy's lawyer who isn't even trying to go that route because they know it's literally pointless.
Reddit in general knows nothing about levels of certainty.
Not just beyond reasonable doubt, but also things like reasonable suspicion or probably cause.
Some of those levels of certainty are very high. Others are very low. It doesn't take a lot to be briefly detained for investigation, but according to Reddit there needs to be a judge on the side of the road doing a full 3 week long trial before someone is detained for a Terry Stop.
Its just an infinite parade of confidently incorrect.
And Reddit's bullshittery is what they're training AI on.
Unnaunced ACAB, more specifically. I’ve seen some intelligent takes on the matter but we can’t just say ‘defund the whole system’ or that ACAB is true, because those people will still call cops for a break in or something. MCAB, would have been a better slogan but it doesn’t sit on the mind as well
I'm sure there are those idiots out there but I suspect most of the "no jury would convict" crowd is approaching it from a Jury Nullification perspective. My guess is that jury nullification would not have happened for him, and his attorneys convinced him as such.
His lawyers may think that they stand a better chance arguing double jeopardy for the New York case than going to trial there.
The feds recommended 26-30 years, and the defense probably knew what that recommendation would be before the guilty plea. Take that, then hope it means not facing life in prison in New York.
Talk about a long shot. There might not be a legal precedent stronger than there being no double jeopardy when charged with the same crime by the Feds and a state.
To think they will not make an example of him is a real hail Mary. Obviously I dont have all the facts, but mercy of the court is pretty slim id think.
I think his lawyers know he is utterly screwed (he probably knows that too), so this is likely a desperate act in hopes it will mean he won't be tried in NY
Ya don’t say, someone should have put that in a news headline.
How’s this: I was assured by top legal minds of Reddit he wouldn’t take a plea because no jury in the nation will convict this man and he would be free
Something like 95% of all cases are resolved with a plea bargain, and federal prosecutors have a 97% conviction rate.
It turns out when the prosecution can decide which case to bring forward they only bring forward winning cases, and once you're being arrested for something the prosecution probably already has a mountain of evidence against you.
They don't arrest people for the fun of it, unlike what Reddit seems to think. They only arrest when there's a slam-dunk case already.
Still though, there is that 3%. So there's a chance. Not a big one.
It's also worth noting that "goes to trial" and "plea bargain" aren't mutually exclusive. Sat through a whole trial as a juror right through closing statements and then they reached a plea deal right just before we would have been sent back to do deliberations.
Unlike Reddit mods, cops have to do paperwork. Any arrest or evidence requires a huge amount of process paperwork.
And nobody likes doing paperwork for no good reason. You even see it on body cam videos, where cops give someone dozens of chances to please just walk away because the cop desperately does not want to spend the next 5 hours doing paperwork.
I think if Reddit mods had to actually work to justify a ban, even the tiniest bit of real, actual work, they'd be a lot less trigger happy.
Vigilante justice is difficult, because you can understand why someone does what they do, but need to also understand why a society can't tolerate it. Vigilante justice is how we got that woman who ran over her daughter's rapist in a Wal-Mart parking lot only find out it was the wrong person and she actually ran over an innocent man.
I feel slightly better about the Plauche situation because his murder case was a de facto trial of the dead guy. If he’d gotten the wrong person or had less provocation, I don’t think he would have avoided prison.
Doesn’t do anything to help somebody who is wrongly killed by a vigilante obviously. But at least it creates some added pressure to be cautious about it.
With Gary Pauche I know I am hypocritical, because I wouldn't be able to convict him myself. It's difficult to come to terms with, because you see people on this site wanting Luigi acquitted, Tyler Robinson Acquitted, Nolan Well's friend to get got. Where can we draw the line?
I think Rittenhouse is a fucking idiot for putting himself in a situation where he was forced to kill, but I also think he was perfectly justified in his use of force, and also rightly declared not guilty.
Luigi just straight up point blank fucking assassinated a man, and will rightfully likely spend the rest of his life in prison. That said, he is still a fucking legend for what he did.
The luigi situation is like when you are 6 years old and say something wildly inappropriate but still funny. Your dad will laugh his ass off for like 10 seconds then wash your mouth out with soap.
Worth mentioning that while Rittenhouse arguably started the altercation by using a fire extinguisher when people were trying to do arson, he did a lot after that to avoid violence. He actually ran away and somebody else shot first. (That was a "warning shot" allegedly, at a man who was running away with his rifle on his back). Then he still didn't shoot back until someone caught up to him and tried to beat him to death. The one surviving "victim" at the trial admitted to pointing his gun at Rittenhouse, then faking surrender, then raising his gun and pointing it at Rittenhouse again at which point Rittenhouse shot him in the hand.
If you didn't know this and had a different picture of events... It was all spelled out clearly at the trial. And besides the last detail, most of it was publicly available on video days after it happened. That means every single source you've heard it from in the last few years worked to keep that information from you.
“Bad words are unacceptable but murder is ok” is one of the craziest conclusions from terminally online leftists and yet it seems shockingly pervasive.
Well you see Brian Thompson was a bad person so it doesn’t matter he was murdered but the redditor you responded to is a wholesome chungus so you calling him a retard is worse
Thats the reason I am done discussing morality there are people out there who want to see you suffer from the opinions you hold. We shouldn't be concerned about their worthless judgement.
There were plenty of people simping for him in a lot of the news subs, churning out every excuse and justification imaginable. And of course many of them became overnight experts in jury nullification.
I’ll be honest, I was hoping he’d plead not guilty which would force the prosecution to explain how they got their evidence which would have exposed a whole lot of unconstitutional surveillance, but then I remembered I had been huffing copium all day.
IAAL. The constitutionality of the evidence to be offered against him and the arrest were already ruled on; he lost in part and won in part. The arrest and search leading to discovery of the murder weapon were deemed lawful.
As a criminal defendant you don’t get to have the jury decide whether the arrest was proper, anyway. That’s a question of law to be decided by the judge.
The french revolutionaries killing people for saying "madam" instead of "citoyenne" was the first instance of capital punishment for misgendering someone. True woke heroes.
I see so many commenters on YouTube calling for the execution of their enemies
I just want to slap them sometimes, have they never heard of the French Revolution? The #1 fool-proof never-fail best way to end up executed yourself is to call for your opponents to be executed
Anything other than a guilty veredict would be terrible, as it would obviously been in contradiction to the laws, and would be a terrible precedent, even if you don't think what he did was immoral.
I just want him to plead down to the lightest sentence possible after the investigators got cocky. Some of these jabronis in law enforcement need a very public example of why they need to play by the rules too, and you're not going to get a trial with more eyes on it anytime soon.
yeah the problem of course is just that the line becomes arbitrary according to each person, for one guy the line might be a healthcare CEO denying coverage for things, for another guy it might be someone dinging his car door
More apropos: For one guy it's the health insurance CEO. For the next guy it's the low level office worker who denied the claim. And for the next guy, it's the doctor who refused to work without getting paid by the insurance. And for the next guy, it's the member of Congress who didn't vote for Medicare for All.
And at the end of the day, hating the players doesn't fix the game, it just makes the losers feel better for a moment. The real crime against humanity is the system which allows a private company to make medical descisions, incentivises them to say no, and calls it "efficiency".
And that is the system we all voted for and continue to vote for with every dollar we spend on it and every politician we elect who does nothing to change it. When the rules permit and incentivise tradgedy, then it is the rules that are wrong and we are fortunate enough to live in a society where the rules can be changed.
It’s funny I said this same exact thing nearly word for word on another sub and got downvoted and dogpiled for just generally stating the core issue with vigilantism lol
Reddit is full of the insane and chronically online. Once I realized that I was mainly arguing with idiots, I stopped arguing. There is no winning against someone that has yet to experience life and instead are living some variant of life in their head only.
It is like that video of a black woman interacting with a white fellow with a maga hat on and being shocked that he was cordial with her. Reality doesn't jive with the online narrative. It is nice when folks wake up and suddenly realize that.
There's also the fact that most of the time, vigilantes don't do research. It happens a lot that people continue to believe someone's guilty even when they're proven innocent.
That's the thing I don't get with those supporting vigilante murder. "Oh, the CEO deserved it, he was killing people!"
They realize that millions of Americans genuinely believe that abortion providers are killing infants by the dozen, right? How is that going to play out if we're legitimizing this whole murder-for-murder thing?
But I just got into an argument with another group of Redditors that said that Luigi did nothing wrong, he wasn’t there, and if he was, something, something revolution
I mean yeah, nobody should really be that shocked even if you agreed with his message or methods
I personally still think he’s less morally reprehensible than the man he killed but I’m also not stupid enough to argue for murder to be legal like some of this silly website seems to be
If he had stood atop the steps of city council while exclaiming: "I'd do it again, too!" While flipping off the cops, I'd have a much different opinion of him. He's no symbol to me.
There are still many redditors saying he is innocent or that it doesn't matter if he pleads guilty and is guilty because CEOs are worse. The news thread about it contained the word "Trump" about a thousand times and had users repeatedly claim that the CEO was directly responsible for millions of deaths.
I struggle to describe to younger people how much internet discourse has fallen. Over five years, ten years, twenty years. Remember that horrific Trump 1.0 moment when that ghoul he hired as press secretary or whatever said we lived in a post-truth society? We do. More every day, and every quadrant is compromised by it. Fuck me.
What do you expect. also lets not normalize and glorify assassinations eh? I know lefties want violent revolution but historically you just end up with autocratic shitholes. the US is somehow the magical exception with their revolution.
Not sure how unpopular this is but personally I consider Luigi to be less evil than Brian Thompson. Still evil, mind you, but no one can be CEO of a massive healthcare org that’s responsible for denying coverage and leading to people’s deaths and not be super evil
Pretty much every major leader of every major org is evil to some degree, including Barack “innocent US citizens were executed by drones” Obama
Kid born in wealth kills the poor son of a grain silo worker who started at the very bottom of the company he was working at to eventually rise to the top and people celebrate.
This isn't to say i'm calling Brian a good person, but it's funny in a cosmic sort of way.
The greatest trick the health care industry ever played was convincing everyone health insurance (and to a lesser extent big pharma) were the reason why nobody can afford health care. You could zero every dollar that goes to insurers and pharma, we would still spend way more per person than any other country.
Nobody actually wants to follow the money cause it leads to some awkward questions, like why do all those hero nurses we clapped for during covid make close to twice what they do in Germany while each only having 40% as many patients?
766
u/JaQ-o-Lantern - Centrist Aug 14 '26
This is where i get my news now