this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
1479 points (99.3% liked)

Luigi Mangione

2037 readers
2040 users here now

A community to post anything related to Luigi Mangione.

This is not a pro-murder community. Please respect Lemmy.world ToS.

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 50 minutes ago

Now is a good time to remind people to never ever agree to a police search. They're gonna phrase things weird and take advantage of your good nature. Never agree to any sort of search.

Hell, even if they have a warrant I'm tempted to explicitly say I don't consent. I'm not going to resist but I'm gonna make it clear I'm not consenting. Because how the hell do I even verify a warrant is real? I have no idea, and I certainly wouldn't be able to find out if they're at my door.

Be aware though, in Georgia there is "implied consent" with regards to roadside breathalyzer tests. If you get in that situation, remember I'm just a random lemming and not a lawyer. Other states might have similar things.

[–] F_OFF_Reddit@lemmy.world 9 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You know it's a sham the question is, what are you gonna do? you're the people with access to guns... me here in Europe I gotta fight with literal sticks and stones

[–] MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago

I think you're confused, I live in Europe and I have way more guns that the average American.

[–] crawlspace@lemm.ee 18 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I've been saying all along everything happened too quick for him to be the actual guy. It was pretty clear to me they were desperate to make an example of someone quickly and not accurately.

[–] dagger_punch@lemmy.world 2 points 2 minutes ago

Both things can be true, no? He may actually be the guy, but they acquired evidence illegally and still planted it to subvert due process (again).

[–] misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

They need to play 12 Angry Men for every jury before deliberation, but play it twice for this particular jury. That's not the kind of evidence you send a kid to the chair over.

[–] RymrgandsDaughter@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago

He's innocent

[–] Neuromorph@lemm.ee 43 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 36 points 3 hours ago

This. The chain of evidence is tainted and cannot be accounted for. Anything in the backpack could have been placed there by anyone, at any time, before, during, or after his arrest.

My feelings on this: good. One less thing that they can use against him. If his defense doesn't get any evidence from the backpack thrown out, then idk what they're even doing.

[–] obre@lemmy.world 57 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Something that needs to be considered is the possibility of parallel construction in the arrest and alleged evidence

[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 13 points 2 hours ago

When I first heard about this back in my early 20s, it radicalized me. ACAB.

[–] vrojak@feddit.org 5 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

This is the first time I hear about this, is this just a way to get normally inadmissable evidence admitted through some bullshit loophole or is there an actual good reason to have this system?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 29 minutes ago

Seems like an “ends justifies the means” loophole. The original intent was to hide the source of NSA tips from terrorist prosecution. We’d all probably agree to that without thinking that it can also be used more widely, that the person is not a terrorist until proven so, that there are really no limits, and is an easy way for police to hide abuse of authority.

Analogous to “Civil Forfeiture”. That seemed so reasonable in the context of seizing wealth obtained through criminal activities by organized crime. But there were no real limits, and it allowed perverse incentives, so now we have local cops stealing people’s personal belongings, and actually creating budgets relying on this theft

[–] MrTolkinghoen@lemmy.zip 16 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

It sounds like they're buying time to find evidence that is admissable in court (ie not their illegal methods they used to first book the defendant while they try to scrounge together what they do need.)

So goes like this. You use illegal surveillance to track someone without a warrant. You arrest them and plant evidence as cause for lock up. Meanwhile now you can actually get a warrant to search the defendants computer, house, etc... To try to find something that does give you evidence of guilt that will actually be used to prove you think they're guilty.

Obviously he's innocent though.

[–] b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 hours ago

This is common knowledge for anyone who was around during the Chelsea Manning / Edward Snowden era and all the revelations of the depths of NSA spying, PRISM, etc.

Everything is being recorded, analysed, manipulated to whatever degree they’re technically capable of, laws be damned.

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 43 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

It doesn't matter whether he did or did not do it just like it won't matter what evidence does or does not exist.

An example to be made was chosen, and it will be made.

The only question at this point is how will we react to that example.

[–] DoubleSpace@lemm.ee 14 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If they are worried about conviction, I expect he will be suicided.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 hours ago

This is the harsh truth. Right now, legally, their case is falling apart. A nontrivial amount of hard evidence was in that bag and this action should get everything tossed because the chain of evidence is non-existent.

The other poster is also correct, they've decided he should be punished for this, whether he did or not is irrelevant. They're going to twist every ounce of evidence they can to say he did it. If that doesn't work, he'll be found hanging from his shoelaces...

[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 143 points 7 hours ago (11 children)

Jokes aside, I honestly don't know if he's the guy.

What I do know, is if this part is true, that should be enough to put doubt into the "beyond a reasonable doubt" part in the jury.

[–] nfreak@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

I want to see him win this whether he did it or not, but at this point it legitimately looks like it isn't him. Either way, they just want to make an example out of him, it's literally just class warfare and nothing else.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

I wouldn't be surprised if it was him, if he had a meticulous brilliant plan to make sure there was no direct evidence, so people would know it was him but they couldn't prove it in a court of law.

And then the cops were like "it's cute you think we play by the rules" and planted evidence.

[–] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

I hope he did it and I hope he gets off.

[–] Aeri@lemmy.world 47 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

I just point blank don't believe he did it.

Let's say I kill a high profile individual on the street you know, hypothetically.

Do you seriously believe that I'd be casually hanging out in public at a McDonalds with a manifesto and loaded gun in my bag? I'm pretty sure that my first port of call if I was assassinating someone would be "Burn all the evidence in an alleyway somewhere, get new clothes on, and lay low for pretty much the rest of my fucking life, possibly in Mexico"

"Burn all the evidence in an alleyway somewhere, get new clothes on

Luigi in the released CCTV photography is already wearing different clothes to the shooter. Not very different though.

Bit strange to change clothes and backpack but keep the same styling and colors.

[–] ziggurat@lemmy.world 28 points 4 hours ago

Not only that, Luigi's fake ID which he did not use in an illegal way any known time was not linked with the shooting, just linked to a NY hostel.

Also Luigi was not marandised, hes also charged in NY, Pennsylvania and federally at the same time, double (triple?) jeopardy

And his bags were searched without him being able to see the search, which puts into question the search, but they didn't find any gun or manifesto at that time. 6 hours later, they did find a gun and a manifesto after being contact with NYPD. And the paper work for this evidence is also not properly filed. In addition the inventory of his belonging was also not descriptive.

He was arrested by a rookie cop that didn't get help from a supervisor to avoid mistakes either, lots of adrenaline in a huge profile case like this. He said he knew right away that this was the killer, and he had only the propaganda NYPD had posted to the media. And NYPD didn't know who the killer was

I dont know how long it took, but it took well over 100 days before the defence was able to even see the evidence against him. A huge red flag that the prosecution dont think the evidence holds water. And when they did get it, it was terabytes of data, and Luigi wasn't allowed to use a computer without hus lawyer present, blocking him from seeing what weaksauce they have against him

The aid to the prosecutor also listened in, they say it was an accident to a whole telephone conversation with Luigi and the lawyer, how is this even possible. The prosecutor rebuked him self from the case after they were caught doing this, so they do a new prosecutor

The feds even call for the death penalty before Luigi is even indited, let alone convinced.

I'm just very skeptical this is the shooter, why would they screw up everything so bad every step on puropuse like this. Its just a hail Mary that the judge who is married to a CEO will convict anyway

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 41 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

He's an example of the difference in outcomes between a competent attorney focused solely on your own defense and some public defender that didn't know you'd be their client until five minutes before trial.

Whether or not he did it, the real outcome of this court case appears to be reaffirming that the ~~NYPD~~ local Pennsylvania PD simply cannot be trusted to do any kind of investigation of a crime or evidence handling even in the most high-profile cases.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›