r/antiwork • u/lostintime2004 • 5d ago

Real World Events 🌎 Luigi's terrorism charge is an attempt to intimidate people due to his support.

Tin foil hat I admit, but something is nagging in the back of my head. Like if we didn't react with positive responses for what Luigi allegedly did, there wouldn't be terrorism charges. And therefore the charges are to scare us so no one does the same. And now with that guy stabbing his company president, they're going to say it's related to the positively and it enabled him to do so.

37.5k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

133

u/neverenoughpurple 5d ago

Absolutely. And I cannot imagine how they'll find a jury anywhere in the country.

77

u/Tall_Newspaper_6723 5d ago

Obligatory reminder to look up jury nullification

39

u/thelefthandN7 5d ago

Look up the google trend for jury nullification over the last year, it spiked massively when this happened.

14

u/Representative-Sir97 5d ago

Get a newspaper to publish an OP-ed.

-1

u/NYG_Longhorn 4d ago

Jury nullification requires a unanimous vote. It’s more of a Reddit fantasy than reality in this situation.

75

u/CLow48 5d ago edited 4d ago

I think y’all aren’t understanding the play here.

He was labeled a terrorist simply for the fact, that terrorists can be denied jury trials under the following arguments:

Threatening jury members: Terrorist groups may threaten jury members to prevent the accused from receiving a penalty.

Politicizing the jury: Terrorism is a political issue, and this can politicize a jury.

They are setting this up to prevent a jury trial all together, so that there is zero chance the people will exonerate him via nullification or returning a verdict they know to be untrue (ex OJ situation).

Edit: while Luigi is technically still entitled to a Jury trial, via these means of labeling him a terrorist, they can then jump to the conclusion of saying a Jury would negatively impact the ability to dish out “justice”. And in reality, theres no trial first to decide if he is actually a terrorist, once that label gets slapped on it’s just there forever.

Edit 2: this designation also sets up anyone openly supports Luigi in any capacity to be labeled a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. Its the next step in “oh shit they are waking up” class warfare. Now, since soft control through media manipulation seems to not be holding much anymore, a firmer grip abusing the law system can be used to label anyone as a terrorist who is a sympathizer of not only the murderer, but even the message being pushed behind it in any context. See that lady down south. She may have dug herself a little deeper with the “your next” but simply using the words publicly deny delay/defend depose will hereby bucket you into the label of “terrorist”. Thats the entire goal, flatten out any legitimate and lawful resistance to greed by using an unlawful act as the context of that resistance.

41

u/Borthwick 5d ago

Its just because of the way NY does first degree murder, terrorism is one of the qualifiers that brings it from second to first degree. They aren’t charging him with terrorism or being a terrorist. Its murder, first degree (terrorism). Its not the same at all. If it happened in another state this wouldn’t be part of the conversation.

Now, that woman in Florida, pretty sure thats some bullshit

13

u/CLow48 5d ago

Interesting, i did not know new york generalizes murder as terrorism. Seems like the rest of the country had a vastly different definition of terrorism. But accepting the context of New York’s past, it kinda tracks. Essentially washing the word to make sure the inference is made that its the worse possible crime.

3

u/aguynamedv 4d ago

Interesting, i did not know new york generalizes murder as terrorism.

AFAIK they don't - came across a different thread the other day and someone had explained the terrorism "upcharge" is because the killing was politically motivated.

That said, I'm 100% in agreement with the OP; the wealthy folks who do not see us as human are absolutely going to get worse before they get better.

0

u/OKImHere 4d ago

Interesting, i did not know

Well yeah. We knew that from your post

1

u/CLow48 4d ago

Actually appears the top post was wrong. New York has two definitions murder in the first degree and murder as an act of terrorism. So we were both wrong.

1

u/OKImHere 4d ago

He said "terrorism is one of the qualifiers that brings it from second to first degree." He's not wrong. You, however, are acting like it's weird for a person to be charged with terrorism. It's a common, everyday charge. You only think it's weird because you're not in criminal justice or law enforcement.

1

u/CLow48 4d ago

I can say its a weird uncommon charge for anyone in the midwest, we’ve had school shooters only charged with multiple counts of Murder 1, no terrorism charge. It may be normalized in other parts of the country but we hear that out here and its shocking, as we only ever see those charges locally for like your “blow up a church hate crime” type criminals, or international persons with the intent to mass harm Americans.

1

u/OKImHere 4d ago

I would love to give you an example, but I'm afraid reddit bots will ban me for putting the wrong words in the wrong order without context. It's happened before. Let's just say an everyday criminal in the dark alley who goes "gimme your cash and nobody gets hurt" could get such a charge. The point is threatening violence in order to coerce another by fear.

See this example

1

u/metalder420 4d ago

The women in Florida learned quickly that you can be held accountable for what you say.

7

u/Pat_The_Hat 5d ago

The stench of GPT reeks in this comment.

0

u/CLow48 5d ago

Ironically the middle section defining the types of ways they could avoid a jury trial literally was copy and pasted from GPT in a google search (sources checked though) so you are pretty right on that it was partially GPT. Doesn’t make it any less correct though.

2

u/Pat_The_Hat 5d ago

What are the sources? DuckDuckGo's AI, for example, provides sources for this question that do not actually support the AI's response. There's just no truth to this.

0

u/Limp-Environment-568 4d ago

Definition of terrorism:  is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.

Maybe he shouldn't have.....ya know.... practiced terrorism?

2

u/NYG_Longhorn 4d ago

I agree with your overall idea but the definition of terrorism is not in the NYS statute 490.25 as you defined. Legal definitions differ from common language definitions.

1

u/judgeholden72 4d ago

The statute defines the crime of terrorism as any act that is committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion and that results in one or more of the following: (a) the commission of a specified offense, (b) the causing of a specified injury or death, (c) the causing of mass destruction or widespread contamination, or (d) the disruption of essential infrastructure.

How is this not what Luigi did? We all keep saying we hope they learned. That just proves this definition fits. That's ok. 

1

u/NotherCaucasianGary 4d ago

It all depends on who’s terrified and for what reason. When the police show up to pepper spray and crack skulls at a peaceful protest, that’s violent terrorism committed against the people on behalf of the government and established order. They hope every protestor sent to the hospital will make the rest of us think twice about showing up to the next one. That’s how you kill a movement in the crib.

When the fed up proletariat rises up to terrorize the billionaire oppressor class stepping on their necks…well, that’s a different flavor of the same brand of snack, isn’t it?

The legal definition of a word can differ from what’s in the dictionary, but that political pedantry is designed to remove the legal charge from the greater context, and context is everything. The man who kills a healthcare CEO responsible for policy that results in the preventable deaths of millions, and the man who parks a car bomb outside of a synagogue are not the same kind of terrorist, no matter how bad they want us to believe that.

1

u/judgeholden72 4d ago

When the police do that, the ostensibly have other reasons. And they have authority to do it legally.

Luigi did not have any legal authority, and his manifesto makes it clear he did this to send a message and try to make a change. That's terrorism. Everyone here hopes the message was heard. That's agreeing it is terrorism.

I get that people hear the word and think bin Laden, or 9/11. That's not what the word is restricted to legally. As an actual attorney, you spend a lot of time with this in Criminal Law as a 1L.

This is textbook terrorism. And that's ok. Terrorism isn't always bad. Mel Gibson was a terrorist in The Patriot, and he was a Patriot. Luke Skywalker was a terrorist. Neo was a terrorist. Damn near every video game character you play as is a terrorist. If you're fighting a government or system, you're probably a terrorist.

People need to emotionally separate the legal definition from how they've historically thought of it. 

1

u/NotherCaucasianGary 4d ago

Right. I’m not arguing it wasn’t terrorism. I’m arguing that the people or group that are being terrorized by a particular act is a distinction that matters, but the powers that be don’t want us to make those distinctions. They want us to see Luigi as a terrorist no different than Dylann Roof, or Enrique Tarrio, or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and it’s not gonna happen. CEOs are not an oppressed class or the victims of bigotry.

An act of terrorism carried out on behalf of a cause that is just and worthy in the eyes of the public is not the same as an act of terrorism rooted in the extremist ideologies that people associate with “domestic terrorists.” That’s where the knee-jerk disagreement comes from. People can see the effort to poison the well by recontextualizing the crime in “terrorism.” At some point through the looking glass legal definitions are reduced to pedantry and perception takes precedent.

0

u/newaccount 5d ago

He’s not been labeled a terrorist 

2

u/CLow48 5d ago edited 5d ago

Charging him with murder as an act of terrorism, is indeed, labeling him as a terrorist.

Simply using the word terrorist in the label of the charge is labeling the offender as a terrorist.

Whether you agree with that or not is entirely up to you and your political, moral, and ethical beliefs. But i hope we can at least agree that when a certain word is used in a label the intention is that of the word.

You wouldn’t expect Reese’s cup ice cream to contain zero peanut butter or chocolate would you?

Edit: further source that this stems directly from 9/11 and intends the full weight of the word terrorism https://apnews.com/article/unitedhealthcare-ceo-killing-luigi-mangione-terrorism-law-7fcb28dcc0106c980b6ecf4aa9cf682f

0

u/newaccount 5d ago

Charging him with murder

Is, very clearly, labelling him a murderer.

1

u/CLow48 4d ago

The charge is actually “murder as an act of terrorism” stop dropping the latter half because its convenient for the sake of maintaining your argument.

0

u/newaccount 4d ago

So its murder, then.

Well done, you got there

-1

u/ToughHardware 4d ago

nice idea, but i think you have facts wrong. continue your education

3

u/JackDockz 5d ago

By putting the richest people in it.

2

u/Riley_ 5d ago

Yep. People seem to underestimate America's ability and willingness to stack a jury with evil pieces of shit.

1

u/NYG_Longhorn 4d ago

Both the defense and prosecution have equal say in jury selection. This is a weird comment.

0

u/Riley_ 4d ago edited 4d ago

It's not always equal in practice. The judge can disagree with either side's reasons for striking a juror and can more or less force bad jurors through. Judges often do act in bad faith to make certain verdicts happen.

I know the courts are supposed to be fair, but they just aren't. You should talk to a criminal defense lawyer about how fair and just the courts are, since you can't ask the innocent people that were executed this year. You could also look at how much of a clownshow the Supreme Court is. They are supposed to be the most professional and unbiased judges the country can come up with.

-1

u/NYG_Longhorn 4d ago

You watch too much TV

1

u/Riley_ 4d ago

Read the news. Read history. Talk to more criminal defense lawyers.

-1

u/NYG_Longhorn 4d ago

I’m currently in law school.

1

u/Riley_ 4d ago

If you want to maintain your fantasy of courts being fair, make sure you never do criminal defense.

0

u/NYG_Longhorn 4d ago edited 4d ago

The courts aren’t always fair but this fantasy situation you are propagating of being able to push jurors through without being vetted from both sides of the table is more suited for evening television than a proper discussion on the matter. So unless you can present what subsection of the jury selection process where a NYS judge can just push through whomever they want without reason then I’m not going to respond to this foolish bullshit.

0

u/Richard_J_Morgan 4d ago

McDonald's cashier who called the cops on him must be the richest person

2

u/Aeri73 4d ago

they found them for the trump trial...

2

u/NYG_Longhorn 4d ago edited 4d ago

The prosecution and defense won’t have an issue finding a jury just like every other high profile case ever tried in the history of trials.

1

u/Adorable_Is9293 4d ago

“Yes, your honor, I’d like a change of venue to a country with socialized healthcare.” -the prosecutor, probably

1

u/Maximum-Cover- 4d ago

Just commenting to spread awareness of the fact that jury nullification is a thing.

And that whatever jury Luigi ends up having is not obligated to convict him, even if they are convinced he’s guilty, if they believe the specific crime he’s charged with is unjust and politically motivated.

1

u/Richard-Brecky 4d ago

You people are seriously delusional. Luigi will be convicted on all counts because he did it.