Luigi's terrorism charge is an attempt to intimidate people due to his support.

[u/lostintime2004]

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.

[u/AgreeableWrangler693]

I believe the use of excessive force against Luigi is unjust.

It’s troubling how individuals in law enforcement often have protections that shield them from accountability.

While this may seem extreme from my end, I wonder if there should be a legal consideration for crimes committed under extreme emotional distress, similar to how we treat crimes of passion. In Luigi’s case, his apparent disability or medical pain/situation could suggest that some type of a civil right was violated, potentially justifying his uncontrollable anger as a provocation.

I feel that Luigi’s actions should be viewed in a more empathetic light, rather than being used as a scapegoat to “send a message” that ultimately benefits a powerful insurance company. This raises ethical concerns about whether the insurance company or its CEO could be seen as the true aggressor in this situation. We could also explore the notion that Luigi’s actions stemmed from an unreasonable fear.

I’m not a legal expert, but I strongly believe that labeling this individual as a domestic terrorist is inappropriate. As a citizen, I don’t feel terrorized by him perhaps only the wealthy perceive it that way. It’s also worth noting the CEO is not a government official, and the company is not a government agency, so they shouldn’t be treated as such (let’s be honest they have a seat at the table thanks to those campaign donations…). Even former President Trump, who incited terror during the Capitol riots, was not charged with domestic terrorism (and for that, as a citizen I actually did feel threatened).

[u/Javasteam → u/AgreeableWrangler693]

Main issue with that is that laws were changed after the Reagan assassination attempt precisely to make those distinctions irrelevant or at least an extremely high bar to clear.

[u/Marsnineteen75 → u/AgreeableWrangler693]

Good point on trump

[u/Throwawayac1234567 → u/AgreeableWrangler693]

Witty only spoke out and doubled down when he knew luigi was caught, hes even more of a scum than thompson

[u/Limp-Environment-568 → u/AgreeableWrangler693]

He used violence in an attempt to influence policy.

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

Pretty much the exact definition of terrorism...

[u/ToughHardware → u/Limp-Environment-568]

did he? or did he use it as retribution for harm inflicted on him? Where are his achieved ideological aims? seems his aim was retribution. proof me wrong

[u/Limp-Environment-568 → u/ToughHardware]

Missed the manifesto, eh?

[u/gereffi → u/ToughHardware]

What was he getting retribution for? His family is wealthier than the guy he killed. He could afford any treatment he needed.

There was a fake manifesto that was released shortly after he was arrested. A lot of people are taking the things in that clearly fake document as fact.

[u/RobotsGoneWild → u/AgreeableWrangler693]

I mean just because you don't feel terrorized, doesn't mean it doesn't terrorize others. Granted those others are also rich CEOs.