Re: The Hypocrisy of Luigi Mangione's Leftist Fandom

moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 12/26/2024 12:20 PM, super70s wrote:

On 2024-12-26 17:09:02 +0000, Rhino said:
 

On 2024-12-25 6:01 PM, moviePig wrote:

On 12/25/2024 4:10 PM, Rhino wrote:

On 2024-12-25 3:57 PM, moviePig wrote:

On 12/25/2024 3:22 PM, shawn wrote:

On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 14:28:07 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
 

On 2024-12-25 1:50 PM, super70s wrote:

On 2024-12-25 01:36:44 +0000, BTR1701 said:
 

According to the Left, the death penalty is unfair, unjust,
immoral, and
evil.
 
Unless you have the opportunity to walk up to a rich guy you don't
like on
the sidewalk and shoot him in the back. The only form of the death
penalty
that's okay for the Left is the form that doesn't include a judge,
jury, or
court, and where the executed person has not been charged with,
convicted
of, or even accused of any specific crime.
 
This is the actual position of millions of leftists in this
country.
Not a
straw man. It's what they believe.

 
Why do you presume Mangione's fandom is "leftist" exclusively?

 
Because you leftist types love anything that can be portrayed as
a blow
against capitalism and assassinating a CEO absolutely SCREAMS
"Down with
Capitalism!"

 
The only people I see supporting Mangione were just average people on
Twitter. While I'm sure some would be considered on the left I
couldn't tell you if they were all on the left or just partly on the
left. I don't see any media types on the left or right supporting
him.
 
What I do see is many people hating on the current health care
industry and supporting anything that gets them to change their ways.
The problem is that it's not at all clear that killing that CEO does
anything but get the other CEOs to close ranks. I've seen posts from
other CEOs decrying the attack but not commenting on what the CEO had
done as the CEO of that health care company. (Having the largest
number of rejected claims by far from every health care insurance
company.)
 

 
I thought Donald Trump (allegedly) had this big populist appeal
going
and one would think that would include sticking it to health
insurance
companies.

 
Has he even commented on the reasons behind the attack? I mean
everyone can (or should) be able to say that murder is bad, but that
still leaves the reasons behind the attack unsaid by many.

 
Giving him such a podium would be proclaimed politically incorrect.
 
 

Huh? It's politically incorrect for the soon-to-be top politician in
the land to have an opinion about a political matter? That's absurd.

 
Error.  I thought 'he/him' referred to Mangione.
 
 

 
On re-reading this, I'm not sure if "he/him" refers to Mangione or
Trump. If it meant Trump, I stand by my assertion that he has every
right to speak about health insurance in general. If it meant
Mangione, it would be risky for him to speak about his motivation in
shooting the CEO: it might rally him some support from the people who
think murdering insurance CEOs is a good idea but it would make it a
whole lot harder to justify his not-guilty plea, which wouldn't augur
well for him in his trial.

 
I believe his lawyer (reportedly a former prosecutor and probably the
best legal counsel he could hope for in a case with such overwhelming
evidence) is going for an insanity defense and hoping for jury
nullification. As we've seen there's certainly no shortage of people
sympathetic to his cause.

 
As I understand it, an 'insanity defense' would be its own thing
...whereas 'jury nullification' would say, "He did it but in the service
of higher justice we're setting him free anyway."  And, to arrive at the
latter, the jury would have to engage perilous precedent.

Nullification is an odd thing in that while it is technically legal,
attorneys are prohibited from arguing it in court, so any jury that wants
to do it has to know about that option on their own.

I wonder if judgment notwithstanding the verdict is available to the
prosecution or if that's only something the defense can argue for.