Why prosecutors charged Luigi Mangione with terrorism and a judge said no

[Metric Mouse]

Why prosecutors charged Luigi Mangione with terrorism and a judge said no

A judge has shut down prosecutors' attempt to use a 9/11-era New York terrorism law in their case against Luigi Mangione.

apnews.com

Thompson wasn’t a government official, and UnitedHealthcare’s dispersed workforce doesn’t qualify as a “civilian population,” the defense lawyers wrote in a court filing.

In their view, his alleged diary writings “make clear that Mr. Mangione was not looking to terrorize any community."

Interesting argument- looks like lawyers are saying Luigi just wanted to kill a guy, but not influence anyone or change policy or affect broader health care changes across the country. He just wanted to murder... according to his lawyers.

Wild. Also didn't even know the guy:

They said Mangione researched UnitedHealthcare — having apparently never been a customer himself — and laid out a plan to “wack” the CEO

 

[ElChupacabra]

The terrorism charge felt like a pretty big reach.

 

[j brown's body]

Everyone the administration doesn't like is a terrorist now.

Guys riding on a boat out in the sea are terrorists.

We really got to put up with this madness for 4 more years?

I saw Trump on TV tonight. He did not look good.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

The terrorism charge felt like a pretty big reach.

It was. The fact that they even tried it should lead to a 1-year suspension of their licensure.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The terrorism charge felt like a pretty big reach.

Why did he kill the guy?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Why did he kill the guy?

The better question is why the charge of his act being terrorism failed. Not all killers are terrorists, since there are specific criteria for what qualifies as terrorism.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The better question is why the charge of his act being terrorism failed. Not all killers are terrorists, since there are specific criteria for what qualifies as terrorism.

The main criterion that distinguishes plain old murder from terrorism is the reason the person committed the murder. So no, it's not really a better question.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The main criterion that distinguishes plain old murder from terrorism is the reason the person committed the murder. So no, it's not really a better question.

Sure, but that's a pretty big distinction, so in this case the government had to prove the motive for the shooting were based on the criteria specific to terrorism versus being one driven purely by his own views and no attempt to terrorize others. Based on his own manifesto, he didn't indicate this assassination was to make any kind of specific change, but rather as an act against what he felt was a parasitic industry. Had he spelled out more killings in order to affect some kind of change, then I'm sure the charge might have held.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Interesting argument- looks like lawyers are saying Luigi just wanted to kill a guy, but not influence anyone or change policy or affect broader health care changes across the country. He just wanted to murder... according to his lawyers.

Clearly, you fail to comprehend what Mangione’s lawyers argued.

The murder did not meet the statutory definition/requirements.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Sure, but that's a pretty big distinction, so in this case the government had to prove the motive for the shooting were based on the criteria specific to terrorism versus being one driven purely by his own views and no attempt to terrorize others. Based on his own manifesto, he didn't indicate this assassination was to make any kind of specific change, but rather as an act against what he felt was a parasitic industry. Had he spelled out more killings in order to affect some kind of change, then I'm sure the charge might have held.

You're injecting more into the law than is required. If he killed the CEO to set an example to threaten other insurance executives into changing their policies (which is obviously what he was doing), then it was terrorism. There doesn't have to be a plan to do it again. Suicide bombers don't have plans to do it again, but we know very well they are terrorists.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Everyone the administration doesn't like is a terrorist now.

Yup.

Guys riding on a boat out in the sea are terrorists.

Yup.

We really got to put up with this madness for 4 more years?

Nope.

A little more than a year from now, Dems could seriously hamper/put a stop to much of Traitor Trump’s shitting on our Constitution.

I saw Trump on TV tonight. He did not look good.

He is genuinely showing signs of losing his grip on reality.

 

[ElChupacabra]

You're injecting more into the law than is required. If he killed the CEO to set an example to threaten other insurance executives into changing their policies (which is obviously what he was doing), then it was terrorism.

Incorrect, as cited in his comments as to why the charge was dropped. The judge conceded that attack was ideological since Mangione's manifesto indicated his act was to bring about "revolutionary change", but not to government policy.

There doesn't have to be a plan to do it again. Suicide bombers don't have plans to do it again, but we know very well they are terrorists.

Right, but based on how terrorism is defined, who the targets are matters as well and from my understanding is largely focused on actions against the government. Mangione was indicted for murder in the first degree (victim killed in ''furtherance of an act of terrorism," as defined in PL $ 490.05). I can see why it didn't stick based on the definition below.

New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 490.05 Definitions​

1. “Act of terrorism”:

(a) for purposes of this article means an act or acts constituting a specified offense as defined in subdivision three of this section for which a person may be convicted in the criminal courts of this state pursuant to article twenty of the criminal procedure law, or an act or acts constituting an offense in any other jurisdiction within or outside the territorial boundaries of the United States which contains all of the essential elements of a specified offense, that is intended to:

(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping; or
(b) for purposes of subparagraph (xiii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section 125.27 of this chapter means activities that involve a violent act or acts dangerous to human life that are in violation of the criminal laws of this state and are intended to:

(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.

Source

 

[Noodlegawd]

Incorrect, as cited in his comments as to why the charge was dropped. The judge conceded that attack was ideological since Mangione's manifesto indicated his act was to bring about "revolutionary change", but not to government policy.


Right, but based on how terrorism is defined, who the targets are matters as well and from my understanding is largely focused on actions against the government. Mangione was indicted for murder in the first degree (victim killed in ''furtherance of an act of terrorism," as defined in PL $ 490.05). I can see why it didn't stick based on the definition below.

New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 490.05 Definitions​

1. “Act of terrorism”:

(a) for purposes of this article means an act or acts constituting a specified offense as defined in subdivision three of this section for which a person may be convicted in the criminal courts of this state pursuant to article twenty of the criminal procedure law, or an act or acts constituting an offense in any other jurisdiction within or outside the territorial boundaries of the United States which contains all of the essential elements of a specified offense, that is intended to:

(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping; or
(b) for purposes of subparagraph (xiii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section 125.27 of this chapter means activities that involve a violent act or acts dangerous to human life that are in violation of the criminal laws of this state and are intended to:

(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.

Source

Literally the first item in the list in the statute does not require the action to be a government. Insurance company executives are a civilian population, and he said in his own words that he was trying to coerce them to change what they were doing.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Literally the first item in the list in the statute does not require the action to be a government. Insurance company executives are a civilian population, and he said in his own words that he was trying to coerce them to change what they were doing.

Apparently the judge didn't agree.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Apparently the judge didn't agree.

Judges are wrong all the time. That's why we have multiple levels of appellate courts.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Clearly, you fail to comprehend what Mangione’s lawyers argued.

The murder did not meet the statutory definition/requirements.

Yes, because he did not want to influence anyone...

Clearly social or political change was not his goal, according to his lawyers.

Just murder.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yes, because he did not want to influence anyone...

Clearly social or political change was not his goal, according to his lawyers.

Just murder.

Manhattan Judge Gregory Carro said there is “no doubt that the crime at issue here is not ordinary ‘street crime,’” but that doesn’t make it terrorism. Prosecutors “appear to conflate an ideological belief with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” he wrote.

Just that simple.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Manhattan Judge Gregory Carro said there is “no doubt that the crime at issue here is not ordinary ‘street crime,’” but that doesn’t make it terrorism. Prosecutors “appear to conflate an ideological belief with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” he wrote.

Just that simple.

Yep. He was not trying to influence a population or support a political position or make anyone change their behavior.

He just wanted to kill a specific person to whom he had no relationship. For no benefit of himself or others; the murder was the point.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yep. He was not trying to influence a population or support a political position or make anyone change their behavior.

He just wanted to kill a specific person to whom he had no relationship. For no benefit of himself or others; the murder was the point.

Your failed understanding has already been addressed.

 

[What if...?]

You're injecting more into the law than is required. If he killed the CEO to set an example to threaten other insurance executives into changing their policies (which is obviously what he was doing), then it was terrorism. There doesn't have to be a plan to do it again. Suicide bombers don't have plans to do it again, but we know very well they are terrorists.

Maybe health insurance CEOs aren’t considered a “population”.

 

[bomberfox]

Yup.

Yup.

Nope.

A little more than a year from now, Dems could seriously hamper/put a stop to much of Traitor Trump’s shitting on our Constitution.

He is genuinely showing signs of losing his grip on reality.

Yeahhh we had 10 years to do that. Im not seeing it happening… Trump is going to die free as a bird…

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yeahhh we had 10 years to do that. Im not seeing it happening… Trump is going to die free as a bird…

I expect so, too.

Talk about a disgrace.

 

[bomberfox]

I expect so, too.

Talk about a disgrace.

Its why ive just given up. Evil won and good people continue to delude themselves into thinking the system will save us.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Your failed understanding has already been addressed.

Nah. I understand what his lawyers argued.

It's good this guy didn't think violence would change anything; imagine if people believed that.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Nah. I understand what his lawyers argued.

Too bad you fail to understand the judge’s logical/proper decision.