The CEO killer watching from his hidey hole as authorities try to pin everything on some random dude named Luigi : memes

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 27 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Seriously a manifesto that starts off by praising the feds is about as suspicious as a cop going "Yeah, the suspect died in my custody, but before you think about giving me suspending me from the force with pay. He wrote this confession letter in his own blood confirming he killed himself and three whole paragraphs affirming that my massive cock is indeed large and super not-small."

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 2 points 17 minutes ago* (last edited 17 minutes ago)

Between that, the discrepancy of the eyebrows, and the discrepancy of the backpack thing, so much of this doesn't add up. Not guilty.

[–] big_fat_fluffy@leminal.space 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Maybe it's a staged event. The latest consensus-splitter / distraction.

Look how it has split us. Reddit deleting posts. Unironic discussion of guillotines.

[–] Sl00k@programming.dev 15 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

This event has brought a lot more class consciousness to the masses than anything else imo.

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

It doesn't have to have been effective. They might just have overestimated how many people would think killing health insurance CEOs was unacceptable.

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 24 points 4 hours ago

I really hope that Luigi does get acquitted. I mean if it is factual that he didn't do it and the real killer is out there... well then, I guess Luigi still got lots of fame, but at the same time we will also be happy that the real guy is not only free, but the mystery of who he is will make him cooler.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Genuine question, but supposing we were to consider this theory, why would there also, one, be complaints about the cops parading him around as a victory, and two, people saying Luigi was a hero?

Whether you love or hate cops, they are not stupid. I'm sure if there was even an ounce of suggestion that they got the wrong guy, the cops would quietly decide not to be so smug about it.

And to those who side with him, he's either a hero/idol or he didn't do anything. Pick one. I myself pick the third choice.

Also, of note, it's quite a coincidence they found the guy, then found out his name, and then found out his wealthy upbringing, evidenced by the fact he was trying to be as low profile as possible at the time, which would've curbed the ability to do all of that in reverse order. If he wasn't the killer, that's like firing a bullseye in the dark.

[–] ynthrepic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 53 minutes ago) (1 children)

He's just this guy who has a big chance of being a murderer. He is capable of deliberately planning to kill a person outside of immediate self-defence. However evil CEO A or B may be, the moral calculus isn't hard: society as a whole comes first. Unless we're sure he is innocent, it's not clear he's someone who can be left free safely. He's a flight risk for starters.

Police parade him and his manifesto so that they have an excuse to hold him, they look competent, and they get to keep him behind bars until we know for sure one way or another, or until they can't hold him any longer. In which case we may never know for sure until the statue of limitations had passed and if he wants to confess.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The scary part is, supposing he wasn't the murderer and the actual one is out there, under normal circumstances, people could post wanted signs to see if someone might find this "actual" killer, but we aren't under normal circumstances right now, with our circumstances being ones where the turnout for finds would be low in a world where wanted signs of random billionaires hang in random places in New York, with Brian Thompson actually not being a big opponent of society, having come from poor, rural Iowa and wanting to reform the business but lagging due to hoops (only to, then, be killed by someone he had not had under his insurance to begin with).

[–] ynthrepic@lemmy.world 2 points 50 minutes ago

A scary possibility indeed!

[–] big_fat_fluffy@leminal.space -4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Luigi is probably working for them. His job is to do all the "right" things, to further the preferred narrative and such. He's a paid actor.

The real infidel will disappear quietly.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 46 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

Don't chew your food with your mouth open, holy shit Michael where are your manners

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 hours ago

His manners are somewhere up a small boys anus.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

yeah he's known for being terrible at table manners

[–] SuspiciousCatThing@pawb.social 10 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

It's bothered me literally every time I've seen this.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 13 points 17 hours ago

When your teeth are too perfect to hide.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 182 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't get me wrong. After all of this high drama, it would be extremely funny if Luigi Mangione can prove he was in Rochester on the day of the shooting.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I think that's exactly where it's going. Get convicted, real killer confesses and the state can't pursue a crime they've convicted someone for.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 7 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Why not? The double jeopardy clause is about prosecuting a single person twice; it says nothing about prosecuting a second person for the same crime. Heck, convicting a second person wouldn't even automatically invalidate the first conviction. (SCOTUS has ruled that innocence is not a sufficient reason to overturn a conviction.)

Remember, we have a judicial system. Calling it a "justice system" is inaccurate.

[–] vaionko@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

innocence is not a sufficient reason to overturn a conviction

WHAT

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 3 points 3 hours ago

Here's an in-depth article from Slate.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

They can once they release that conviction but it goes to show ineptitude and malfeasance which casts doubt on any further attempt to convict someone. And yes it would, shadow of a doubt is a high standard and a second conviction is a huge amount of doubt.

Factual innocence is different, it's a positive defense for literally any criminal charge.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

There's no mechanism to release a conviction. Usually, if prosecutors have convicted somebody for murder, they won't pursue a case against a second person only for reason of not wanting to admit that they may have got it wrong. But there's no legal barrier, and it has happened for other crimes. The Ninth Circuit even ruled that it's legal.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Reversed, released, overturned are all the same thing and happen literally daily. Where did you get your information that a conviction can't be changed?

Ed: reading your source it hinged on the crime technically being capable of being committed by multiple people and this one clearly can't be.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, a conviction can be overturned, but what I'm pointing out here is that it doesn't have to be in order to convict somebody else for the same crime.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Sure. But you said there isn't a mechanism for it, there clearly is.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

And there isn't. If prosecutors file a new case against a second person for the same crime, and get a conviction, there's no mechanism by which that second conviction overturns the previous conviction. Depending on the circumstances, the first person convicted may not even have grounds to have their case brought before a court to be re-examined.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Automatically? No, almost nothing but enhancements are automatic.

What I hear you saying it is not just possible but probable.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 234 points 1 day ago (4 children)

There's a part of me hoping dudes going along with it to aid in the others escape, solidarity style, and he's got some iron clad alibi his lawyer plans to deliver in the courtroom that means they can't convict him.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 11 points 5 hours ago

As if they would care. There will be no justice here.

[–] millie@beehaw.org 14 points 19 hours ago

Luigi is player 2.

[–] lemmyknow@lemmy.today 86 points 1 day ago (11 children)

Plot twist: this was a group act all along. The murderer flees the scene. Once the image gets released, a second actor shows up at a McDonald's, a public space. Gets reported to authorities by a third actor, who does actually work at McD's. They waste the authorities' time, and the second actor, having commited no crimes, proves his innocence. The actual murderer, in the meantime, disappears for real, benefiting of the time wasted by the authorities. Second actor represents something, and gets some cool pics getting "arrested"

Idk, the idea just came to mind seeing the comment above

[–] superkret@feddit.org 53 points 22 hours ago

the second actor, having commited no crimes, proves his innocence.

Here's the flaw in your plan: This doesn't actually work in the US.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] ifItWasUpToMe@lemmy.ca 131 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I want this timeline so damn bad

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 76 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Next time they pick a patsy for a guy with distinctive eyebrows they should find a guy with the same eyebrows.

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 1 points 4 hours ago

If the brows don't quit, you must acquit!

Memes

Rules: