this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
768 points (98.9% liked)

News

23655 readers
2436 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 91 points 2 days ago (9 children)

This makes me believe it really wasn't him. If he actually wrote a manifesto, he'd have declared himself guilty, taken credit, and done a speech about how he was now a martyr for the cause.

If he's sticking to his story, then I believe him. They couldn't find the real killer so they just went with whoever "fit the description", as per usual.

[–] frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 5 points 23 hours ago

I tend to think it's because they charged him as a terrorist. I assume it's a different law in which case he might be able to prove it's not terrorism.

[–] arc@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago

Of course it was him. That doesn't mean from a legal perspective he is best served by pleading guilty. Pleading not guilty also means he'll get a jury trial and his lawyers can introduce evidence that embarrasses private health insurance providers, or proves his state of mind, or otherwise casts doubt.

[–] FJW@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That’s now how it works: In the US “justice”-system there are only extremely limited cases where it makes sense to plead non-guilty, because it pretty much just means that you skip the trial and get sentenced directly. Especially if you want Jury-nullification, you have to plead non-guilty so that the Jury can find you innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

What overwhelming evidence in this case? The evidence made public definitely seems to imply he's not the one who shot the CEO.

Why would a person take such a carefully planned route through the city to Central Park, change clothes and dump their bag, only to keep their gun, fake IDs and hand written manifesto/confession on their person three days later while eating lunch at a restaurant? If Luigi was the shooter and looking to take credit as what has been released of the manifesto implies, why hide out for three days instead of publicly turning themselves in after informing the press so it's recorded and likely televised?

[–] Hlodwig@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Its obviously NOT him, footage from the murder shows thin eyebrows, white skin (like Irish white) and way smaller dude than Luigi... I still cant understand that people still believe Luigi could be the killer...

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wouldn’t be surprised if he was in New York on some legitimate business, they caught him on camera at a Starbucks near the murder, blasted his image all over the news and social media, and just waited for someone to call.

Then when they got the call, they grabbed a backpack with “evidence” and claimed he had it on him when they arrested him.

Did anyone believe that he was wondering around for 3 days with a bag that was holding the murder weapon, fake IDs, and a hand written manifesto? He ditched another bag, and escaped on an e-bike. Why would he then run around for three days with the rest of the evidence.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago

Either he is the dumbest man alive, or the police really wanted to just go with the first guy who fit the description knowing that they'll look like heroes to their corporate overlords, and that if another guy bites the dust they can just say it was a copycat.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 46 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Innocent until proven guilty. It's the government's job to prove him guilty. He doesn't have to help them.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If Innocent until proven guilty, why the fuck do we lock people up to await their court date?

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Because it makes money, and a splash of long standing racism

[–] iamtrashman1312@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

You can plug this answer verbatim into almost any "why does the US do this bad thing?"

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Personally, I am sad that is all it takes for you to believe something. Businesses, media, governments, and more are trying to make people believe things (unrelated to luigi) that aren't true. You need to raise the bar, not lower it. Maybe you want to believe he didn't do it, but I hope you don't actually believe that based on so little information.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

There's too much that doesn't add up, it's just too convenient that he had the gun and manifesto on him.

[–] sunbytes@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

I mean, if he can away with it while not undermining his original intentions, why not do it?

There's various ways he could go unpunished that would prevent a retrial and so he'd then be set up to be influential in some kind of healthcare reform.

Heavy on the cope though.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That doesn't explain why he keeps mogging the camera, or what he yells to the journalist in that one video.

I don't know if it's him, but I think whoever it is, is just following their lawyer's advice, not trying to be a martyr

[–] DeLacue@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The thing is they've actually made a mistake charging him with terrorism. It is surprisingly narrowly defined so even without a sympathetic jury he might get a not guilty verdict for it and it weakens the whole case against him. But most of all by including it they've made all his intentions and politics central issues to the case. All the evidence and his statements about this will have to go into the public record. If he had pleaded guilty that wouldn't happen nor would there be a chance for jury annulment. Pleading not guilty is simply the smarter option to take.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 10 hours ago

That's the one thing that tells me he's not just going to walk, he's going to walk on fucking water where he'll be able to look down to see the Prosecution drowning

[–] capital@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A jury could just find him not guilty on that one count but guilty on all others. Not seeing how it weakens any other part of the case.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago

I think it's along the lines of 'if the prosecution presented an accusation that is obviously false, how well standing is the rest of the case'

If I were in the jury, a case that is part bullshit would definitely compel me to think again about how well the investigation was done

[–] 8000gnat@reddthat.com 6 points 1 day ago

Hope this is true