Moments after Luigi Mangione was handcuffed at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s, a police officer searching his backpack found a loaded gun magazine wrapped in a pair of underwear.
The discovery, recounted in court Monday as Mangione fights to keep evidence out of his New York murder case, convinced police in Altoona, Pennsylvania, that he was the man wanted in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan five days earlier.
The only useful outcome is acquittal. These rich board room types need to know they’re not safe.
Is it not legal to carry bullets any more?
This is literally the only unflattering photo of him I’ve ever seen. He looks like a mob enforcer berating his lawyer.
i think luigi mangione was framed and wrongfully convicted, and the real perpetrator is out there somewhere. seriously!
Bowser: 2/1
Mario: 5/2
Toad: 4/1
Peach: 3/2
He hasn’t been convicted.
Honestly, yeah. There’s not any real convincing evidence that he’s actually the killer. That said, I’d still suck him off, even if he’s not.
A girlfriend recently said “I’ll give my man Luigi a DAY PASS,” tracing her figure with her hands. Cracked me up.
Just a reminder, a judge decided this guy should go free: https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/12/the-affluenza-defense-judge-rules-rich-kids-rich-kid-ness-makes-him-not-liable-for-deadly-drunk-driving-accident/
And the kid later fled to a Mexican resort with his mother.
The word “decided” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. I would have used the words “was bribed with cash and gifts to let him go free”
and another , jesse butler got off scottfree from raping 2 underage girls. the judge is going to same university he is, SOUND familar. like brock turner the rapist, now allen turner.
That’s satire, isn’t it?
Sadly, no.
if this were a socialist country, that judge would’ve sent the rich snob in jail. seriously!
Doubt. Even in socialist countries, corruption runs rampant.
Are there any real socialist countries? If there is a place where the workers have actually seized the means of production and the capitalist elite have been thrown off, I would sure AF love to know about that.
Ah yes, the good old socialism paradox.
how can we fix this under socialism?
I find it hard to believe he was just casually carrying around bullets days after allegedly shooting someone…
Those were my bullets. They were on loan before we went to the range together.
Also - these were my underwear. Also on loan.
Carrying around bullets = murderer?
It America of all places!
police assuming, that always is the case with them is it?
Luigi wasn’t there he was with me, we were picking blueberries in the woods.
This is true.
Source: I’m Luigi.
Waluigi did it, why has no one come up with that?
No, I am Luigi!
I’m Luigi and so is my wife!
We’re all Luigi on this blessed day
I’m Spartacus. I mean, I’m Luigi!
We can’t trust any ‘evidence’ cops find because they have an extensive history of planting it.
Bottom line, right there.
They only “found” the gun on the second search at the police station
“At the McDonalds police also discovered a clip containing bullets which was wrapped up in some undergarments”
“At the Altoona police department, the Altoona police continued to search the backpack resulting in … 9mm handgun with printed lower receiver.”
I also remember reading about a gap in body cam footage of 11 minutes. This took me 30m to find because internet search is enshitified I had to resort to chatgpt.
Seriously, try finding that bodycam information on a search engine.
But they can pick the bullets out of that CEO guy and match them with bullets shot from the backpack gun.
How would the police in some village have the murder weapon from New York?
When this can be established, it’s more of a technicality during arrest and not planting.
What kind of assassin carries an extra magazine?
And days after? Makes no sense.
Gotta make 100% sure he’s good and dead, reload, and then make even more sure he’s really dead. Haven’t you played those Hitman games?!
Enough plausible deniability with bullets, but if he was found with a blueberry muffin, THAT would seal his fate.
And we can’t trust the “innocence” of every criminal either. So where does that leave us?
I don’t know, maybe with “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law,” like it’s supposed to be?
Well, there is the whole “innocent until proven guilty”, which means exactly that we’re supposed to assume that any alleged criminal is innocent until there’s actual evidence and shit that actually proves that they’re guilty.
It leaves us reading your sentence wondering when you will complete a basic civics course.
I’m guessing the word “criminal” to you means innocent person?
For fuck’s sake, I was told there is zero nuance to be understood here. I didn’t think I’d have to explain simple concepts like what a criminal is.
Civics course indeed.
A criminal is not innocent, and an innocent person is not a criminal.
Nobody is a criminal until they are found guilty in a court. Until then, they are innocent citizens, even if they are wearing an orange jumpsuit, and locked up in jail. Right now, as it stands, Luigi is 100% innocent, and it is up to the prosecutor to prove his guilt.
And “you were told” that there is no nuance here? So you came in expecting a problem, and surprise! You found one.
Yes trot on down to the community college and get a helping champ.
They’re replying in context with the post. Luigi is not a criminal and will not be one unless/until convicted by the court.
If you’re speaking in generalities then that is the nuance that needs clarification in your earlier comment.
And I’m replying in context to the comment I responded to. I’m seeing now that it isn’t that lemmy lacks nuance, it’s that lemmy chooses what nuance to allow.
No thats just how american law works lmao
We presume innocence. Burden is on proving guilt. That’s where it leaves us.
Note how I said, “criminal”. This implies that we already know they are guilty- yet they’ll claim innocence.
My point is, this works both ways.
every person is innocent by default. complete and trusted. it’s the gov’s job to PROPERLY prove guilt.
That I said CRIMINALS, implies that I’m talking about people who are NOT innocent.
And I didn’t say how our system of law should perceive them, I said that they will all claim to be innocent.
criminal title can ONLY be applied AFTER trial. Until trial and a jury says guilty - they are NOT criminals. Luigi? Not a criminal.
What crime has he been found guilty of?
Was it just a random collection of unfired rounds in different calibers?
No, they just happened to match police issued rounds exactly.
–probably
Yeah like, everybody needs a hobby. Sheesh!
I just think they’re neat.
Not only did they search the bag without a warrant…
Wasser resumed her search after an 11-minute drive to the police station and almost immediately found the gun and silencer — the latter discovery prompting her to laugh and exclaim “nice,” according to body-worn camera footage. Wasser said the gun was in a side pocket that she hadn’t searched at McDonald’s.
She had the bag in her car for over ten minutes, with not witnesses or video, and then after resuming the incomplete search almost immediately found the gun and silencer. My read is that there is every possibility that the gun and silencer could have been placed in the bag during that transport.
An officer concerned about a bomb accidentally being brought to the police station (again) would hardly forget to look in the bag’s side pockets. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that they could overlook a gun and silencer in the initial search of the bag.
Chain of custody? Evidence bags? Never heard of them.
“nice” is what you exclaim after discovering what your colleague meant by “I put a little something special in there just for you.” with a wink.
I remember OJ Simpson getting off a double-murder because there was a remote possibility that someone (actually several hundred people) orchestrated a conspiracy to plant evidence.
He stabbed two people to death and there was DNA evidence tying him to the crime scene.
Not remote, they did. Police corruption let him off. If they let the evidence do its job there was enough to convict.
LAPD is notoriously corrupt, just like the nypd.
They went with their instincts and tried to frame a guy who just happened to actually be guilty, and it backfired on them.
Removed by mod
You seem to be confusing Martin Luther King with Rodney King. No need for you to do legwork.
OJ got off because the jury wanted retribution for the Martin Luther King trail.
He got off because the jury was subjected to an absolute media circus and was tampered with repeatedly and the lawyers for OJ did everything they could to confuse them about the relatively new technology of DNA analysis, and judge Ito had almost no control over the courtroom, leading to one of the first “memes” of “I’ll allow it.”
You don’t have to do legwork, I remember much of it.
Edit: it took me a moment to realize you said Martin Luther King… I don’t even… man, bruh, just… bruh.
You’re thinking of Rodney King. Completely different. Mark Fuhrman committed perjury and tampered with evidence.
Rodney King was the case of a driver who got assaulted by police and brutally beat, it led to rioting across LA because it was captured on video, and King’s iconic “Can’t we all get along” speech on TV. It was the same general time and place, but not directly connected to the OJ case.
Mark Fuhrman may or may not have been some racist tampering with evidence but it still would have taken enormous resources and a risky gamble to frame OJ for… reasons. OJ was not framed, he got off because they turned the trial into a media circus and the jury didn’t understand DNA evidence which was very new and few people had heard of it as an investigation tool. They have tried to leverage Rodney King’s beating but that was only one part of the massive fuck-up by prosecution and the legal system.
My memory of events is still pretty fresh but you’re welcome to look it all up.
Any movies or other media you’d recommend for getting an accurate and detailed account of the OJ case?
I would have to look it up, I didn’t watch documentaries, I watched it all on live TV at the time. I’m sure there’s boatloads of stories and documentaries on youtube, just beware anything that tries to paint the case as anything other than a massive clusterfuck and failure of the system to safeguard judicial system from money, fame, influence and media hype. What went wrong, was it was the first huge celebrity trial covered on live TV, and all the same nonsense and political bullshit you would expect to happen today, happened then.
The DNA evidence was biggest the key which would have clinched any similar case today, but it was still a very new thing, and people were as dumb about science then as they are now, so that ignorance was leveraged by a rich man’s legal team and whatever political funding they were getting.
Time is a flat circle.
There was more than DNA evidence, there was a fat ton of circumstantial evidence, testimonies from associated people, and of course things like Nicole Brown Simpson having previously called 911 as OJ was beating her up and threatening her life, the whole massive performance piece of the slow-speed bronco chase, it was just a fuckup from the start and everyone involved just wanted to get famous from it.
Yeah, I thought it was known long ago that the chain of possession (or whatever the term is) for the backpack is fucked. Idk why this isn’t being used straight away to throw away all evidence.
It is being used. The defense is moving to suppress evidence (his backpack and anything he said before he was locked up), and that’s what these days in court are all about.
The state is trying to tell a complicated story. They claim that he (a) wasn’t detained, (b) voluntarily gave them a fake ID because … nobody knows why, © he didn’t feel like he was being detained, and therefore (d) they arrested him for the fake ID, after which (e) they read him Miranda, and after that (f) they searched his bag as part of arresting him.
That lets them maximize the evidence against him. The problem for the prosecution is that probably the above is actually factually incorrect. It’s the judge’s job to determine exactly where the prosecution and cops are making shit up, which is why the hearings are happening right now. Later the judge will rule on what actually happened, and therefore what evidence can be admitted against him.
The proceedings right now are before the trial. No jury is watching this.
Chain of custody is the right term
This. They’re trying to manufacture probable cause after an illegal search.
Christy Wasser
That names going on the list.
Nah I don’t believe it. Look at that face. He should be pat on the head and sent home with well-wishes.
With his money, if his victim had been any regular person, he’d already be home, and the victim’s family would be living in a new home with a new car in the garage.
On body-worn camera video played in court, Wasser was heard saying she wanted to check the bag for bombs before removing it from the McDonald’s. Despite that concern, she acknowledged in her testimony Monday that police never cleared the restaurant of customers or employees.
Unless they had probable cause to believe there was a bomb, that’s absolutely no excuse for a search. Might as well just get rid of the fourth amendment altogether if police can just imagine the possibility of a dangerous object and excuse searching anything at any time.
If she really thought there was a bomb, she is recklessly handling this herself instead of calling in a properly trained and equipped bomb squad. But far worse, she claims she needed to check it so as not bring a bomb to the station, but apparently has no problem potentially handling a bomb around a bunch of innocent bystanders.
That she is lying in order to justify what she knew to be an illegal search is actually the least damning interpretation. Either way though, the evidence should be thrown out along with her career.
I replied at about the same time as you, with similar comment, but I wanted to add that she didn’t ‘find’ the gun and silencer until she took the bag on an 11 minute ride to the station in her car. How do you search a bag for a possible bomb and miss a handgun and silencer? That is an incompetent search or the gun wasn’t there during the initial search and was added later.
Also, she apparently hadn’t even searched it well enough to notice a gun sitting in it…so not sure she’d have noticed a bomb in there anyway.
(Not that any of this isn’t a bullshit frame job, as that gun clearly got tossed in before her body camera got turned back on once back at the station)
Not only that but also somehow failed to find a full sized pistol and silencer while searching the bag for explosives, which is pretty alarming.
That’s the bullshit issue with probable cause. A “hunch” is proof enough and can range from good instincts to racism.
Not always. Well, maybe it depends on the jurisdiction. But, for example, stopping and searching cars has a lot more leeway than searching a house. Maybe searching people in public is the same? I remember New York has/had that stop and frisk law.
Of course I am not arguing against you, as I agree that it’s all bullshit and unconstitutional. This case especially. People have gotten off for much less technicalities, and yet Mangione is still on trial. He will never see a fair trial.
Different levels of search. A “weapons pat down” does not constitute a search requiring a warrant or probable cause. Even then a weapons pat down can only be initiated on a detained or arrested person. The former simply requires “reasonable and articulable suspicion” that crime is afoot. That’s a lower bar than probable cause but should be more than just a hunch.
They’re also given lots of leeway under the guise of “officer safety” to do weapons checks on people and the driver’s area of a vehicle during a traffic stop for example. Not sure how that applies to something like a backpack though but it seems most judges prefer erring on the side of police in most cases.
And a tip is more than a hunch. I’m sure there was some illegal conduct during the arrest, but I don’t think this is it.
A tip is absolutely not “more than a hunch”. I can’t recall all the finer details about what elevates a tip from essentially “random gossip” to RAS or even PC, but it’s not as simple as cops receive a tip means they can search you.
Ah yes a hearsay hunch. Nobody positively ID’d anyone before submitting a tip. It’s still a hunch.
Well, if it was anybody other than st Luigi, we probably wouldn’t care as much about the technicalities. And there really are too many police officers to only hire ones that can handle all the technicalities. So the system gives them wiggle room, which is reasonable. There are lots of places where that wiggle room is clearly excessive. I am not sure if this really is one though. Hard to say for sure.
