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.
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?
Oh ffs…
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.
Did you note that I said CRIMINAL, and not ACCUSED CRIMINAL?
I swear, if lemmy could ever get its head out from its own ass and actually read comments in good faith instead of seeing each one as a platform to launch a manufactured bullshit argument from, more people would come here.
But this is why people don’t. I know a lot of people this think this place is a joke. And shit like this is why.
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.
It’s like you’re almost there….
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
Yes trot on down to the community college and get a helping champ.
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.
I don’t think you understand how ANY of this works.
Innocent doesn’t mean you did not do a crime. You can’t go murder someone and if a court finds you innocent, if means you never killed anyone.
It means not enough evidence was brought for a hurry to convict you of the crime you ACTUALLY committed.
So when someone say “criminal” it’s safe to assume they mean someone who ACTUALLY COMMITTED A CRIME.
Lastly, I wasn’t talking about Luigi, I was countering a point that someone claimed ALL cops plant evidence which is every bit as untrue as believing that ALL criminals are innocent.
the burden of proof is on the state. the title criminal applies only after the state does its job properly. even if they DID PHYSICALLY do the thing if the state fails, they may have PHYSICALLY done the thing but they are NOT a criminal. Because that title applies to the “eyes” of the state.
So a person is only a murderer if they’re caught?
LMAO. That’s some ‘uncertainty principle’ level of bullshit right there!
Seems to me, following this logic- if you murder someone, you’d want to get caught, seeing as how as long as no one saw you, and to get away with it- your victim is un-murdered because it only happens if it can be proven.
FROM the point of view of a state? Yes. Why is this so hard to understand?
From the eyes of a neighborhood? No. clearly not. But justice in a neighborhood is different, isn’t it? And when a state fails, a neighborhood is known to take justice into its own hands. cf: Rodney King, etc.
maybe this is why states shouldn’t exist? ;)
Yeah… I can’t waste my time with this. It’s gotten absurd, as usual here on lemmy.
What crime has he been found guilty of?