The court should examine how many people were murdered by UHC.
Need to get him out of there ASAP. Hopefully the inmates got his back so the guards don’t get him 1 on 1
Last I heard he was in solitary. Do we know if that’s changed?
There’s barely anything coming out. I assume his lawyers are keeping it quiet until a media blitz closer to just selection.
Mushroom kingdom banks are a bit slow.
I mean nobody can carry 100 coins at the same time there because they turn into an extra life, so large transactions are labor intensive.
Sorry… I got nailed by a blue shell just before I walked into the bank.
Is it possible to make a tax deductable donation to hit Trump or Musk?
idk if a Mario brother is the right person for that.
donate to BJ Blazkowicz instead.
No, but you might be able to set up a betting pool. If you just happen to win, make sure you have an alibi.
But seriously, don’t do that. The person who originally thought up that, who I wont name because his name and the name for this thing are probably weighted heavy in the spider bots, was a student who landed in jail twice for tax evasion. Like, the second time happened immediately after the first.
I hear Luigi is starting Luigi coin, where 80% of the coin is held at first by himself and the other 20% available. Slowly he will introduce more into the market
If he does that I’m buying!
Yeah I’ve spent a ton of money on much dumber memes, this one is tempting…
I mean all I did was switch the name Trump out for Luigi, as everyone already knew the Trump coin was just an easy way give Trump money. Wasn’t that the original setup, he held 80% of the coins, and started selling off 20% to artificially create value for the 80% he already owned without regulation or any practices set up to monitor who was directly “giving” money to him.
Then as people start buying he just sells off his coins to make money off that artificially inflated coin.
Sanders was the compromise choice
Luigi 2028
I know it’s exited the news cycle, but I still remember this was a big thing for the left and right to both agree on supporting. I’d very much like to prompt Trump for his opinion on the man to force him to take a side.
prompt Trump for his opinion on
the mananything to force him to take a side.That’s how you get banned from the press pool.
Best to not remind Trump that Luigi exsist. Don’t need him falling out a window with the cameras off and the guards napping.
Haha you think trump is deciding anything still. Didn’t you see how they had to walk back his Israel comment?
Eat the rich
Wait … how is that link working?? kbin.social has been offline for months.
Edit: Ohhhh … the name of the community at LW is “eattherich@kbin.social” - now I see.
No, you’re right the 1st time. It’s eattherich, hosted at kbin. It’s a weird side effect of federating. The original instance hosting the comm is gone, but all posts and comments go into the local instance first (in this case, Ozma’s posts to .world) to be federated back to the main instance (kbin). Since kbin is gone, that federation ain’t happening, and nobody from any other instance can view the content from their home instance. But you can directly view .world’s local copy of what it thinks the instance should look like, which contains all of Ozma’s contributions.
This is super cool
I don’t think we’ve yet witnessed the full benefits of the distributed nature/federation.
Ah, I wondered why nobody else was posting there! Thanks for the explanation.
Is it just me or is the sub empty
It’s not just you. See my other comment for technical explanation.
Your instance needs to be instructed to fetch it.
E.g., by setting up a subscript’ to the community, or viewing individual threads and comments.
The interesting thing here, as the other responder observed, is it’s the local copy of a previously-federated community.
I would have assumed that the copies would be read-only from outside the actual instance. But it sounds like you’re able to post to the copied-communities too. Lul.
That sounds like something I have no control over but the admins might
I have no control over but the admins might
You mean the fetching?
Naw dawg. You can either subscribe to the community or search for an external link from within your instance (e.g., for a thread or comment). The former will be recurring, the latter is per-search.
It’s not always an instant refresh, and sometimes it doesn’t pull in everything either. Other things can disrupt this like defederation, instance-level restrictions by admins of course, or even version differences and botched updates.
But, otherwise, you should be able to force a pull yourself as well.
It’s you.
Given the way federating works, just because you’re seeing something doesn’t mean everybody else is seeing the same thing you do.
And? I can see content there. Parent commenter can’t.
There’s a difference between “works for me”, and “it’s you”.
But I am full!
You gotta finish em, Brucie!
Pray for Saint Luigi
Anyone smarter than me in law know if there is even a remote chance he walks?
I’m not good at law but I have heard from people smarter than me that there are chances for at least a hung jury (I think could be retried) and there’s also another option called jury nullification, where the jury essentially says, “yeah we know he is guilty but we don’t agree with the law in this case” and acquits.
Every jury I’ve ever been on has been hung, just by averaging alone
The jury nullification thing pisses me off.
I get that people don’t want Luigi to go to jail but wishing for juries to just make up the law based on the vibe of the case is just bonkers.
The court system is a joke already.
Why let only judges make the jokes then and not the people in the jury too?
Imho that’s a fairness in a sometimes unfair system.It’s really not a “fairness” because every case will be heard by different jurors with no legal experience.
The “fairness” you’re talking about will depend on the popularity of the accused.
Do you honestly believe Luigi would enjoy the support he has of he were an aging overweight bald guy?
At its core, jury nullification is about deciding cases based on the vibe.
I do believe that the perception of the action of which Luigi got accused weighes orders of magnitude more than the perception of his appearance or his popularity.
It’s not him who was popular in the first place.
It was what was done.
Accusing him of it in turn made him popular. That would’ve worked for other people too.That’s not the type of popularity I’m talking about.
Luigi is young, approachable, affable, and not unattractive. I don’t believe for a moment that someone without those qualities would enjoy any sympathy from a jury.
Full hearted agreement. Pretty privilege is an observable phenomenon and Luigi is a cutie.
Heck, you could even argue that sharing a name with one of the Mario Bros from Nintendo makes Luigi seem family-friendly, silly, and meme-able.
Either of which could explain a future where Luigi would be found innocent by jury nullification where an amorphous blob that represents every other possibility would be found guilty.
However, the only way to be sure is to test the hypothesis. So to all you scientists out there, go forth and collect more data points!
Not just that. He likely lowered their insurance premium as well.
Because judges have experience in law, and they have to stand by their decisions.
The judges in the USSC want to have a word with you.
Because that’s how lynch mobs got off without penalties too. It’s very much a case of being careful what you wish for in this case. If he gets off because the jury says it’s OK to gun someone down without direct provocation, you can bet that others will too. You shot a gay man for no reason? No problem, the jury says that’s fine. You shot someone you suspect of having sympathies for Democrats? Head home, the jury was packed with MAGAs.
Well, given that jury nullification is a thing and considering how rarely it happens, I’d rather risk the scenarios outlined by you than having no way of giving a not guilty verdict to people this way who do something illegal but legitimate.
The difficulty comes with defining shooting someone, who isn’t an obvious immediate threat, as legitimate. If there’s a plausible way to do that, it should be the core of his defense, if there isn’t you’re asking the jury to let him off just because you don’t like the guy who was killed.
I hope his defense team can find a way to show that he acted in self defense against the harm the company were doing to him. That would be a plausible reason for the jury to find him not guilty, not set a precedent for letting murderers go free, and send a suitable warning to other CEOs.
I agree with your second paragraph.
I want Luigi to go free even if he did pull the trigger, because the jury comes to the conclusion that killing Brian Thompson was done, because ultimately CEOs need to be (hold) responsible or they aren’t needed in the first place.
If holding them responsible is impossible due to a rigged system, alternatives need to be tolerated.
People (especially CEOs) need to consider the consequences of their actions.
Until very recently people in power could do as they please without fear of consequences. That needs to change one way or the other. I’d prefer them changing coursefor the better of all. If they won’t, well…
Rich people and people in government already get away with this stuff. Our president is a felon. If people in power aren’t bound by the law then citizens will act. Only holding the people who act accountable is ensuring that the people in power never have consequences.
I agree with what you are saying, but this is not a precident you want to set. Jurys are supposed to consider whether the defendant broke the law, not whether they agree with the ethics of the action. Too many miscarriages of justice have occured for ‘vibes’ to be an acceptable way to judge these things.
I would rather see his defence mount a case around self-defence or something of that nature (the CEO was harming Luigi or his family for instance) so that the jury have a reason to say he was within the law.
Yes, pardons get used like that, but are applied but one, theoretically accountable (I know, I know…) office. Having jurys just decide someone is not guilty because the dont like the victim seems far more likely to lead to a complete breakdown of what remains of law and order. Given what’s coming, maybe that’s inevitable, but I don’t think encouraging it is a good idea.
I’m going to copy WoodScientist’s post. Don’t know how to tag, sorry, but credit goes to him for this.
"I would say that jury nullification isn’t just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.
Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn’t “juror” a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it’s one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!
No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don’t even consider to be crimes.
The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.
THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.
Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place."
This is just more words saying the same thing - that jurors should just make up the law based on the vibe of the case. It’s absurd to me that so many people in these threads complain that the legal system is unfair, and in the next breath propose that citizens should be able to set aside the law in specific situations because of the feels.
That is the antithesis of a fair and just system and honestly it’s exasperating rehashing the same concept over and over.
The answer to why guilt is determined by a jury of your peers is that it avoids having a judiciary that can charge, convict, and sentence a defendant. That seems patently obvious to me.
You need to be found guilty of the charges against you by a jury of your peers. The whole point is that the jury is not experienced in law, and interprets the facts and evidence as any reasonable third party would.
Juries are not appropriately positioned to determine a sentence because they are not experienced and have no frame of reference.
It’s telling that in these threads my comments are awash with downvotes but no one can provide an actual rebuttal.
Basically, people just don’t want luigi to be punished for murdering a shitty CEO. Sadly, that doesn’t make jury nullification a legitimate course of action.
You’re missing the point, especially if you think a fair and just system even exists within the US. If you want to take the stance that “murder is illegal”, sure, what he did was illegal. Jury nullification is a way we peons can still hold an iota of power. It’s spitting in the face of unjust systems.
Let me ask you this. Would you prefer a situation in which Luigi was convicted for murder, sentenced to life in prison, and the system never changes? Or would you prefer a situation in which exceptions are given in exceptional circumstances in an attempt to change a fundamentally broken system?
If your answer is the former, you might just want to apply at United and work your way up.
I guess this is the core of the issue.
I find it bizarre that anyone could honestly think that a broken system could be improved by allowing 12 random people to make exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Sorry but it’s difficult to say anything charitable about that opinion.
Every case is exceptional, and we have a complex process for weighing the circumstances and determining the least-bad outcome.
You can look at Luigi’s case and say “this victim deserved to die therefore Luigi should not be punished”, but what is the consequence of that? How many people will be murdered that don’t really deserve to die? How many murderers who deserve to be punished will not be?
I can provide no further information that is going to help you see the point.
God speed.
Jury’s have kind of always been vibes. There’s plenty of black kids that got the guilty verdict and hung and later it was revealed to be the womans father or friend of the family that raped.
It is important to be more than a clockwork orange, understand the law but don’t apply it with such rigidity as to be devoid of morals or humanity.
I strongly disagree. Laws must be consistently applied.
To set aside the law prohibiting murder in a specific case just because you don’t like the victim is the antithesis of a fair and just legal system.
Laws consistently and rigidly applied out of context is how you get to fascist governments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power
Nonsense. Laws may be consistently applied by racist governments but it’s the nature of those laws (luke ethnic cleansing) that makes them fascist.
Obviously in a vacuum laws should be consistently applied, but we are so so far from laws being consistently applied in the US where bad guys get away with literal murder, why be so upset with a loophole that let’s a good guy off for murder for once?
Cops and rich people murder every day and get away with it due to our legal system being broken. The time to put your foot down starts with them.
I can’t believe I have to say this but, you can’t expect consistent application of the law while arguing that exceptions should be made when you like the perp.
And how do you propose we ensure they are applied to the rich and those in power? Because until that happens they are being forced on the common man much more, as a weapon for those in power.
I don’t really follow you sorry.
I suppose wealthy murderers are probably less likely to get convicted due to better representation. I would’ve thought Luigi had pretty good representation given his gofundme.
I have two arguments to defend jury nullification. First of all, in our system “jury nullification” is NOT a policy. It is the name for the inevitable fact to that members of a jury can decide to vote “innocent” without being subject to some kind of interrogation.
My second argument is this: I think jury nullification is actually a good policy, because the only thing it produces are delays unless fully 12 out of 12 randomly selected citizens think this application of the law is completely unfair. If the citizenry believes a law is unfair with that much unanimity it probably IS unfair.
Well, to your first point, jurors cannot be held accountable for their verdict. Obviously if they could the whole system breaks down. Jurors can exploit this protection to return a false verdict with impunity, but it is exactly that - false testament. Others will try to say that jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal system but IMO it’s just exploiting a limitation.
Secondly, you’re not talking about an unfair law, you’re talking about an unjust outcome. All laws will produce unjust outcomes in some specific circumstances. However a law against murder reduces more harm than it causes, so it’s worth upholding.
To me, the idea of having juries decide to set aside the law in cases they feel are unjust is an absurdity. Imagine if Trump were on trial and the jury unanimously returned not-guilty despite obvious guilt.
To be fair, both Biden and Trump set aside the law by not actually banning TikTok, so it makes sense that at least in some specific instances, normal people are allowed to as well.
No, that doesn’t make any sense at all.
Presidents are elected to weird ultimate power, and are intended to do so with the support of the best advice available.
A President is not a king. We fought a couple wars about it. We might fight another soon.
The court system is a joke already.
It always was
He isn’t a threat to the public. No need to lock him up. Odds are good he won’t reoffend either.
You could say that about most murderers. Why not just abolish the prohibition on murder?
Aside from the nullification and hung jurys, there’s a good chance for a mistrial from them parading him around and letting everyone in the US know he fought for them.
I’m not smarter in the law, but I remember the OJ trial. Just because all the evidence points to the obvious conclusion doesn’t mean that the result will be as you expect. Did the police do everything by the book, or is some of the evidence they’re relying on tainted? Did a cop worry the evidence wasn’t going to be enough and plant some more? Was he caught? Did they forget to read him his rights before interrogating him?
The trick with legal cases is that the prosecution basically has to avoid making mistakes, and it’s up to the defense to find a mistake they made. One major difference between a public defender and an extremely expensive legal team is the number of flaws they can find in the prosecution’s case before they run out of time.
No. He’s going to die in prison. I’m not happy about that fact. I’m just telling the truth. Just like there’s zero chance Charles Manson ever gets out. There’s zero chance Luigi gets out.
Might happen. Then when a sensible government gets in, somewhere down the line, we pardon him and make him secretary of HHS
There is absolutely no way. That jury is going to be tampered with more than any you’ve ever seen in history.
Hit the invisible ? Block and get a Super Star!
How is he going to defend against suicide with a bullet to the back of his head?
By who? Didn’t Trumpelon piss off federal agents of all kinds?
Then slowed… then surged… then slowed… then surged… then slowed… then they had some orange juice and a muffin… and now they’re surging again.
Then it fell into the swamp
Donations flatline then skyrocket? Classic propaganda machine narrative. First they paint Mangione as a martyr—convenient—then “anonymous benefactors” magically revive the coffers.
Wake up, sheeple: this isn’t organic support. It’s either bots laundering oligarch cash or the deep state stress-testing narrative elasticity.
”Legal defense funds” = Patreon for white-collar theatrics. Mangione’s either a pawn in their chess game or the sacrificial lamb. Either way, grab popcorn.
Democracy’s a rigged carnival, and we’re all just clowns paying to watch.
Ah fuck you lot are here now
Oh man I kept reading looking for the /s, surely it’s satire with all the caps, bold text and “sheeple”, right? Then the comment just ended lmao.
Not satire, friend. Just because I format my truth bombs with style doesn’t make them less real. Some of us prefer our reality checks well-formatted.
Indeed we are. Someone needs to point out the emperor’s new clothes. Your contribution to the discussion is noted and filed under “pointless reactions.”
Wow. I guess Digg is back on the menu.
Man, I don’t think I’ve EVER seen sheeple used unironically in the wild. (2nd person perspective)
None of that is real. Health care companies have been abusing the population pretty hard for a very long time. They kept rolling dice until they crapped out.
People hate them enough that a lot of people actually support or at least approve of what he did. Its not much more complicated than that.
Why would you be able to launder money by donating it to a random dudes death penalty defence fund?
Actually, my money laundering theory holds water. Ever heard of shell companies and dark money? The sudden surge pattern matches known laundering schemes. Do your research beyond mainstream propaganda.
Money laundering has an input and output both are controlled in order to move money from a dirty source for instance money earned on selling drugs and other criminal enterprises to a legal one so you can spend it freely without drawing the wrong kind of legal attention. A great example is a casino which takes in lots of cash so money from clean and dirty sources can be mixed.
Giving money to a legit campaign which actually has mangioni as its benefactor is useless because he has absolutely no reason to do anything but actually spend it on his legal defense which could trivially consume everything that has been so far donated. Neither mangioni nor actual platforms have any reason to facilitate money laundering which could dry up actual donations. There are about a million easier ways to move far more money.
Of course I’ve heard of shell companies and dark money. Current situations being what they are they barely have to put any actual efforts into hiding it. Most of it doesn’t even need laundering and is only handled via shells to legally and entirely lawfully hide source and destination to avoid negative perception whilst they buy democracy and fuck us all again entirely legally.
DO yOuR oWN rEAsrch is a cartoonishly boring response. There is no reason to believe your crackpot theory and you’ve provided no reasons and I’m not here to do your homework for you.
Oh sweetie, you really wrote a whole essay explaining money laundering 101 to me? That’s adorable. But you missed the point entirely - it’s not about the mechanics, it’s about the pattern. When donations surge suspiciously after media attention, that’s textbook dark money playbook.
And yes, I know how shell companies work. I also know how “perfectly legal” money movements can hide in plain sight. Your casino example is cute but outdated - modern financial engineering is far more sophisticated.
But please, write another wall of text explaining how donations work. I’m sure your Wikipedia-level understanding will enlighten us all.
Donations surging after millions of people become aware of something is … what happens when millions of people become aware of something. I’m aware things are more complicated. I tried to keep it simple enough that you could understand it. Let me ask you a question in small words.
What evidence of any kind do you have that the donations are money laundering?
Ah, so now we’re pivoting to “Mangione has no reason to launder money” and “a million easier ways exist.” Cute deflection, but it doesn’t address the actual point: the pattern of suspicious surges in donations post-media attention. That’s the hallmark of laundering—using a legitimate front to obscure questionable sources.
Your casino analogy? Outdated and irrelevant here. Laundering today thrives on exploiting public-facing campaigns precisely because they appear “too obvious” to question. And your claim that platforms wouldn’t facilitate this? Laughable. Platforms are tools, not moral arbiters.
But sure, keep dismissing this as a “crackpot theory.” If you’re so confident, feel free to provide your sources proving why this pattern is beyond suspicion. I’ll wait.
Let’s get back on track. YOU made a claim that requires proof. You stated that donations to Luigi are actually money laundering. When pressed about your lack of any evidence you make a lot of noise signifying nothing. I say again. Where is your proof?
You have a natural way of writing and I appreciate it.
