People have been saying since he was announced as a suspect that he didn't look like the shooter that appeared on the cameras. He sort of looks like him but it's really not that clear cut that it's definitely him
yeah don't you remember? you, me, [email protected], and Luigi were all at your dad's birthday party since the night before, we even helped get it set up.
yeah fellas sorry i just kinda crashed immediately after the candles were blown out x.x; and Luigi worked even harder than I did, up and down the ladder hanging all the streamers... bro has such an eye for decorating though, right?!
hey btw [email protected] did your dad ever get around to enjoying that steakhouse giftcard we got him?
Even if he's really the shooter, imagine if they cannot prove it's him because it would showcase the immense dystopian surveillance tech everywhere in the US. So they had to pretend they got an anonymous call and plant evidence instead.
I don't get a good faith exception if I truly thought that the speed limit was actually 75 instead of 55, even if my phone and car told me that was the case.
It doesn't even make sense to me in a mental gymnastics way, like, just because I tried hard and was honest, doesn't make a warrant any more or less valid.
There’s an income level that lets you do “weekend jail” on your fifth DUI.
If you are Sarah Stitt, wife of Oklahoma’s Governor, you won’t even get the DUI. Just stumble drunkenly out of that state vehicle (which you aren’t supposed to be using, but you’ve got the Republican princess pass), insist that you are married to the Governor, and they won’t even charge you!
Tbf just because he had a gun on him doesn't mean he was the shooter. I have a gun on me, am I the shooter Greg? Plenty people have guns, and it's even legal to have a 3d printed gun, and even if he was concealed carrying without a permit, "so?"
Kinda, yeah if the barrel and striker matches up that'll be tough to beat. That could be easily thwarted though by running a rough brush, or changing the barrel with another one, and changing the striker, and if he's worth his salt he ditched those before he even left the city. And even a match isn't necessarily 100% proof it's the gun, just like 99.999% lol.
Honestly, I do think it was him, personally. Just playing devils advocate.
Depends where, in a few states they are illegal but in a good few more it's actually 100% fine as long as you don't also have drugs. Doubly so if: white. "Italian" (whether he is or not he'd pass in my area) is white enough. P80s are more common, but same concept.
He also allegedly had the manifesto with him, which makes no sense. Basically they just said "We randomly got a tip for this guy at mc donalds and he happened to have all possible pieces of evidence on him days after making a clean get away" mmm yeeah sure.....
And it would've been so much easier to plant the stuff at his house while he was being taken. Except that would have required a small amount of thinking.
Someone, can't remember who...so if it's you (not necessarily you OP, a general you) put your hand up, in a different Luigi thread a month or so ago had a pet theory that I think probably holds a reasonable amount of water.
The theory is that that CEO was knocked off by a paid hitman, possibly contracted by his spouse, and Luigi happened to be picked up as a scapegoat because the NYPD, or the arresting officer, was complicit/paid off a tidy sum.
With this coming up, it's even less of an unlikely scenario.
Why would the hitman engrave the bullets? If they're picking a plausible scapegoat with severe medical issues, then why one that's young rich and handsome?
Man, I never said the theory was....dare I say.... bulletproof? 🤓
Buuuuuut....if all the evidence was planted? Look, the "manifesto", the engraved bullets, the whole thing is a cop's wet dream. I'm willing to believe Luigi is in fact the triggerman, willing to believe that he's unhinged enough to have toted all that about with him. You gotta think though....the NYPD were frothing, Altoona PD are under staffed, under paid. Not outside the realm of possibility it's a frame job.
Just a tinfoil hat theory that I thought was...fun? Not really the best word for it, but fits well enough.
The theory is that that CEO was knocked off by a paid hitman, possibly contracted by his spouse, and Luigi happened to be picked up as a scapegoat because the NYPD, or the arresting officer, was complicit/paid off a tidy sum.
This would be a better theory if Luigi had a serious alibi. Also, if he wasn't tied up with the Silicon Valley Longtermist movement, which has already produced a number of more low-profile killings.
I wouldn't discount the pet theory, because it does sound like the kind of shit mega-millionaires get up to. But the NYPD picking up this guy specifically, where and when they did, with no credible counternarrative as to where he was at the time of the killing, makes me strongly suspect they have the right guy. But - like with the OJ Brown-Simpson murder - they've got such a clown car of detectives and a grandstanding mayor and self-insert celebrity journalists and prosecutors promoting the case as spectacle that they're going to completely fuck this thing at trial.
If he wins the criminal case but loses a far more professionally executed civil "wrongful death" case a few years later, I would not be surprised in the slightest.
I would argue that while billionaires are stealing your money, healthcare CEOs are taking lives, which is more important in my mind.
Which isn't to say that billionaires don't deserve the same treatment, this is just prioritization for the most benefit in the shortest amount of time.... Long term, a lot more heads need to roll.
I'm just putting an emphasis on the healthcare industrial machine in the USA because it's causing more acute harm to the people of the USA than anyone else.
I won't disagree. Most billionaires are at least indirectly responsible for significant harm and loss of life. Whether they support, endorse or profit from inhumane, cruel and exploitative business practices, such as we see in the cobalt mines of the Congo, or other mineral mines whether for diamonds, lithium, or whatever...
Or they are profiting or directly befitting from people who are underpaid, and eventually, because of corporate profiteering, forced into poverty and they die because they are unable to afford to live... Or they are denying people life saving pharmaceuticals though supporting or profiting from the drug industry, or ownership therein (in whole or in part)....
Or they're more directly responsible for harm by being an active voice in, or in support of, denying, deposing, and delaying, anything that might reduce a companies profits, especially healthcare companies.
The reality of it is: when you achieve a certain level of monetary wealth, your money is invested. Frequently those investments support something that doesn't causes harm and death to your fellow humans.
Therefore: anyone with sufficient wealth to warrant investments, is almost always, someone endorsing, supporting, or profiting from the pain, suffering, and deaths, of other people.
QED: all billionaires are evil, mass murdering pieces of shit, who should be strung up and quartered in the town square.
I will settle for seeing their heads roll.
It would be very difficult to describe what Taylor has done as anything unethical at all let alone deserving to be killed. She's genuinely worked hard since she was a teenager to be where she is, writes her own music, pays the people working for her very well, donates to charity etc.
Let's say I kill a high profile individual on the street you know, hypothetically.
Do you seriously believe that I'd be casually hanging out in public at a McDonalds with a manifesto and loaded gun in my bag? I'm pretty sure that my first port of call if I was assassinating someone would be "Burn all the evidence in an alleyway somewhere, get new clothes on, and lay low for pretty much the rest of my fucking life, possibly in Mexico"
Not only that, Luigi's fake ID which he did not use in an illegal way any known time was not linked with the shooting, just linked to a NY hostel.
Also Luigi was not marandised, hes also charged in NY, Pennsylvania and federally at the same time, double (triple?) jeopardy
And his bags were searched without him being able to see the search, which puts into question the search, but they didn't find any gun or manifesto at that time. 6 hours later, they did find a gun and a manifesto after being contact with NYPD. And the paper work for this evidence is also not properly filed. In addition the inventory of his belonging was also not descriptive.
He was arrested by a rookie cop that didn't get help from a supervisor to avoid mistakes either, lots of adrenaline in a huge profile case like this. He said he knew right away that this was the killer, and he had only the propaganda NYPD had posted to the media. And NYPD didn't know who the killer was
I dont know how long it took, but it took well over 100 days before the defence was able to even see the evidence against him. A huge red flag that the prosecution dont think the evidence holds water. And when they did get it, it was terabytes of data, and Luigi wasn't allowed to use a computer without hus lawyer present, blocking him from seeing what weaksauce they have against him
The aid to the prosecutor also listened in, they say it was an accident to a whole telephone conversation with Luigi and the lawyer, how is this even possible. The prosecutor rebuked him self from the case after they were caught doing this, so they do a new prosecutor
The feds even call for the death penalty before Luigi is even indited, let alone convinced.
I'm just very skeptical this is the shooter, why would they screw up everything so bad every step on puropuse like this. Its just a hail Mary that the judge who is married to a CEO will convict anyway
Yeah, the real shooter is probably in the woods somewhere barely surviving off what they can find. At least, that’s more reasonable than doing a high profile assassination and going to McDonalds for a burger after (I know it was days later, it’s hyperbole).
That's the problem though. Everyone's playing "If I were him".
The thing is, we don't know what was going on his mind. Say he actually was the one who did it. Maybe he wanted to get caught. Maybe he assumed he was going to get caught within minutes, and didn't bother throwing away the evidence because he didn't think there was any point. Maybe he kept changing his mind about what he was going to do, and in the end that indecision caught up with him.
Assuming he's actually the one who shot the CEO, I already have trouble understanding his thinking. He shot a guy in cold blood who may have been scummy, but hadn't actually hurt Mangione or anybody he cared about, AFAIK. He didn't do it as part of a community. I know he's not a mass shooter, but shooting a stranger for ideological reasons is most similar to mass shooters or bombers. Most of the times people do that, they're egged on by a community. He apparently just did it on his own.
So yeah, I don't get it, but the fact I don't get it doesn't convince me it can't be true.
You're not. I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm just saying that it's silly to imply there's a conspiracy or something just because some of his alleged actions seem abnormal, when cherry-picking which of his actions you're looking at.
this sounds like lots of maybes that does covering, where there is talk of plenty of reasonable doubt. We are saying we are confused and there is reasonable doubt, sure you could be correct, but thats some mental gymnastics to get out of that reasonable doubt
I'm sorry it reads that way. What I'm trying to say is that you have to look at the whole picture.
"Let's say I kill a high profile individual on the street you know, hypothetically."
If you say that, you have to take into account what kind of person might do that. It's a person who is not thinking normally. It's something that people thinking normally might be tempted to do, but they wouldn't actually do it.
"Do you seriously believe that I'd be casually hanging out in public at a McDonalds with a manifesto and loaded gun in my bag?"
This is something that someone who's thinking normally wouldn't do. But, we've already established that someone who kills someone else on the street isn't thinking normally. You can't start from an assumption of normal thinking for someone who you've already hypothesized is a cold-blooded killer who killed a stranger on the street.
I would disagree, I would say it is normal to kill someone who is responsable for thousands of deaths, thousands of people dieing so you can make more money. It is only a collective cowardace, one that I have to admit also have. But I would argue within the history of humanity, and just normal human emotion, that that would be someone thinking normaly, you are killing a, truly stagering amount of people for, no real reason, someone has to stop you and there is no reason why that person should not be me.
Once agian i want to point out how truly insane it is that more of us do not do this regularly, how this is seen as a rare and shoking event and killing healthcare CEOs and other Billionares, who ammase their weath on mass exploitation is.
I've heard that, but he doesn't seem like the kind of person who kills someone due to their medical issues. For that, I picture someone confined to a wheelchair, or forced to use crutches, or severely addicted to pain meds.
Though on the other hand I don't know of anyone who became murderous over being forced to use a wheelchair / crutches / pain meds either.
I do agree with your overall point where you'd prefer to be agnostic regarding this whole issue, but that's also exactly why I wouldn't go off into theorising either about what is required to make a man want to kill a healthcare insurance CEO, or what kind of a person Mangione "seems like".
I mean no one is saying mastermind, but he did get all the way out of the main search area, he would have been essentialy home free.
Also this is reasonable doubt, and saying "he isn't a criminal mastermind" is not enough to remove it, someone going "I likely would have done this" is a reasonable doubt.
He's an example of the difference in outcomes between a competent attorney focused solely on your own defense and some public defender that didn't know you'd be their client until five minutes before trial.
Whether or not he did it, the real outcome of this court case appears to be reaffirming that the NYPDlocal Pennsylvania PD simply cannot be trusted to do any kind of investigation of a crime or evidence handling even in the most high-profile cases.
I think what ends up happening (as a rando without a legal degree) is that the backpack and all of its contents become inadmissible as evidence. It makes beyond a reasonable doubt harder to achieve for the prosecution because they lack a proposed murder weapon in evidence.
This is just a motion. Judge will decide it's validity and the remedy. It might end up with the evidence excluded, but it might be that the prosecution just has to provide a different/stronger justification, or even be a nothing burger if the judge is unconvinced by the arguments in the motion.
I agree with your analysis if the judge does exclude backpack and contents as evidence.
Anything other than exclusion will be grounds for appeal, later, too.
I want to see him win this whether he did it or not, but at this point it legitimately looks like it isn't him. Either way, they just want to make an example out of him, it's literally just class warfare and nothing else.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was him, if he had a meticulous brilliant plan to make sure there was no direct evidence, so people would know it was him but they couldn't prove it in a court of law.
And then the cops were like "it's cute you think we play by the rules" and planted evidence.
I also hope he's acquitted. I don't know if a random healthcare CEO getting killed will make the world a better place. But, I do think that a guy getting away with killing a random healthcare CEO is more likely to result in change.
In the first case, it can be dismissed by the CEOs, oligarchs and friends as a crazy lone gunman. But, if a jury votes to acquit after massive donations to his legal case, that becomes a clear sign that it's not just a lone gunman, that a lot of people support this kind of thing. It also makes it more likely to happen again, because the next gunman might think they can get away with it too. If CEOs start quitting because they don't want a target on their backs, or they start reforming their companies to avoid being so hated, that's great.
I think he probably is the right guy but he was smart enough to cover his tracks and they only found him because of some kind of illegal surveillance we don't know about. Would explain why they're so desperate for anything else to explain how they know it was him.
My issue with that is that if he were caught via illegal surveillance so soon after the fact, it seems strange that they wouldn't have caught him during the planning/prep stages using said surveillance.
The images released at the time show two different people. One was from the scene and the other from a hostel in the area. While they look similar, there are details which show there are very likely not the same person. Luigi only matches the details of the hostel image, not the one from the scene.
NYC is full of tall attractive young men of Italian descent. I used to live there and off the top of my head can think of three different aquaintences who were his age and would have matched his profile close enough.
I can't imagine how much it must suck for him right now if he didn't do it. Like, the way they're treating him is awful regardless, but I imagine that being responsible for the widely praised act would help a little (gosh, it must feel so awkward to have so many fans if he wasn't the one who did it — it has stolen valour vibes (except presumably he wouldn't have chosen to be the scapegoat))
I still think this would be a bad case for jury nullification. Too much attention, too easily sent to the supreme court, court is too packed with clowns to do anything other than remove the power of jury nullification for the benefit of their wealthy owners.
Who knows though, maybe that would get people to actually decide enough is enough, i doubt it though.
As the other comment says, jury nullification isn't a thing that can easily be removed. The jury doesn't just claim "jury nullification." They just state their decision is that the defendant is not guilty. They don't state why, and we'd only know why they came to that conclusion if they tell us later in interviews or something.
The plaintiff cannot appeal. There are super rare circumstances where I should say "usually can't appeal", but those are so rare I will just say only the defendant can appeal.
SCOTUS cannot overturn a Nulification in the not guilty, according to anything about nulification I have read thus far, because the jury said that there is reasonable doubt, that he did not do it.
Planting a gun to ensure a conviction? I think the whole “Luigi didn’t do it” conspiracy is silly. Yeah he did it, for sure. And he’s a damn hero for doing it.
I don’t see how the ruling class benefits by throwing the wrong guy in jail and letting the killer go free.
If there was a non Luigi killer he would have claimed responsibility by now.
And yes I’ve seen the photos of his eyebrow in a shitty security cam, hairs reflect light or become invisible depending on the lighting and camera quality. Luigi hasn’t even denied it flat out.
But yes, Luigi did it and praise him for it.
Here's the thing: they're saying it's him, but the evidence is poor and suspicious, and they've been making lots of procedural "mistakes" trying to put him away. Like way too many obvious mistakes that you just can't afford to make in a case like this.
Maybe he did it, maybe he just vaguely looks like a guy in a low-quality photo near the scene of the crime.
I think there are enough issues with the entire process that I wouldn't assume he's definitely the guy. But he's the face that's been associated with the so called crime, and it gives people something to rally around.
Not chiming in on whether or not he is the guy, but the police making mistakes should be considered standard procedure. They're only "competent" in movies and TV shows, so we shouldn't assume they fucking up as evidence for anything besides it being a Monday.
I don’t see how the ruling class benefits by throwing the wrong guy in jail and letting the killer go free.
Because they can't find the guy that really did it and someone has to burn for this. Executing the wrong man still scares the peasants. Throwing up your hands and saying "we can't find him, guess he got away 🤷" will cause 18 more copycat killings before your press release is finished. Ergo, find someone and pin it on them, no matter what it takes.
If there was a non Luigi killer he would have claimed responsibility by now.
Why would anyone possibly do this when they just successfully got away with their major crime. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The real killer is laying extremely low until their crime is no longer daily national news. Especially because the guy getting pinned for it is being threatened with major terroristic charges and execution, no one is going to pipe up and say "no actually I did it, defame and murder me instead please".
Doubly so when it's becoming increasingly evident that the police are running a clown show that doesn't have a chance in hell of actually convicting. If I didn't know better I'd think they wanted to let Luigi walk. So the real killer is safe and secure in the knowledge that nobody is looking for him anymore and the guy they did catch has an extremely slim chance of facing real consequences.
Why would the real killer have claimed responsibility? That's assuming the vigilante is serial killer adjacent and was aiming for notoriety thwarting police by killing CEOs instead of normal people.
And why are you assuming that the cabal of rich dickheads could have apprehended the real killer but chose Luigi regardless? Instead of having no reliable suspect and being given a effigy to burn publicly because of a call-in and an over-eager (and corrupt), local police force?
Conspiracies make people feel smart and special, like they know THE TRUTH about something that everyone else isn’t aware of. The real world is more straight forward and not a spy thriller. He did it, and he’s a damn saints for doing it
Then why hasnt he said they got the wrong guy? Hes playing the legal game now, has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It also doesnt matter if the cops planted the gun, they mishandled the bag and recorded too much of what happened.
I haven't heard much out of Luigi at all (although I admit, I'm not paying that much attention). Sounds to me like he's just keeping his mouth shut in general and letting his lawyer do the talking. Which is just solid advice for the US legal system.
He's mostly been busy shutting the fuck up, like you're supposed to do when you're on trial, but I think this counts:
"It’s completely out of touch and an insult to the intelligence of the American people and their lived experience!" - 10 December 2024. This statement was explained by Mangione's lawyer as the result of him being "agitated about what’s happening to him and what he’s being accused of."
Which it is, in fact, an insult to the American people to expect us to believe he's guilty. If I had a nickel for every massively publicized national trial involving rampant police corruption and planting of evidence, I'd have two nickels, one from OJ Simpson and one from Luigi. If I had a nickel for every time it actually happened without being broadcast to the nation I'd be able to buy Twitter with them.
They're not letting him near the press. The one thing we've heard from him as they shoved him against a wall in front of cameras was that they planted stuff on him.
I'm not saying he's definitely innocent. I'm saying I'm unconvinced by the evidence presented pre trial. In fact that's what I'm supposed to think as an American. I think I'm going to try to foster thst thought process further in the future even with those accused of other crimes. Our culture has gotten too comfortable taking cops at their words despite knowing they lie
Oh look, a nonAmerican who seems to be unfamiliar with how corrupt American police are, and for some reason seems to think that they know enough to tell everyone to trust the narrative that the police are pushing, despite the blatant holes in their story.
Because one killer is meaningless, but a culture of rebellion is dangerous. They do not care if Luigi is the right man at all, the only point of any of this is saying "this is not acceptable and we will stomp out dissent."
That's all this is about. Frankly they don't care if the real killer goes free because they aren't worried about the person, they're worried about the message.
My understanding is that he gave cops a fake ID when they questioned him on reasonable suspicion (the basis of which was a tip from an employee). That is something that yes, he can be arrested for. And he can be personally searched after that arrest. But at that point, he can no longer get a gun out of his bag, and cops have control of it, so he can't destroy evidence/get a weapon from it; so searching the bag should be out at that time. So, my understanding, based on case law, is that they would have needed a warrant to search it at that time, as the contents of the bag aren't related to the reason he's been arrested. You aren't supposed to be able to use a pretextural arrest to search a person's car or belongings (e.g., arrest you for suspicion of drunk driving, then search your car to find evidence of burglaries).
In theory, without the warrant, the search and everything from the search should be out. Even if he committed the crime, and kept all the evidence conveniently in his backpack, it should be completely excluded from the case. I'm sure that the DA is going to argue that there's some exception that allows a warrantless search, but I can't say what that argument will be. If the evidence is allowed in, his defense attorney is going to have to object every single time that prosecutors refer to it, for any reason, in order to preserve the option to claim that evidence was improperly admitted in an appeal. (Which they should absolutely do, if it goes that far!)
Federal rules of evidence is pretty complicated stuff. But goddamn, does it look like someone fucked up bad on a really high profile case.
Even if he committed the crime, and kept all the evidence conveniently in his backpack
Yeah, he conveniently carried around a disposable weapon used in a murder that he was wanted for, instead of disposing of it. Also he conveniently wrote a manifesto related to the murder and carried that around in his backpack as well.
Not a manifesto. Manifestos are published by the author. We have no way of knowing who authored that police officer's fever dream, but since the police published it, it wasn't written by Luigi. Also the language and grammar are consistent with the lack of education that cops receive, not the level of education that Luigi received.
They called it a manifesto, which is why I used the term. If it's real, he was basically just carrying around a written confession in his backpack just to make the cops' jobs easier, I guess.
He had reddit and Goodreads profiles, where he left comments and book reviews which might be used to judge his writing style (also his own handwriting may be analysed, comparing it to that of the manifesto). Although the "manifesto" is very short so maybe not enough language treaits could be extrapolated from it.
Printed guns aren't "disposable"; they're untraceable. A printed firearm can function for tens of thousands of rounds, and is not necessarily any less accurate than any other polymer firearm.
If he never expected to even make it out of NYC, carrying that stuff kinda makes sense. But I def. would have dumped everything in the Hudson river.
It's disposable in the sense that it costs basically nothing to make and can easily be disposed of if you need to. A bit of heat and it's no longer a gun, and nobody would know that it ever was.
It’s disposable in the sense that it costs basically nothing to make
Also no. If I, for instance, want to print a Glock, the only part that I'm printing is the polymer frame (which, legally, is the gun). I still need to buy a slide, slide stop, guide rod, recoil spring (IDK off the top of my head if Glock uses a captured spring or not), barrel, trigger & associated parts, magazine catch and release, etc. Oh, and I'll need to buy magazines, or at least a magazine spring if I'm able to print the magazine, baseplate, and follower. While I don't particularly want to price them all out right now, more often than not buying parts is more expensive than buying a completed firearm. Right now I can pick up a Glock G17 gen 5 MOS for about $475 (after shipping and transfer fee); if I save anything with printing, the savings are going to be small
The biggest advantage to a printed gun is that all of the other parts can be purchased with cash, and without a background check, so there's no record that you ever purchased the firearm.
A bit of heat and it’s no longer a gun,
You're still going to be left with the metal parts. OTOH, they have no serial numbers, so they're functionally impossible to trace. Also, any polymer gun can either be melted or incinerated.
Keep in mind that you can also print silencers now. The big advantage to that is that, if you don't mind violating the National Firearms Act of 1934, you don't have to send your fingerprints to the BATF or pay $200 for a tax stamp. They don't last as long as inconel or titanium silencers though.
Look, I'm 100% in favor of people printing guns. Or buying 80% receivers/frames, and fabricating their own. Or, hell, buying a Haas desktop minimill and learning CNC programming to make gun parts out of metal. But most of the time you're going to end up spending more to make one than to buy one.
You aren’t supposed to be able to use a pretextural arrest to search a person’s car or belongings
This is something they could very easily forget, or just never learned, because they usually fuck up the poor and colored and press them into plea deals so it never goes to trial so it never becomes apparent the police have nothing since they ignored all the laws, i imagine when u spend a good amount of your career cheating the justice system you forget there were ever rules to begin with.
Part of me is leaning towards Luigi being the guy and he planned on getting arrested with this 'too good to be true' evidence in this little known PA town, because he was banking on them bungling it and he knew he would have a good legal team making it seem planted, or at the least have widespread public support if he did get charged.
Search incident to arrest typically allows you to search the person of the suspect to ensure that the person doesn't have a weapon, or has evidence of a crime that they can destroy. Once you've separated a person from a closed bag, you don't have the immediate right to search the bag; US v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977). OTOH, once an arrestee is actually being booked, they can perform an inventory of the contents of a bag (Illinois v. LaFayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983)), which would have turned up the gun, etc., and it would have turned them up under controlled circumstances. But that's not what happened here; he appears to have been arrested on a pretextual basis, and then his bag seized and searched without a warrant. However, it's going to be up to his attorneys to make this argument, and my guess is that the state will argue that he was definitely, 100% going to be booked--despite the lack of evidence at that point to support that--and thus it was inevitable that the gun would have been found. I think that's bullshit, but we'll see.
Not a lawyer, but I know that when a cop arrests someone in a car and the car is impounded, they catalog items. This is an unofficial search to make sure they aren't liable for missing items. I would expect the same of a backpack. But perhaps that falls under the same disqualification of use as evidence you're suggesting.
That's called an "inventory search", and this motion says what happened isn't an "inventory search" because they didn't follow procedure (and cites supporting precedence).
If they would have just hauled him in for processing on the false identification, and then found the gun during an inventory search at the station, it would be better for the prosecution.
The motion also claims that the search couldn't be a... safety search? (I don't know the right term)... like checking a person for weapons, because before the search was initiated, the suspect was already handcuffed and separated from the backpack so didn't have access to anything in it that could be hazardous to the officers. Prosecution might argue is was a safety search because they were looking for a hazard that didn't need to be triggered by the suspect, like a timed device or just an incidental hazard.
The motion also claims that the search couldn’t be a… safety search?
You're thinking of a Terry stop.
Prosecution might argue is was a safety search [...]
That would be the exigent circumstances exception, but you need more than just an assertion for that; you need a rational basis for claiming exigent circumstances.
Not a lawyer, but I know that when a cop arrests someone in a car and the car is impounded, they catalog items.
Under Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983), it would be fine to inventory a bag when you're being booked. But they hadn't gotten that far, and I'm not aware of any evidence that they would have actually booked him without the contents of the bag.
Also, AFAIK, they're allowed to do a basic search to ensure that someone doesn't have a weapon on them or nearby. It wouldn't make sense to require a warrant for that. Imagine a cop had to apply for a search warrant to ensure that the person they were arresting didn't have a knife or gun in their pocket.
In that case, it might make sense to search his backpack if it was right next to him. OTOH, if they took his backpack away from him, then they were no longer in danger from anything in the backpack so they had no justification to search it.
You just know that the police are going to lie about these things. They'll claim he was never separated from his backpack so they were justified in searching it for something dangerous. Or they'll claim that they had reason to believe there was a bomb so even though he didn't have it on him, they still had a reason to search it because it still posed an immediate danger.
The only way anybody can get a fair trial is to have an expensive team of lawyers who can chase down all these various lies, finding out what was said on body cams, when the body cams were mysteriously turned off, what the exact timeline of everything was, etc.
Goes to show how much this isn't about Luigi, or even Brian Thompson. It's about the elite sending a message to the other 99%. Think, even if their case against Luigi is rocky at best, all that matters is they can get him to pay for Brian, regardless of whether he did it or not, or where the evidence points.
All that matters is that we the "peasants" get the underlying message:
If you kill/harm an elite they'll chase you and make you pay with the full weight of their resources (and emphasis on "resources", not necessarily "law").
If you did not kill or harm an elite you're still at risk, because then they'll choose a "peasant" scapegoat to pay anyway.
All that matters is that they get to take their pound of flesh, and that the "peasantry" gets discouraged to fight for their rights as the elite takes, and takes and takes.
Which is why it's so important that regardless of Luigi having done it or not, he should walk free unless there's solid, undeniable evidence of him doing it, like an actual and verified non-deepfake video of the assassination with his clear face on it. And even then he must only face the consequences the law demands, and what others would face in his place for killing the everyday average Joe. The fact that the life lost was an elite should have no bearing on the consequences.
This is the first time I hear about this, is this just a way to get normally inadmissable evidence admitted through some bullshit loophole or is there an actual good reason to have this system?
It sounds like they're buying time to find evidence that is admissable in court (ie not their illegal methods they used to first book the defendant while they try to scrounge together what they do need.)
So goes like this. You use illegal surveillance to track someone without a warrant. You arrest them and plant evidence as cause for lock up. Meanwhile now you can actually get a warrant to search the defendants computer, house, etc... To try to find something that does give you evidence of guilt that will actually be used to prove you think they're guilty.
This is common knowledge for anyone who was around during the Chelsea Manning / Edward Snowden era and all the revelations of the depths of NSA spying, PRISM, etc.
Everything is being recorded, analysed, manipulated to whatever degree they’re technically capable of, laws be damned.
Seems like an “ends justifies the means” loophole. The original intent was to hide the source of NSA tips from terrorist prosecution. We’d all probably agree to that without thinking that it can also be used more widely, that the person is not a terrorist until proven so, that there are really no limits, and is an easy way for police to hide abuse of authority.
Analogous to “Civil Forfeiture”. That seemed so reasonable in the context of seizing wealth obtained through criminal activities by organized crime. But there were no real limits, and it allowed perverse incentives, so now we have local cops stealing people’s personal belongings, and actually creating budgets relying on this theft
Luigi is innocent. He did not kill Brian Thompson. He is a hero by the simple virtue that he is an innocent young man who was dragged through hell over something he didn't do and is having his life put on the line.
As for who actually did it. I hope he lives a long, quiet life.
This. The chain of evidence is tainted and cannot be accounted for. Anything in the backpack could have been placed there by anyone, at any time, before, during, or after his arrest.
My feelings on this: good. One less thing that they can use against him. If his defense doesn't get any evidence from the backpack thrown out, then idk what they're even doing.
Now is a good time to remind people to never ever agree to a police search. They're gonna phrase things weird and take advantage of your good nature. Never agree to any sort of search.
Hell, even if they have a warrant I'm tempted to explicitly say I don't consent. I'm not going to resist but I'm gonna make it clear I'm not consenting. Because how the hell do I even verify a warrant is real? I have no idea, and I certainly wouldn't be able to find out if they're at my door.
Be aware though, in Georgia there is "implied consent" with regards to roadside breathalyzer tests. If you get in that situation, remember I'm just a random lemming and not a lawyer. Other states might have similar things.
Would have been unbelievable if the US police wouldn’t have a long history of framing people because they are just too buttfuck stupid to do their jobs.
This is the harsh truth. Right now, legally, their case is falling apart. A nontrivial amount of hard evidence was in that bag and this action should get everything tossed because the chain of evidence is non-existent.
The other poster is also correct, they've decided he should be punished for this, whether he did or not is irrelevant. They're going to twist every ounce of evidence they can to say he did it. If that doesn't work, he'll be found hanging from his shoelaces...
I've been saying all along everything happened too quick for him to be the actual guy. It was pretty clear to me they were desperate to make an example of someone quickly and not accurately.
So they not only have to find 12 people who haven’t been fucked personally or had friends family fucked by their health insurance, now those 12 people have to be blind Pig supporters?
Anything other than a not guilty (or some insanely strong evidence with a perfect chain of custody) verdict for this guy and the fix is in.
If they convict Luigi get the fuck out while you still can, cause the alternative is guerilla warfare against the Gilead states of orange stupidity.
It almost doesn't even matter if they did plant the gun on him - as soon as it became a national manhunt because the capital class was panicking, nobody was going to believe them that they didn't somehow fuck up due process.
If this ends in acquittal or mistrial I think the media will go back into full-blown panic
When I picked up bodies for the Medical Examiner's Office, we had very strict chain of custody rules we had to follow. If the decedent had any valuables on their person (purse, wallet, jewelry, etc), or any medication, we had to write detailed descriptions of every item found (a gold ring is not a gold ring, it's a gold colored ring), then package it all up with the ranking police officer on the scene as a witness who then signs the sealed bag. Even the slightest deviation from this would get us immediately fired, and even prosecuted if surviving family members made any accusations about theft.
In a capital murder case where an alleged murderer/terrorist can potentially walk free because the chain of custody rules weren't followed, how the fuck does this cop still have a job? How is she not being charged with tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for letting Luigi go free, but this is a fuck-up of monumental proportions.
It seems more and more everyday that vigilante justice is the only justice against this corrupt corporate tyranny. I think we all wish this wasn’t the case but as my dad used to say you can wish in one hand and 💩 in the other and see what hand fills up first
You know it's a sham the question is, what are you gonna do? you're the people with access to guns... me here in Europe I gotta fight with literal sticks and stones
Pages numbered 23 to 26 are the meat of the argument referenced in the image, for anyone else that wants to click through.
"[[l]t can hardly be said that the officer in this case followed the policy [for an inventory search] by conducting a search that included only the glove compartment, and upon finding a gun, leaving it in place."
It's never made sense to me, TBH. I've just assumed he's being railroaded. In his case the cops just planted a gun instead of drugs like they do to every other person they want to lock up without cause.
A second thought - if I was the elite, I'd start panicking right now regardless of the outcome of the trial.
The "assassin" is still out there. He was able to pull this off In front of security cameras, and the only evidence he left behind were three bullets found near the body of the CEO who clearly died of pre-existing conditions.
It seems like people are adopting the Catholic doublethink strategy for Jesus about Luigi. Jesus is somehow simultaneously God and not-God, Luigi seems to be the guy who justifiably killed that CEO and was definitely framed for murder.
The guy's got to deal with the legal system and apparently they won't accept self-defense as a valid justification for icing the prick who tried to deny healthcare. So, don't have an issue with it, but it is weird to see.
Alright so I don't think Luigi actually did it. But it's easy to say "Luigi" in conversation and everyone knows who you're talking about, regardless of how they feel about his innocence.
Yeah the evidence is whack but right now the "He did something justified" is just a symbol, if it turns out someone else did it they would take over that symbolism.
I think many people celebrate the person that actually killed that CEO (no matter if it was Luigi personally or not). That doesn't really have to conflict with thinking that Luigi didn't do it. In the first instance he just represents the person that did it because we don't know who really did it.
If you'd celebrate the real killer, then arguing that Luigi didn't do it seems secondary to the fact that it wasn't a crime anyone should be punished for. It's a weird kind of mental backflip to stay within the lines of the current system while supporting actions that are outside the system.
Personally, I've had to pay UHC tens of thousands of dollars in premiums and additional tens of thousands every time I've gotten hurt/sick because UHC covers basically nothing. They billed me $800 the last time I got a tetanus shot. It would have been $150 if I had claimed to be uninsured so it is literally cheaper for me not to tell providers I have insurance.
If shooting a mugger for stealing your wallet is justified homicide, then so was shooting this asshole. I have no issue saying, "I think Luigi did it and he should be free."
I think Luigi didn't do it and should be free because of that.
The person who actually did it should be free, because <insert personal reason/opinion why>
If you'd celebrate the real killer, then arguing that Luigi didn't do it seems secondary (...)
That's not really secondary. I you believe that he didn't do it for whatever reason (I'm not really into the technical details of the case and the evidence or lack thereof) why would you argue that he did it but still go free. Wouldn't it be more honest and reflect your believes better to say "Luigi didn't do it and of course should be released and the person who did should also go free because it was justified"
I know this is the narcissist prayer and he's certainly not a narcissist (based on what I've seen anyway) but can't help but see each one of these lines unironically applies to the situation.
Fact is profit driven healthcare has killed more people than Luigi ever did, allegedly or not.
Where in private you celebrate Luigi for what we think he did.
But in Public we pretend he didn’t do it to help create a narrative to protect him from the police state.
You're also assuming people are considering Luigi and the shooter the same person. I don't think Luigi shot Thompson, but I also don't think the shooter's actions are all that bad considering the state of our for profit suffering machine "healthcare" industry.
So there may not be a much doublethink as you think. Because its been fairly clear from the start that the evidence against Luigi is flimsy, and the tactics in use and 'evidence' provided by the police are suspect at the absolute best.
I think there is a little more nuance to it than that. I don't think anybody legitimately believes he did it and simultaneously didn't do it.
There's basically a slider of dialogue ranging from "he ought to have a fair trial" to "he didn't do it" to "if he did it, I'm glad he did" to "we need more Luigis"
People are generally pushing that slider as far as they socially acceptably can for the given circumstance they're in. You're not gonna say the latter things in public or with your name attached out of fear of reproductions.
So what you get is a mixed bag of feelings, which are almost all pro-Luigi even if they're different forms of it.
I both publicly and privately think it's very plausible, maybe even likely, that he didn't do it, or at the very least a lot of the evidence was planted.
I can still use his imagery and name because it's a good rallying cry whether he did it or not: if he did do it, it was an act of defiance against an industry that's harmed millions, and if he didn't then he's a symbol showing the system desperate to stamp out resistance to the rule of oligarchs. Actually... He's that second one either way, too.
But anyway, he couldn't have done it because he was at my place grilling that day.
It's easy to make someone believe the truth. But to make them believe a falsehood is useful. Because then those people can wear their belief as a uniform.
We just have to believe that he didn't kill that CEO while simultaneously and surreptitiously knowing he did. That is our uniform. That makes us an army.
Luigi seems to be the guy who justifiably killed that CEO and was definitely framed for murder.
You are very close. Someone can be guilty and also be framed by a corrupt 'justice' system. They can also do something that can be seen more than one way depending on context, like how killing someone could be 1st degree murder, manslaughter, or self defense depending on circumstances.
In this case it is a mix of being seen as self defense and the police not following proper procedure in ways that promote speculation of him being framed. So from my perspective he likely did it, but if he did it was self defense/protecting innocents and the police/prosecution are trying to frame him for a quick and public spectacle to appease the wealthy.
Both of those people exist. It is both true that the CEO was put to justice by a hero and that Luigi was framed for murder. He's just a guy who picked a bad day to visit the city.
Right now it looks like the gun will be ruled inadmissible because the police have made it impossible to rule out the possibility it was planted. So right now they have basically no evidence to build a case. If there are no more surprises, this will be an easy acquittal.
On the off chance they let this guy go, and don't just ship him out of the country, I'm anticipating a Daredevil Born Again situation where a cop with some Punisher merch decides to off him.
Where would the planted gun have come from? It's a 3D printed gun. The police would have had to run off a similar model in the few days between the killing and Luigi's capture. If you're experienced with 3D printers and already have a couple printers, you could probably pull that off, but that's not the police. I seriously doubt they have people setup for something like that, and institutional inertial would prevent them from spinning it up in the short time required. The learning curve alone would prevent them from having the time.
Nor can they feasibly bring in outside help. "We need you to make a 3D printed gun for us". What do the police need with a 3D printed gun that happens to match the one the shooter used?
Regardless, there's a chain of evidence issue here. That could well destroy the case no matter if it was planted or not.
If it's actually the gun used in the murder, it may have been found previously. It's a disposable weapon, after all. They may have found the gun in NYC and figured they can't tie it to anyone unless it's conveniently found on the person they arrest.
Now I'm not saying that IS what happened, but it very well could have happened. The circumstances behind the handling of evidence have been very suspicious and a little bit too convenient.
Do we know if the gun was present (planted or not) when Luigi was picked up? Or could it have been planted later?
If it was there at the time, I don't see how it could have been planted. They're random cops in Altoona, PA, a town of about 43k people that isn't particularly close to Pittsburgh or any other major metropolitan area. They get a call from a McDonalds that a guy who looks like the perp is munching there. Before rushing to the scene, they grab the 3D printed gun they just happen to have laying around for this scenario?
If it could have been planted in the backpack later on, then sure.
The OP states that the officer searched the backpack on the scene, drove it to the precinct during which time there is no footage for the 11 minutes, and THEN found the gun in the front pocket of the bag while at the precinct.
A lot of dumb coincidences need to line up for everything to so convently work out in the police's favor.
It was only reported to have been found after the officer (with no body cam) got the backpack to the precinct. This was after an initial warrantless search on the site of the arrest
Tbf, squirting out a glizzy only takes like 24hr, roughly, depending on the model, sometimes less. It's entirely possible a cop already had a squirted glock themselves for the purpose of planting, or more likely took one from evidence, or most likely one that never made it in to evidence, off some guy they booked for coke but never put in the gun. Especially considering the lack of bodycam footage, that suggests they could have turned off the bodycam before as well during the arrest in which they sourced the glock.
It's all speculation of course, but I've known a now retired cop that let a few people off of gun charges because the gun was cool and so it just "went missing" and found it's way into his safe. It can and has happened.
And that 24 hour figure assumes it's on an old bed slinger and each part is made on that printer, on a modern corexy it without be even faster . Have they demonstrated that the "found" gun functioned in a timely manner? From what I understand the real bottleneck in production would be from the post processing.
If you have people who know 3D printing, yes. They've tuned their machine to avoid clogs or layer shifts.
I haven't done 3D printed firearms, but I have done foam weapons like the Caliburn, which have some similar issues. You can cram a lot on a bed and then a layer shift ruins the whole thing 16 hours in. If you're experienced and confident in your setup, though, go for it.
Police had 5 days to set this up. They're not going to be able to spin up a print like that in the time involved. Not without people who already had a print farm and experience.
Tbf, who's to say no cop has a 3d printer? Plus, the printed gun crowd is actually a huge part of 3d printing, it's just you're not allowed to talk about it on the normal forums so it has to be kinda hidden. Cops also like guns. I'd be shocked if there weren't a few printers amongst them tbh.
And again, they'd likely just catch some Crab or Slob with a squirted glizzy and take it without filing charges, he complains he gets charges, he doesn't and now we have a "planting gun." The cops don't need to print one, just take it and don't log it.
One of the cops in PA could have had one in his house before the shooting, is what I'm saying. Maybe this isn't the first gun those specific cops have planted, even. Maybe it was, and a cop saw the shooting and said "hey I have a printed glock at home, I could grab that and find a similar enough looking guy and make a name for myself." Maybe (again) the cop didn't print it, they took it from someone who did and didn't report it, saving it to plant on someone later.
Is it likely? Probably not, but it could happen. I do literally know a cop who used to take cool guns home and not charge people with having them, I don't see why it couldn't happen again +planting.
Oh with five whole days even a beginner could pull that off. It's not like the old days where a layer shift was a real issue. After looking at the actual STL, anyone could drop it into a modern slicer and hit print with the default pla print profile using autogenerated supports.
If you'll allow drag to speculate, the easiest explanation is that it's not 3D printed. The chief of police said it "might be" 3D printed. The 3D printing is just a scare tactic they were planning to walk back in court while using the media to manipulate the public into fearing him to bias jurors. The gun actually came from a Three Letter Agency's armoury. It's untraceable because they had it scrubbed, like all their weapons. They handed it over to the local cops and said make this look good.
They had a whole week before they needed to plant it. That's plenty of time to pop out a quick print that they wouldn't even have to demonstrate could even be fired.
What right place? They could just bring it into the precinct in their bag. Somehow despite doing a quick search of HIS backpack on site of his arrest, the gun wasn't discovered until they got it back to the precinct. Despite supposedly being in the front pocket.
"Right place" as in have institutional connections. They need a guy who can do a complex, multi-part print in a week. If you've never done a complex, multi-part prints before, then no, you're not likely to be successful unless you have knowledge and a tuned printer profile already.
They could just bring it into the precinct in their bag
For this to be the way they planted a freshly printed gun, it had to get to Altoona, PA in the time it took to get from McDonalds to the precinct. It couldn't be some plan by the NYPD or FBI since there's not enough time to get the gun there. Unless you're saying the employee who called it in from the McDonalds was in on it. Generally, increasing the number of people in a conspiracy makes for a fragile conspiracy.
Nor do I think it's too likely they could have pulled a 3D printed gun that was already in police custody. NYPD probably does have some in their evidence lockers, but not a 43k population town like Altoona.
Who are these people who own a filament based 3d printer who aren't doing multi part prints?
Like no part of how they handled this search reads as genuine. They didn't find the gun when they searched the bag on site. No buddy can footage for from the cop transporting it. Only after they're back at the precinct do they find the gun in the outer most pocket. AND also he's carrying around an entire manifesto that's written well below his level of education? Plus a bunch of cash - are we supposed to believe he was running away or trying to get caught here?
Police departments regularly get these 3d printed things turned in during gun turn in drives, as opportunists like to print up a bunch of new ones to claim the bounties just to stick it to the man.
Have you done prints of this complexity before? It's not just a few parts at once. It tends to fill the whole bed with small parts. Bad adhesion anywhere can be a problem.
I agree the whole search was hinky. There's a decent chance the backpack will be ruled inadmissible due to chain of evidence issues. If that's the case, the prosecution's case likely falls apart.
That requires nothing more than a couple of cops from a podunk town in rural PA fucking up the whole thing. The idea of a conspiracy to plant a gun is convoluted and unnecessary.
Is it possible police found the gun nearby the shooting, but never made the evidence public?
I ask because I don't know the intricacies or timeline of the shooting/hunt/arrest/detainment.
Publicising that "someone just killed a CEO with a 3d printed gun, you found the gun and you have no further evidence" might inspire a lot of copycats.
I think his only way to not being found guilty is for the real killer to strike again with the same gun. And even then they might say the "second one" is just a copycat.
You do have to marandize the suspect though, otherwise they were in custody illegally. And this everything found in his possession was found without probable cause. Luigi was not ready his rights and was placed under police custody illegally.
I really hope he goes to jail at this point regardless if he did it or not.
I am tired of hearing about this over and over again. It was entertaining like for a week maximum
Luigi was framed.
Christ, imagine if he really was set up after all this?
Or that the charges don't stick?
People have been saying since he was announced as a suspect that he didn't look like the shooter that appeared on the cameras. He sort of looks like him but it's really not that clear cut that it's definitely him
Also it couldn't have been Luigi, he has an alibi. We were hanging out that day.
Mm that's weird I definitely remember him being at my dad's birthday party
yeah don't you remember? you, me, [email protected], and Luigi were all at your dad's birthday party since the night before, we even helped get it set up.
How could he have planned a murder if we were so busy setting up the balloons and signs? That party took days of prep work.
yeah fellas sorry i just kinda crashed immediately after the candles were blown out x.x; and Luigi worked even harder than I did, up and down the ladder hanging all the streamers... bro has such an eye for decorating though, right?!
hey btw [email protected] did your dad ever get around to enjoying that steakhouse giftcard we got him?
That does sound like Luigi, always willing to lend a helping hand.
I saw him at the McD in Tønsberg (Norway) at the time..
Funny, I was staying at the same hostel and told him where the closest McD is
https://www.tiktok.com/@julianas776/video/7447346194461789470
This video and this comment chain are the light in the end of the tunnel for me 🤣
Even if he's really the shooter, imagine if they cannot prove it's him because it would showcase the immense dystopian surveillance tech everywhere in the US. So they had to pretend they got an anonymous call and plant evidence instead.
Evidence laundering
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
The good faith exception is such bullshit.
I don't get a good faith exception if I truly thought that the speed limit was actually 75 instead of 55, even if my phone and car told me that was the case.
It doesn't even make sense to me in a mental gymnastics way, like, just because I tried hard and was honest, doesn't make a warrant any more or less valid.
If you have a decent lawyer this is possible I'm pretty sure. Essentially the wealthy do get a good faith exception.
There’s an income level that lets you do “weekend jail” on your fifth DUI.
If you are Sarah Stitt, wife of Oklahoma’s Governor, you won’t even get the DUI. Just stumble drunkenly out of that state vehicle (which you aren’t supposed to be using, but you’ve got the Republican princess pass), insist that you are married to the Governor, and they won’t even charge you!
If the defence can create enough doubt that the gun was his, I doubt they have a case otherwise.
Especially considering the jury may well be quite sympathetic to him.
If they can prove the search was illegal, they can throw out the backpack evidence entirely.
That’s only if the judge isn’t in on it
Tbf just because he had a gun on him doesn't mean he was the shooter. I have a gun on me, am I the shooter Greg? Plenty people have guns, and it's even legal to have a 3d printed gun, and even if he was concealed carrying without a permit, "so?"
"Of course he has a gun. This is Texas, everybody has a gun. My florist has a gun!"
I presume they tested it to confirm it was the murder weapon?
Kinda, yeah if the barrel and striker matches up that'll be tough to beat. That could be easily thwarted though by running a rough brush, or changing the barrel with another one, and changing the striker, and if he's worth his salt he ditched those before he even left the city. And even a match isn't necessarily 100% proof it's the gun, just like 99.999% lol.
Honestly, I do think it was him, personally. Just playing devils advocate.
If he was as smart as you think, the gun would have been broken apart and the individual pieces dumped in a series of rubbish bins.
Having a 3D printed gun on you isn't something most people do though, so it's not a good look.
Depends where, in a few states they are illegal but in a good few more it's actually 100% fine as long as you don't also have drugs. Doubly so if: white. "Italian" (whether he is or not he'd pass in my area) is white enough. P80s are more common, but same concept.
I think people on the internet vastly overestimate how sympathetic a jury will be.
Probably, but isn't the healthcare system pretty much universally despised in the states?
Sure, but not as much as straight up murder.
manslaughter at best. Or would be in a place where laws weren't made for the wealthy.
That’s honestly been my opinion the whole fucking time.
He also allegedly had the manifesto with him, which makes no sense. Basically they just said "We randomly got a tip for this guy at mc donalds and he happened to have all possible pieces of evidence on him days after making a clean get away" mmm yeeah sure.....
Btw, it's "Eavesdropping".
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Eavesdropping
I ain't been droppin no eaves sir, honest. I was just cutting the grass under the window there if you'll follow me
My pragmatic theory:
Oof I hate that that is plausible as fuck
Here’s another thought. Some of the cops also support the action and intentionally botch evidence custody.
And it would've been so much easier to plant the stuff at his house while he was being taken. Except that would have required a small amount of thinking.
In addition to the rest, from the beginning Luigi himself claimed that there was money and other items in the bag that was not put there by him. This latest development appears consistent with that.
At this point the funniest thing would be if the real assassin was to take down another healthcare CEO.
Someone, can't remember who...so if it's you (not necessarily you OP, a general you) put your hand up, in a different Luigi thread a month or so ago had a pet theory that I think probably holds a reasonable amount of water.
The theory is that that CEO was knocked off by a paid hitman, possibly contracted by his spouse, and Luigi happened to be picked up as a scapegoat because the NYPD, or the arresting officer, was complicit/paid off a tidy sum.
With this coming up, it's even less of an unlikely scenario.
Why would the hitman engrave the bullets? If they're picking a plausible scapegoat with severe medical issues, then why one that's young rich and handsome?
to make it look like an ideological hit job.
But then why one that's young rich and handsome?
The police chose the actual suspect. not whoever planned the hit
Oh I think he's definitely not guilty. I'm just not sure if he did it.
But why male models?
Man, I never said the theory was....dare I say.... bulletproof? 🤓
Buuuuuut....if all the evidence was planted? Look, the "manifesto", the engraved bullets, the whole thing is a cop's wet dream. I'm willing to believe Luigi is in fact the triggerman, willing to believe that he's unhinged enough to have toted all that about with him. You gotta think though....the NYPD were frothing, Altoona PD are under staffed, under paid. Not outside the realm of possibility it's a frame job.
Just a tinfoil hat theory that I thought was...fun? Not really the best word for it, but fits well enough.
This would be a better theory if Luigi had a serious alibi. Also, if he wasn't tied up with the Silicon Valley Longtermist movement, which has already produced a number of more low-profile killings.
I wouldn't discount the pet theory, because it does sound like the kind of shit mega-millionaires get up to. But the NYPD picking up this guy specifically, where and when they did, with no credible counternarrative as to where he was at the time of the killing, makes me strongly suspect they have the right guy. But - like with the OJ Brown-Simpson murder - they've got such a clown car of detectives and a grandstanding mayor and self-insert celebrity journalists and prosecutors promoting the case as spectacle that they're going to completely fuck this thing at trial.
If he wins the criminal case but loses a far more professionally executed civil "wrongful death" case a few years later, I would not be surprised in the slightest.
Does it have to be healthcare? I mean, there are some other candidates to consider
Starting with almost every single billionaire.
All good options.
I would argue that while billionaires are stealing your money, healthcare CEOs are taking lives, which is more important in my mind.
Which isn't to say that billionaires don't deserve the same treatment, this is just prioritization for the most benefit in the shortest amount of time.... Long term, a lot more heads need to roll.
Both is the correct answer.
I'm just putting an emphasis on the healthcare industrial machine in the USA because it's causing more acute harm to the people of the USA than anyone else.
Hard to amass billions without taking lives in some form.
I won't disagree. Most billionaires are at least indirectly responsible for significant harm and loss of life. Whether they support, endorse or profit from inhumane, cruel and exploitative business practices, such as we see in the cobalt mines of the Congo, or other mineral mines whether for diamonds, lithium, or whatever...
Or they are profiting or directly befitting from people who are underpaid, and eventually, because of corporate profiteering, forced into poverty and they die because they are unable to afford to live... Or they are denying people life saving pharmaceuticals though supporting or profiting from the drug industry, or ownership therein (in whole or in part)....
Or they're more directly responsible for harm by being an active voice in, or in support of, denying, deposing, and delaying, anything that might reduce a companies profits, especially healthcare companies.
The reality of it is: when you achieve a certain level of monetary wealth, your money is invested. Frequently those investments support something that doesn't causes harm and death to your fellow humans.
Therefore: anyone with sufficient wealth to warrant investments, is almost always, someone endorsing, supporting, or profiting from the pain, suffering, and deaths, of other people. QED: all billionaires are evil, mass murdering pieces of shit, who should be strung up and quartered in the town square. I will settle for seeing their heads roll.
Where did I put my guillotine?
You put it so eloquently, thank you. We sadly haven't even been able to find our collective pitchforks yet...
P.S. I think you accidentally put a "doesn't" in the last line of "The reality of it is:"
Ty for the heads up. Cheers!
You son of a bitch, I’m in
Now I’m intrigued. Which billionaires should we spare and why?
I mean, Taylor Swift recently crossed the line and she’s been incredibly generous with it. So has Bezos’ ex-wife.
Does the work done at the Gates Foundation get them a pass?
Is there really “no such thing as an ethical billionaire”? Should there be no exceptions?
It would be very difficult to describe what Taylor has done as anything unethical at all let alone deserving to be killed. She's genuinely worked hard since she was a teenager to be where she is, writes her own music, pays the people working for her very well, donates to charity etc.
What more do you want?
Jokes aside, I honestly don't know if he's the guy.
What I do know, is if this part is true, that should be enough to put doubt into the "beyond a reasonable doubt" part in the jury.
I just point blank don't believe he did it.
Let's say I kill a high profile individual on the street you know, hypothetically.
Do you seriously believe that I'd be casually hanging out in public at a McDonalds with a manifesto and loaded gun in my bag? I'm pretty sure that my first port of call if I was assassinating someone would be "Burn all the evidence in an alleyway somewhere, get new clothes on, and lay low for pretty much the rest of my fucking life, possibly in Mexico"
Not only that, Luigi's fake ID which he did not use in an illegal way any known time was not linked with the shooting, just linked to a NY hostel.
Also Luigi was not marandised, hes also charged in NY, Pennsylvania and federally at the same time, double (triple?) jeopardy
And his bags were searched without him being able to see the search, which puts into question the search, but they didn't find any gun or manifesto at that time. 6 hours later, they did find a gun and a manifesto after being contact with NYPD. And the paper work for this evidence is also not properly filed. In addition the inventory of his belonging was also not descriptive.
He was arrested by a rookie cop that didn't get help from a supervisor to avoid mistakes either, lots of adrenaline in a huge profile case like this. He said he knew right away that this was the killer, and he had only the propaganda NYPD had posted to the media. And NYPD didn't know who the killer was
I dont know how long it took, but it took well over 100 days before the defence was able to even see the evidence against him. A huge red flag that the prosecution dont think the evidence holds water. And when they did get it, it was terabytes of data, and Luigi wasn't allowed to use a computer without hus lawyer present, blocking him from seeing what weaksauce they have against him
The aid to the prosecutor also listened in, they say it was an accident to a whole telephone conversation with Luigi and the lawyer, how is this even possible. The prosecutor rebuked him self from the case after they were caught doing this, so they do a new prosecutor
The feds even call for the death penalty before Luigi is even indited, let alone convinced.
I'm just very skeptical this is the shooter, why would they screw up everything so bad every step on puropuse like this. Its just a hail Mary that the judge who is married to a CEO will convict anyway
Luigi in the released CCTV photography is already wearing different clothes to the shooter. Not very different though.
Bit strange to change clothes and backpack but keep the same styling and colors.
Yeah, the real shooter is probably in the woods somewhere barely surviving off what they can find. At least, that’s more reasonable than doing a high profile assassination and going to McDonalds for a burger after (I know it was days later, it’s hyperbole).
...it's mushrooms. Which is just super.
That's the problem though. Everyone's playing "If I were him".
The thing is, we don't know what was going on his mind. Say he actually was the one who did it. Maybe he wanted to get caught. Maybe he assumed he was going to get caught within minutes, and didn't bother throwing away the evidence because he didn't think there was any point. Maybe he kept changing his mind about what he was going to do, and in the end that indecision caught up with him.
Assuming he's actually the one who shot the CEO, I already have trouble understanding his thinking. He shot a guy in cold blood who may have been scummy, but hadn't actually hurt Mangione or anybody he cared about, AFAIK. He didn't do it as part of a community. I know he's not a mass shooter, but shooting a stranger for ideological reasons is most similar to mass shooters or bombers. Most of the times people do that, they're egged on by a community. He apparently just did it on his own.
So yeah, I don't get it, but the fact I don't get it doesn't convince me it can't be true.
That sounds like backwards logic - you're postulating guilt based on the lack of evidence of innocence (if I'm understanding your point correctly.
You're not. I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm just saying that it's silly to imply there's a conspiracy or something just because some of his alleged actions seem abnormal, when cherry-picking which of his actions you're looking at.
this sounds like lots of maybes that does covering, where there is talk of plenty of reasonable doubt. We are saying we are confused and there is reasonable doubt, sure you could be correct, but thats some mental gymnastics to get out of that reasonable doubt
I'm sorry it reads that way. What I'm trying to say is that you have to look at the whole picture.
"Let's say I kill a high profile individual on the street you know, hypothetically."
If you say that, you have to take into account what kind of person might do that. It's a person who is not thinking normally. It's something that people thinking normally might be tempted to do, but they wouldn't actually do it.
"Do you seriously believe that I'd be casually hanging out in public at a McDonalds with a manifesto and loaded gun in my bag?"
This is something that someone who's thinking normally wouldn't do. But, we've already established that someone who kills someone else on the street isn't thinking normally. You can't start from an assumption of normal thinking for someone who you've already hypothesized is a cold-blooded killer who killed a stranger on the street.
I would disagree, I would say it is normal to kill someone who is responsable for thousands of deaths, thousands of people dieing so you can make more money. It is only a collective cowardace, one that I have to admit also have. But I would argue within the history of humanity, and just normal human emotion, that that would be someone thinking normaly, you are killing a, truly stagering amount of people for, no real reason, someone has to stop you and there is no reason why that person should not be me.
Once agian i want to point out how truly insane it is that more of us do not do this regularly, how this is seen as a rare and shoking event and killing healthcare CEOs and other Billionares, who ammase their weath on mass exploitation is.
If it was normal, it wouldn't be newsworthy.
You have it because you're normal. He didn't, meaning he wasn't normal (he being whoever shot the CEO).
Insanity is an abnormal mental or behavioral state. By definition, if it's how everyone acts, then it's not insane. It's normal.
You can say that we ought to act differently, but that's not how people are wired. Normal people don't act that way.
In other words, it's abnormal. That's why we're paying attention.
Mangione supposedly had chronic health issues that may have been the basis of hatred for the health insurance business - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/12/11/luigi-mangione-back-pain-healthcare-shooting/
I've heard that, but he doesn't seem like the kind of person who kills someone due to their medical issues. For that, I picture someone confined to a wheelchair, or forced to use crutches, or severely addicted to pain meds.
Though on the other hand I don't know of anyone who became murderous over being forced to use a wheelchair / crutches / pain meds either.
I do agree with your overall point where you'd prefer to be agnostic regarding this whole issue, but that's also exactly why I wouldn't go off into theorising either about what is required to make a man want to kill a healthcare insurance CEO, or what kind of a person Mangione "seems like".
and you think my manifesto would start praising with how amazing the cops are and we need to thank them, and we should not rise up?
I've said this a few times now, but it's entirely possible he's just not the criminal mastermind we want him to be.
I mean no one is saying mastermind, but he did get all the way out of the main search area, he would have been essentialy home free.
Also this is reasonable doubt, and saying "he isn't a criminal mastermind" is not enough to remove it, someone going "I likely would have done this" is a reasonable doubt.
He's an example of the difference in outcomes between a competent attorney focused solely on your own defense and some public defender that didn't know you'd be their client until five minutes before trial.
Whether or not he did it, the real outcome of this court case appears to be reaffirming that the
NYPDlocal Pennsylvania PD simply cannot be trusted to do any kind of investigation of a crime or evidence handling even in the most high-profile cases.This was a police department in Pennsylvania, days later, hours away from NY
This police department mainly had information from the media, not from NYPD
I think what ends up happening (as a rando without a legal degree) is that the backpack and all of its contents become inadmissible as evidence. It makes beyond a reasonable doubt harder to achieve for the prosecution because they lack a proposed murder weapon in evidence.
This is just a motion. Judge will decide it's validity and the remedy. It might end up with the evidence excluded, but it might be that the prosecution just has to provide a different/stronger justification, or even be a nothing burger if the judge is unconvinced by the arguments in the motion.
I agree with your analysis if the judge does exclude backpack and contents as evidence.
Anything other than exclusion will be grounds for appeal, later, too.
I want to see him win this whether he did it or not, but at this point it legitimately looks like it isn't him. Either way, they just want to make an example out of him, it's literally just class warfare and nothing else.
I hope he did it and I hope he gets off.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was him, if he had a meticulous brilliant plan to make sure there was no direct evidence, so people would know it was him but they couldn't prove it in a court of law.
And then the cops were like "it's cute you think we play by the rules" and planted evidence.
I also hope he's acquitted. I don't know if a random healthcare CEO getting killed will make the world a better place. But, I do think that a guy getting away with killing a random healthcare CEO is more likely to result in change.
In the first case, it can be dismissed by the CEOs, oligarchs and friends as a crazy lone gunman. But, if a jury votes to acquit after massive donations to his legal case, that becomes a clear sign that it's not just a lone gunman, that a lot of people support this kind of thing. It also makes it more likely to happen again, because the next gunman might think they can get away with it too. If CEOs start quitting because they don't want a target on their backs, or they start reforming their companies to avoid being so hated, that's great.
I think he probably is the right guy but he was smart enough to cover his tracks and they only found him because of some kind of illegal surveillance we don't know about. Would explain why they're so desperate for anything else to explain how they know it was him.
My issue with that is that if he were caught via illegal surveillance so soon after the fact, it seems strange that they wouldn't have caught him during the planning/prep stages using said surveillance.
Think of it like the eye of sauron, when it's looking at you it won't miss anything, but it needs a reason to be looking.
There is so much junk data out there, you don't know what matters. But the moment you have a face, time, and area you can do some crazy things.
He clearly didn't want to get away if he kept the evidence. You can just throw it in the trash at a random place
The images released at the time show two different people. One was from the scene and the other from a hostel in the area. While they look similar, there are details which show there are very likely not the same person. Luigi only matches the details of the hostel image, not the one from the scene.
NYC is full of tall attractive young men of Italian descent. I used to live there and off the top of my head can think of three different aquaintences who were his age and would have matched his profile close enough.
I can't imagine how much it must suck for him right now if he didn't do it. Like, the way they're treating him is awful regardless, but I imagine that being responsible for the widely praised act would help a little (gosh, it must feel so awkward to have so many fans if he wasn't the one who did it — it has stolen valour vibes (except presumably he wouldn't have chosen to be the scapegoat))
Well that sure is weird.
No jury Nullification needed. It looks like it really was a frame job. Can't wait to see this case unfold.
I still think this would be a bad case for jury nullification. Too much attention, too easily sent to the supreme court, court is too packed with clowns to do anything other than remove the power of jury nullification for the benefit of their wealthy owners.
Who knows though, maybe that would get people to actually decide enough is enough, i doubt it though.
Jury nullification isn't an enumerated power, it's an emergent result of jury deliberations being secret and their verdict being legally binding.
As the other comment says, jury nullification isn't a thing that can easily be removed. The jury doesn't just claim "jury nullification." They just state their decision is that the defendant is not guilty. They don't state why, and we'd only know why they came to that conclusion if they tell us later in interviews or something.
The plaintiff cannot appeal. There are super rare circumstances where I should say "usually can't appeal", but those are so rare I will just say only the defendant can appeal.
SCOTUS cannot overturn a Nulification in the not guilty, according to anything about nulification I have read thus far, because the jury said that there is reasonable doubt, that he did not do it.
Wow, imagine being the cop that fucked this up this hard.
I don't think they could avoid fucking it up. Planting a fucking gun isn't that easy :D
I mean, I guess it depends on how late in the season you plant it and how many gun seeds you have.
Well, let's check in that Brian guy, he had a few gun seeds planted pretty successfully a while back.
Most people forget to stratify their gun plants and end up with stunted growth and just end up with snub noses
oh i thought the snub nose was from selective breeding, like the short-barreled rifle.
Not to be confused with a sawn off shotgun, which has had its growth intentionally stunted through systematic trimming.
You have to germinate them in a forge at 1200 degrees for about a week.
It's all about getting the right balance of water and PH in the soil. I've had many guns wither just after sprouting.
Planting a gun to ensure a conviction? I think the whole “Luigi didn’t do it” conspiracy is silly. Yeah he did it, for sure. And he’s a damn hero for doing it. I don’t see how the ruling class benefits by throwing the wrong guy in jail and letting the killer go free. If there was a non Luigi killer he would have claimed responsibility by now.
And yes I’ve seen the photos of his eyebrow in a shitty security cam, hairs reflect light or become invisible depending on the lighting and camera quality. Luigi hasn’t even denied it flat out. But yes, Luigi did it and praise him for it.
Here's the thing: they're saying it's him, but the evidence is poor and suspicious, and they've been making lots of procedural "mistakes" trying to put him away. Like way too many obvious mistakes that you just can't afford to make in a case like this.
Maybe he did it, maybe he just vaguely looks like a guy in a low-quality photo near the scene of the crime.
I think there are enough issues with the entire process that I wouldn't assume he's definitely the guy. But he's the face that's been associated with the so called crime, and it gives people something to rally around.
Not chiming in on whether or not he is the guy, but the police making mistakes should be considered standard procedure. They're only "competent" in movies and TV shows, so we shouldn't assume they fucking up as evidence for anything besides it being a Monday.
No he’s definitely the guy. I can see them breaking rules and jumping hoops to try and throw him hard under that bus, but it’s most certainly him
Sounds like somebody is gonna get summoned for jury duty.
The police worked very hard to make you think it was him. Like planting all this"damning evidence" on him for his... trip to McDonald's a week later.
Username checks out.
How is “Luigi didn’t do it” a silly conspiracy but saying "Yeah he did it, for sure." not?
Because they can't find the guy that really did it and someone has to burn for this. Executing the wrong man still scares the peasants. Throwing up your hands and saying "we can't find him, guess he got away 🤷" will cause 18 more copycat killings before your press release is finished. Ergo, find someone and pin it on them, no matter what it takes.
Why would anyone possibly do this when they just successfully got away with their major crime. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The real killer is laying extremely low until their crime is no longer daily national news. Especially because the guy getting pinned for it is being threatened with major terroristic charges and execution, no one is going to pipe up and say "no actually I did it, defame and murder me instead please".
Doubly so when it's becoming increasingly evident that the police are running a clown show that doesn't have a chance in hell of actually convicting. If I didn't know better I'd think they wanted to let Luigi walk. So the real killer is safe and secure in the knowledge that nobody is looking for him anymore and the guy they did catch has an extremely slim chance of facing real consequences.
You are the type of person who thinks people are guilty because the police arrested them.
The police claim that footage is of the killer and you just believe it because authorities said so.
The police claim they found the manifesto on him and you just believe it because authorities said so.
The police claim they found a weapon on him and you just believe it because authorities said so.
The police claim the weapon was a march and you just believe it because authorities said so.
No one else has stepped up to claim the crime, which would get them death penalty so clearly it must be this guy.
He hasn't outright denied it -- apparently pleading not guilty isn't that so clearly he did it because he's not denying it hard enough for you.
Prosecutors love fools like you because it leads to easy convictions.
Why would the real killer have claimed responsibility? That's assuming the vigilante is serial killer adjacent and was aiming for notoriety thwarting police by killing CEOs instead of normal people.
And why are you assuming that the cabal of rich dickheads could have apprehended the real killer but chose Luigi regardless? Instead of having no reliable suspect and being given a effigy to burn publicly because of a call-in and an over-eager (and corrupt), local police force?
Conspiracies make people feel smart and special, like they know THE TRUTH about something that everyone else isn’t aware of. The real world is more straight forward and not a spy thriller. He did it, and he’s a damn saints for doing it
Okay, nice move: in one play, an oblique dig at my intelligence and dismissing valid questions out of hand without addressing anything.
It isn't a spy thriller for cops to grab the wrong guy to quickly close a case. It happens to black people all the time.
Then why hasnt he said they got the wrong guy? Hes playing the legal game now, has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It also doesnt matter if the cops planted the gun, they mishandled the bag and recorded too much of what happened.
I haven't heard much out of Luigi at all (although I admit, I'm not paying that much attention). Sounds to me like he's just keeping his mouth shut in general and letting his lawyer do the talking. Which is just solid advice for the US legal system.
He's mostly been busy shutting the fuck up, like you're supposed to do when you're on trial, but I think this counts:
"It’s completely out of touch and an insult to the intelligence of the American people and their lived experience!" - 10 December 2024. This statement was explained by Mangione's lawyer as the result of him being "agitated about what’s happening to him and what he’s being accused of."
Which it is, in fact, an insult to the American people to expect us to believe he's guilty. If I had a nickel for every massively publicized national trial involving rampant police corruption and planting of evidence, I'd have two nickels, one from OJ Simpson and one from Luigi. If I had a nickel for every time it actually happened without being broadcast to the nation I'd be able to buy Twitter with them.
They're not letting him near the press. The one thing we've heard from him as they shoved him against a wall in front of cameras was that they planted stuff on him.
That's his lawyer's job. That's what they're doing right fucking now.
I'm not saying he's definitely innocent. I'm saying I'm unconvinced by the evidence presented pre trial. In fact that's what I'm supposed to think as an American. I think I'm going to try to foster thst thought process further in the future even with those accused of other crimes. Our culture has gotten too comfortable taking cops at their words despite knowing they lie
So exactly what you're doing being contrarian in this thread....
Y’all are nuts. Then again im arguing with a bunch of Americans who think they got it all figured out
Oh look, a nonAmerican who seems to be unfamiliar with how corrupt American police are, and for some reason seems to think that they know enough to tell everyone to trust the narrative that the police are pushing, despite the blatant holes in their story.
Because one killer is meaningless, but a culture of rebellion is dangerous. They do not care if Luigi is the right man at all, the only point of any of this is saying "this is not acceptable and we will stomp out dissent."
That's all this is about. Frankly they don't care if the real killer goes free because they aren't worried about the person, they're worried about the message.
Don't worry, they are already on paid disciplinary leave until this is all over.
Hero Cop Saves Innocent Man's Life
First and last time this phrase has ever been said about a US cop
Because no one else has yet commented this:
Fuck The Police.
Seriously! Bunch of slackers around here!
Sorry, I was asleep. I'll set an alarm next time.
Thankfully/Unfortunately, you don't need an alarm to know that ACAB
Getting arrested in Pennsyltucky by imbreds was a genius move.
Let's say that Mangione committed the crime.
My understanding is that he gave cops a fake ID when they questioned him on reasonable suspicion (the basis of which was a tip from an employee). That is something that yes, he can be arrested for. And he can be personally searched after that arrest. But at that point, he can no longer get a gun out of his bag, and cops have control of it, so he can't destroy evidence/get a weapon from it; so searching the bag should be out at that time. So, my understanding, based on case law, is that they would have needed a warrant to search it at that time, as the contents of the bag aren't related to the reason he's been arrested. You aren't supposed to be able to use a pretextural arrest to search a person's car or belongings (e.g., arrest you for suspicion of drunk driving, then search your car to find evidence of burglaries).
In theory, without the warrant, the search and everything from the search should be out. Even if he committed the crime, and kept all the evidence conveniently in his backpack, it should be completely excluded from the case. I'm sure that the DA is going to argue that there's some exception that allows a warrantless search, but I can't say what that argument will be. If the evidence is allowed in, his defense attorney is going to have to object every single time that prosecutors refer to it, for any reason, in order to preserve the option to claim that evidence was improperly admitted in an appeal. (Which they should absolutely do, if it goes that far!)
Federal rules of evidence is pretty complicated stuff. But goddamn, does it look like someone fucked up bad on a really high profile case.
Yeah, he conveniently carried around a disposable weapon used in a murder that he was wanted for, instead of disposing of it. Also he conveniently wrote a manifesto related to the murder and carried that around in his backpack as well.
Nothing suspicious here. Move along.
Not a manifesto. Manifestos are published by the author. We have no way of knowing who authored that police officer's fever dream, but since the police published it, it wasn't written by Luigi. Also the language and grammar are consistent with the lack of education that cops receive, not the level of education that Luigi received.
They called it a manifesto, which is why I used the term. If it's real, he was basically just carrying around a written confession in his backpack just to make the cops' jobs easier, I guess.
Fair nuff
Just because someone has a college degree doesn't mean that they can write for shit.
He had reddit and Goodreads profiles, where he left comments and book reviews which might be used to judge his writing style (also his own handwriting may be analysed, comparing it to that of the manifesto). Although the "manifesto" is very short so maybe not enough language treaits could be extrapolated from it.
Printed guns aren't "disposable"; they're untraceable. A printed firearm can function for tens of thousands of rounds, and is not necessarily any less accurate than any other polymer firearm.
If he never expected to even make it out of NYC, carrying that stuff kinda makes sense. But I def. would have dumped everything in the Hudson river.
It's disposable in the sense that it costs basically nothing to make and can easily be disposed of if you need to. A bit of heat and it's no longer a gun, and nobody would know that it ever was.
Also no. If I, for instance, want to print a Glock, the only part that I'm printing is the polymer frame (which, legally, is the gun). I still need to buy a slide, slide stop, guide rod, recoil spring (IDK off the top of my head if Glock uses a captured spring or not), barrel, trigger & associated parts, magazine catch and release, etc. Oh, and I'll need to buy magazines, or at least a magazine spring if I'm able to print the magazine, baseplate, and follower. While I don't particularly want to price them all out right now, more often than not buying parts is more expensive than buying a completed firearm. Right now I can pick up a Glock G17 gen 5 MOS for about $475 (after shipping and transfer fee); if I save anything with printing, the savings are going to be small
The biggest advantage to a printed gun is that all of the other parts can be purchased with cash, and without a background check, so there's no record that you ever purchased the firearm.
You're still going to be left with the metal parts. OTOH, they have no serial numbers, so they're functionally impossible to trace. Also, any polymer gun can either be melted or incinerated.
Keep in mind that you can also print silencers now. The big advantage to that is that, if you don't mind violating the National Firearms Act of 1934, you don't have to send your fingerprints to the BATF or pay $200 for a tax stamp. They don't last as long as inconel or titanium silencers though.
Look, I'm 100% in favor of people printing guns. Or buying 80% receivers/frames, and fabricating their own. Or, hell, buying a Haas desktop minimill and learning CNC programming to make gun parts out of metal. But most of the time you're going to end up spending more to make one than to buy one.
This is something they could very easily forget, or just never learned, because they usually fuck up the poor and colored and press them into plea deals so it never goes to trial so it never becomes apparent the police have nothing since they ignored all the laws, i imagine when u spend a good amount of your career cheating the justice system you forget there were ever rules to begin with.
Part of me is leaning towards Luigi being the guy and he planned on getting arrested with this 'too good to be true' evidence in this little known PA town, because he was banking on them bungling it and he knew he would have a good legal team making it seem planted, or at the least have widespread public support if he did get charged.
If I was the kind of person that would commit a high-profile assassination, that is not something I'd want to bet my life and freedom on.
Pretty sure you're wrong, specifically in that a search incident to arrest doesn't have lines in the sand about which crime you're being arrested for.
Good point, they don't even need a crime to arrest you.
This is how people end up with their only charge being "resisting arrest".
Off topic but I really like your name
Search incident to arrest typically allows you to search the person of the suspect to ensure that the person doesn't have a weapon, or has evidence of a crime that they can destroy. Once you've separated a person from a closed bag, you don't have the immediate right to search the bag; US v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977). OTOH, once an arrestee is actually being booked, they can perform an inventory of the contents of a bag (Illinois v. LaFayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983)), which would have turned up the gun, etc., and it would have turned them up under controlled circumstances. But that's not what happened here; he appears to have been arrested on a pretextual basis, and then his bag seized and searched without a warrant. However, it's going to be up to his attorneys to make this argument, and my guess is that the state will argue that he was definitely, 100% going to be booked--despite the lack of evidence at that point to support that--and thus it was inevitable that the gun would have been found. I think that's bullshit, but we'll see.
Not a lawyer, but I know that when a cop arrests someone in a car and the car is impounded, they catalog items. This is an unofficial search to make sure they aren't liable for missing items. I would expect the same of a backpack. But perhaps that falls under the same disqualification of use as evidence you're suggesting.
That's called an "inventory search", and this motion says what happened isn't an "inventory search" because they didn't follow procedure (and cites supporting precedence).
If they would have just hauled him in for processing on the false identification, and then found the gun during an inventory search at the station, it would be better for the prosecution.
The motion also claims that the search couldn't be a... safety search? (I don't know the right term)... like checking a person for weapons, because before the search was initiated, the suspect was already handcuffed and separated from the backpack so didn't have access to anything in it that could be hazardous to the officers. Prosecution might argue is was a safety search because they were looking for a hazard that didn't need to be triggered by the suspect, like a timed device or just an incidental hazard.
IANAL, just an interested citizen.
You're thinking of a Terry stop.
That would be the exigent circumstances exception, but you need more than just an assertion for that; you need a rational basis for claiming exigent circumstances.
Under Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983), it would be fine to inventory a bag when you're being booked. But they hadn't gotten that far, and I'm not aware of any evidence that they would have actually booked him without the contents of the bag.
Also, AFAIK, they're allowed to do a basic search to ensure that someone doesn't have a weapon on them or nearby. It wouldn't make sense to require a warrant for that. Imagine a cop had to apply for a search warrant to ensure that the person they were arresting didn't have a knife or gun in their pocket.
In that case, it might make sense to search his backpack if it was right next to him. OTOH, if they took his backpack away from him, then they were no longer in danger from anything in the backpack so they had no justification to search it.
You just know that the police are going to lie about these things. They'll claim he was never separated from his backpack so they were justified in searching it for something dangerous. Or they'll claim that they had reason to believe there was a bomb so even though he didn't have it on him, they still had a reason to search it because it still posed an immediate danger.
The only way anybody can get a fair trial is to have an expensive team of lawyers who can chase down all these various lies, finding out what was said on body cams, when the body cams were mysteriously turned off, what the exact timeline of everything was, etc.
Goes to show how much this isn't about Luigi, or even Brian Thompson. It's about the elite sending a message to the other 99%. Think, even if their case against Luigi is rocky at best, all that matters is they can get him to pay for Brian, regardless of whether he did it or not, or where the evidence points.
All that matters is that we the "peasants" get the underlying message:
All that matters is that they get to take their pound of flesh, and that the "peasantry" gets discouraged to fight for their rights as the elite takes, and takes and takes.
Which is why it's so important that regardless of Luigi having done it or not, he should walk free unless there's solid, undeniable evidence of him doing it, like an actual and verified non-deepfake video of the assassination with his clear face on it. And even then he must only face the consequences the law demands, and what others would face in his place for killing the everyday average Joe. The fact that the life lost was an elite should have no bearing on the consequences.
Something that needs to be considered is the possibility of parallel construction in the arrest and alleged evidence
When I first heard about this back in my early 20s, it radicalized me. ACAB.
This is the first time I hear about this, is this just a way to get normally inadmissable evidence admitted through some bullshit loophole or is there an actual good reason to have this system?
It sounds like they're buying time to find evidence that is admissable in court (ie not their illegal methods they used to first book the defendant while they try to scrounge together what they do need.)
So goes like this. You use illegal surveillance to track someone without a warrant. You arrest them and plant evidence as cause for lock up. Meanwhile now you can actually get a warrant to search the defendants computer, house, etc... To try to find something that does give you evidence of guilt that will actually be used to prove you think they're guilty.
Obviously he's innocent though.
Fruit of the poison tree...
This is common knowledge for anyone who was around during the Chelsea Manning / Edward Snowden era and all the revelations of the depths of NSA spying, PRISM, etc.
Everything is being recorded, analysed, manipulated to whatever degree they’re technically capable of, laws be damned.
Seems like an “ends justifies the means” loophole. The original intent was to hide the source of NSA tips from terrorist prosecution. We’d all probably agree to that without thinking that it can also be used more widely, that the person is not a terrorist until proven so, that there are really no limits, and is an easy way for police to hide abuse of authority.
Analogous to “Civil Forfeiture”. That seemed so reasonable in the context of seizing wealth obtained through criminal activities by organized crime. But there were no real limits, and it allowed perverse incentives, so now we have local cops stealing people’s personal belongings, and actually creating budgets relying on this theft
At best, you know someone is doing something wrong but get them in something else. Think like mobsters and such. But typically it's just shitty.
I love the smell of "Reasonable Doubt" in the morning
Leave it to the NYPD to find the guy who did it regardless of who actually did it
Plot twist: good guy policewoman deliberately makes it impossible to prosecute Luigi.
Luigi is innocent. He did not kill Brian Thompson. He is a hero by the simple virtue that he is an innocent young man who was dragged through hell over something he didn't do and is having his life put on the line.
As for who actually did it. I hope he lives a long, quiet life.
Hooooooleeeeeeee fuck that is a comically blatant frame job
But also: corroborating articles? I’m not finding anything from AP or similar that back this up. How fresh is this?
Spoiled Evidence....
This. The chain of evidence is tainted and cannot be accounted for. Anything in the backpack could have been placed there by anyone, at any time, before, during, or after his arrest.
My feelings on this: good. One less thing that they can use against him. If his defense doesn't get any evidence from the backpack thrown out, then idk what they're even doing.
It's like the dumbest and laziest people set out to frame this guy
Yes we already established they were police, youre just being redundant.
So the cops that qoute "just knew" they had the right guy by looking at him also planted key evidence?
So convenient that your suspect doesn't bother hiding key evidence and that you get a hunch that is right on point...
Now is a good time to remind people to never ever agree to a police search. They're gonna phrase things weird and take advantage of your good nature. Never agree to any sort of search.
Hell, even if they have a warrant I'm tempted to explicitly say I don't consent. I'm not going to resist but I'm gonna make it clear I'm not consenting. Because how the hell do I even verify a warrant is real? I have no idea, and I certainly wouldn't be able to find out if they're at my door.
Be aware though, in Georgia there is "implied consent" with regards to roadside breathalyzer tests. If you get in that situation, remember I'm just a random lemming and not a lawyer. Other states might have similar things.
Would have been unbelievable if the US police wouldn’t have a long history of framing people because they are just too buttfuck stupid to do their jobs.
It doesn't matter whether he did or did not do it just like it won't matter what evidence does or does not exist.
An example to be made was chosen, and it will be made.
The only question at this point is how will we react to that example.
If they are worried about conviction, I expect he will be suicided.
This is the harsh truth. Right now, legally, their case is falling apart. A nontrivial amount of hard evidence was in that bag and this action should get everything tossed because the chain of evidence is non-existent.
The other poster is also correct, they've decided he should be punished for this, whether he did or not is irrelevant. They're going to twist every ounce of evidence they can to say he did it. If that doesn't work, he'll be found hanging from his shoelaces...
Need to be putting up billboards across the state about "jury nullification" being a civic duty.
Not same eyebrows as the shooter
People said they were trimmed at the time, but he'd have to be a werewolf to grow them back that fast.
Normal US cop behavior
I've been saying all along everything happened too quick for him to be the actual guy. It was pretty clear to me they were desperate to make an example of someone quickly and not accurately.
Both things can be true, no? He may actually be the guy, but they acquired evidence illegally and still planted it to subvert due process (again).
He isn't, we were hanging out that week.
I just have to ask is it true he actualy preferes to play mario
Well yeah thats a fair point.
She also found a napkin with a drawn map of Deeley Plaza with lines of fire, and a Polaroid of Shergar cuffed to a radiator.
So they not only have to find 12 people who haven’t been fucked personally or had friends family fucked by their health insurance, now those 12 people have to be blind Pig supporters?
Anything other than a not guilty (or some insanely strong evidence with a perfect chain of custody) verdict for this guy and the fix is in.
If they convict Luigi get the fuck out while you still can, cause the alternative is guerilla warfare against the Gilead states of orange stupidity.
I don't think they even checked the grassy knoll for a shooter.
It almost doesn't even matter if they did plant the gun on him - as soon as it became a national manhunt because the capital class was panicking, nobody was going to believe them that they didn't somehow fuck up due process.
If this ends in acquittal or mistrial I think the media will go back into full-blown panic
I’d be more likely to panic if it ends in conviction and execution
You, but not the Millionaires and Billionaires that own the media
They're idiots, then. They would have created a martyr to the cause of their own destruction.
When I picked up bodies for the Medical Examiner's Office, we had very strict chain of custody rules we had to follow. If the decedent had any valuables on their person (purse, wallet, jewelry, etc), or any medication, we had to write detailed descriptions of every item found (a gold ring is not a gold ring, it's a gold colored ring), then package it all up with the ranking police officer on the scene as a witness who then signs the sealed bag. Even the slightest deviation from this would get us immediately fired, and even prosecuted if surviving family members made any accusations about theft.
In a capital murder case where an alleged murderer/terrorist can potentially walk free because the chain of custody rules weren't followed, how the fuck does this cop still have a job? How is she not being charged with tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for letting Luigi go free, but this is a fuck-up of monumental proportions.
It seems more and more everyday that vigilante justice is the only justice against this corrupt corporate tyranny. I think we all wish this wasn’t the case but as my dad used to say you can wish in one hand and 💩 in the other and see what hand fills up first
Wow. That is just unbelievably sketch.
You know it's a sham the question is, what are you gonna do? you're the people with access to guns... me here in Europe I gotta fight with literal sticks and stones
Sounds like fake ass bullshit to me.
Free Luigi yall ain't got shit no video footage nothing.
"He has read 300 books!!!!!" Is all i see from clowns supporting this regime.
Eat the rich
Anyone got a link to the motion? Surely it's a public record, right? This is interesting if true, but I'd like to check the sources.
Sorry if I missed it in the rest of the comments; I scanned them and didn't see it.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/luigi-mangione-dismissal-motion.pdf
Thank you!
Pages numbered 23 to 26 are the meat of the argument referenced in the image, for anyone else that wants to click through.
"[[l]t can hardly be said that the officer in this case followed the policy [for an inventory search] by conducting a search that included only the glove compartment, and upon finding a gun, leaving it in place."
He's innocent
Free Luigi!
It's never made sense to me, TBH. I've just assumed he's being railroaded. In his case the cops just planted a gun instead of drugs like they do to every other person they want to lock up without cause.
source? would love to use this in further talks and wont if its just a twitter post
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/luigi-mangione-dismissal-motion.pdf
A second thought - if I was the elite, I'd start panicking right now regardless of the outcome of the trial.
The "assassin" is still out there. He was able to pull this off In front of security cameras, and the only evidence he left behind were three bullets found near the body of the CEO who clearly died of pre-existing conditions.
Luigi will become a senator, mark my words
It seems like people are adopting the Catholic doublethink strategy for Jesus about Luigi. Jesus is somehow simultaneously God and not-God, Luigi seems to be the guy who justifiably killed that CEO and was definitely framed for murder.
The guy's got to deal with the legal system and apparently they won't accept self-defense as a valid justification for icing the prick who tried to deny healthcare. So, don't have an issue with it, but it is weird to see.
Alright so I don't think Luigi actually did it. But it's easy to say "Luigi" in conversation and everyone knows who you're talking about, regardless of how they feel about his innocence.
Yeah the evidence is whack but right now the "He did something justified" is just a symbol, if it turns out someone else did it they would take over that symbolism.
I wonder how many guns are named Luigi by their owners now.
I think many people celebrate the person that actually killed that CEO (no matter if it was Luigi personally or not). That doesn't really have to conflict with thinking that Luigi didn't do it. In the first instance he just represents the person that did it because we don't know who really did it.
If you'd celebrate the real killer, then arguing that Luigi didn't do it seems secondary to the fact that it wasn't a crime anyone should be punished for. It's a weird kind of mental backflip to stay within the lines of the current system while supporting actions that are outside the system.
Personally, I've had to pay UHC tens of thousands of dollars in premiums and additional tens of thousands every time I've gotten hurt/sick because UHC covers basically nothing. They billed me $800 the last time I got a tetanus shot. It would have been $150 if I had claimed to be uninsured so it is literally cheaper for me not to tell providers I have insurance.
If shooting a mugger for stealing your wallet is justified homicide, then so was shooting this asshole. I have no issue saying, "I think Luigi did it and he should be free."
A perfectly valid opinion, and so are:
That's not really secondary. I you believe that he didn't do it for whatever reason (I'm not really into the technical details of the case and the evidence or lack thereof) why would you argue that he did it but still go free. Wouldn't it be more honest and reflect your believes better to say "Luigi didn't do it and of course should be released and the person who did should also go free because it was justified"
I know this is the narcissist prayer and he's certainly not a narcissist (based on what I've seen anyway) but can't help but see each one of these lines unironically applies to the situation.
Fact is profit driven healthcare has killed more people than Luigi ever did, allegedly or not.
The point is a sort of doublethink.
Where in private you celebrate Luigi for what we think he did. But in Public we pretend he didn’t do it to help create a narrative to protect him from the police state.
You're also assuming people are considering Luigi and the shooter the same person. I don't think Luigi shot Thompson, but I also don't think the shooter's actions are all that bad considering the state of our for profit
suffering machine"healthcare" industry.So there may not be a much doublethink as you think. Because its been fairly clear from the start that the evidence against Luigi is flimsy, and the tactics in use and 'evidence' provided by the police are suspect at the absolute best.
I think there is a little more nuance to it than that. I don't think anybody legitimately believes he did it and simultaneously didn't do it.
There's basically a slider of dialogue ranging from "he ought to have a fair trial" to "he didn't do it" to "if he did it, I'm glad he did" to "we need more Luigis"
People are generally pushing that slider as far as they socially acceptably can for the given circumstance they're in. You're not gonna say the latter things in public or with your name attached out of fear of reproductions.
So what you get is a mixed bag of feelings, which are almost all pro-Luigi even if they're different forms of it.
Isn’t that exactly what I said?
I said people “pretend” he didn’t do it. Not they “believe” it.
It being sorta double think means it's sorta simultaneously two different beliefs. But at its root that's never the case, even a little bit.
Some people think he did it and are pretending he didn't, and others don't think he did it and are pretending he did.
Right now, he's just a name and the people associate with a cause, and the police associate with a crime.
Both can be true. He could have done it, and the cops could have planted evidence.
I both publicly and privately think it's very plausible, maybe even likely, that he didn't do it, or at the very least a lot of the evidence was planted.
I can still use his imagery and name because it's a good rallying cry whether he did it or not: if he did do it, it was an act of defiance against an industry that's harmed millions, and if he didn't then he's a symbol showing the system desperate to stamp out resistance to the rule of oligarchs. Actually... He's that second one either way, too.
But anyway, he couldn't have done it because he was at my place grilling that day.
It's like what Mendicus Moldbug said.
It's easy to make someone believe the truth. But to make them believe a falsehood is useful. Because then those people can wear their belief as a uniform.
We just have to believe that he didn't kill that CEO while simultaneously and surreptitiously knowing he did. That is our uniform. That makes us an army.
You are very close. Someone can be guilty and also be framed by a corrupt 'justice' system. They can also do something that can be seen more than one way depending on context, like how killing someone could be 1st degree murder, manslaughter, or self defense depending on circumstances.
In this case it is a mix of being seen as self defense and the police not following proper procedure in ways that promote speculation of him being framed. So from my perspective he likely did it, but if he did it was self defense/protecting innocents and the police/prosecution are trying to frame him for a quick and public spectacle to appease the wealthy.
Both of those people exist. It is both true that the CEO was put to justice by a hero and that Luigi was framed for murder. He's just a guy who picked a bad day to visit the city.
Crooked cops? Who'd have thought such things were possible. Oh wait, everyone with more than two brain cells to click together.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
Drag has been saying the gun was planted for months and got banned from ![email protected] for it.
yeah I saw that lmao. I thought "drag got banned for an opinion I had 💀"
I'm open to the possibility. Innocent until proven guilty.
Right now it looks like the gun will be ruled inadmissible because the police have made it impossible to rule out the possibility it was planted. So right now they have basically no evidence to build a case. If there are no more surprises, this will be an easy acquittal.
On the off chance they let this guy go, and don't just ship him out of the country, I'm anticipating a Daredevil Born Again situation where a cop with some Punisher merch decides to off him.
Where would the planted gun have come from? It's a 3D printed gun. The police would have had to run off a similar model in the few days between the killing and Luigi's capture. If you're experienced with 3D printers and already have a couple printers, you could probably pull that off, but that's not the police. I seriously doubt they have people setup for something like that, and institutional inertial would prevent them from spinning it up in the short time required. The learning curve alone would prevent them from having the time.
Nor can they feasibly bring in outside help. "We need you to make a 3D printed gun for us". What do the police need with a 3D printed gun that happens to match the one the shooter used?
Regardless, there's a chain of evidence issue here. That could well destroy the case no matter if it was planted or not.
If it's actually the gun used in the murder, it may have been found previously. It's a disposable weapon, after all. They may have found the gun in NYC and figured they can't tie it to anyone unless it's conveniently found on the person they arrest.
Now I'm not saying that IS what happened, but it very well could have happened. The circumstances behind the handling of evidence have been very suspicious and a little bit too convenient.
Do we know if the gun was present (planted or not) when Luigi was picked up? Or could it have been planted later?
If it was there at the time, I don't see how it could have been planted. They're random cops in Altoona, PA, a town of about 43k people that isn't particularly close to Pittsburgh or any other major metropolitan area. They get a call from a McDonalds that a guy who looks like the perp is munching there. Before rushing to the scene, they grab the 3D printed gun they just happen to have laying around for this scenario?
If it could have been planted in the backpack later on, then sure.
The OP states that the officer searched the backpack on the scene, drove it to the precinct during which time there is no footage for the 11 minutes, and THEN found the gun in the front pocket of the bag while at the precinct.
A lot of dumb coincidences need to line up for everything to so convently work out in the police's favor.
It was only reported to have been found after the officer (with no body cam) got the backpack to the precinct. This was after an initial warrantless search on the site of the arrest
Tbf, squirting out a glizzy only takes like 24hr, roughly, depending on the model, sometimes less. It's entirely possible a cop already had a squirted glock themselves for the purpose of planting, or more likely took one from evidence, or most likely one that never made it in to evidence, off some guy they booked for coke but never put in the gun. Especially considering the lack of bodycam footage, that suggests they could have turned off the bodycam before as well during the arrest in which they sourced the glock.
It's all speculation of course, but I've known a now retired cop that let a few people off of gun charges because the gun was cool and so it just "went missing" and found it's way into his safe. It can and has happened.
And that 24 hour figure assumes it's on an old bed slinger and each part is made on that printer, on a modern corexy it without be even faster . Have they demonstrated that the "found" gun functioned in a timely manner? From what I understand the real bottleneck in production would be from the post processing.
If you have people who know 3D printing, yes. They've tuned their machine to avoid clogs or layer shifts.
I haven't done 3D printed firearms, but I have done foam weapons like the Caliburn, which have some similar issues. You can cram a lot on a bed and then a layer shift ruins the whole thing 16 hours in. If you're experienced and confident in your setup, though, go for it.
Police had 5 days to set this up. They're not going to be able to spin up a print like that in the time involved. Not without people who already had a print farm and experience.
Tbf, who's to say no cop has a 3d printer? Plus, the printed gun crowd is actually a huge part of 3d printing, it's just you're not allowed to talk about it on the normal forums so it has to be kinda hidden. Cops also like guns. I'd be shocked if there weren't a few printers amongst them tbh.
And again, they'd likely just catch some Crab or Slob with a squirted glizzy and take it without filing charges, he complains he gets charges, he doesn't and now we have a "planting gun." The cops don't need to print one, just take it and don't log it.
It's not enough for a few random cops to have printers. They need it done quietly on short notice, then get it to a rando town in PA.
One of the cops in PA could have had one in his house before the shooting, is what I'm saying. Maybe this isn't the first gun those specific cops have planted, even. Maybe it was, and a cop saw the shooting and said "hey I have a printed glock at home, I could grab that and find a similar enough looking guy and make a name for myself." Maybe (again) the cop didn't print it, they took it from someone who did and didn't report it, saving it to plant on someone later.
Is it likely? Probably not, but it could happen. I do literally know a cop who used to take cool guns home and not charge people with having them, I don't see why it couldn't happen again +planting.
Oh with five whole days even a beginner could pull that off. It's not like the old days where a layer shift was a real issue. After looking at the actual STL, anyone could drop it into a modern slicer and hit print with the default pla print profile using autogenerated supports.
If you'll allow drag to speculate, the easiest explanation is that it's not 3D printed. The chief of police said it "might be" 3D printed. The 3D printing is just a scare tactic they were planning to walk back in court while using the media to manipulate the public into fearing him to bias jurors. The gun actually came from a Three Letter Agency's armoury. It's untraceable because they had it scrubbed, like all their weapons. They handed it over to the local cops and said make this look good.
The gun has been identified by the 3D printing community as a Chairmanwon V1: https://coloradoceasefire.org/2025/01/14/luigi-mangiones-ghost-gun-was-only-partially-3d-printed-experts-say/
You really think of the thousands of NYPD personnel, none of them have a 3d printer?
I think none of them are in the right place to quietly produce one on short notice.
They had a whole week before they needed to plant it. That's plenty of time to pop out a quick print that they wouldn't even have to demonstrate could even be fired.
What right place? They could just bring it into the precinct in their bag. Somehow despite doing a quick search of HIS backpack on site of his arrest, the gun wasn't discovered until they got it back to the precinct. Despite supposedly being in the front pocket.
"Right place" as in have institutional connections. They need a guy who can do a complex, multi-part print in a week. If you've never done a complex, multi-part prints before, then no, you're not likely to be successful unless you have knowledge and a tuned printer profile already.
For this to be the way they planted a freshly printed gun, it had to get to Altoona, PA in the time it took to get from McDonalds to the precinct. It couldn't be some plan by the NYPD or FBI since there's not enough time to get the gun there. Unless you're saying the employee who called it in from the McDonalds was in on it. Generally, increasing the number of people in a conspiracy makes for a fragile conspiracy.
Nor do I think it's too likely they could have pulled a 3D printed gun that was already in police custody. NYPD probably does have some in their evidence lockers, but not a 43k population town like Altoona.
Who are these people who own a filament based 3d printer who aren't doing multi part prints?
Like no part of how they handled this search reads as genuine. They didn't find the gun when they searched the bag on site. No buddy can footage for from the cop transporting it. Only after they're back at the precinct do they find the gun in the outer most pocket. AND also he's carrying around an entire manifesto that's written well below his level of education? Plus a bunch of cash - are we supposed to believe he was running away or trying to get caught here?
Police departments regularly get these 3d printed things turned in during gun turn in drives, as opportunists like to print up a bunch of new ones to claim the bounties just to stick it to the man.
Have you done prints of this complexity before? It's not just a few parts at once. It tends to fill the whole bed with small parts. Bad adhesion anywhere can be a problem.
I agree the whole search was hinky. There's a decent chance the backpack will be ruled inadmissible due to chain of evidence issues. If that's the case, the prosecution's case likely falls apart.
That requires nothing more than a couple of cops from a podunk town in rural PA fucking up the whole thing. The idea of a conspiracy to plant a gun is convoluted and unnecessary.
Is it possible police found the gun nearby the shooting, but never made the evidence public?
I ask because I don't know the intricacies or timeline of the shooting/hunt/arrest/detainment.
Publicising that "someone just killed a CEO with a 3d printed gun, you found the gun and you have no further evidence" might inspire a lot of copycats.
free luigi!
An incompetent pinjob
French style revolution is the only solution
I have a feeling that the assassination of Brian Thompson could been an industry ploy...
Might have to look at what he did just before he got assassinated.
Innocent - right there. They found someone thatl met the tiny criteria they had and pinned it
Uh oh. It would be wild if it was inadmissible. Their whole job is to collect USABLE evidence.
Who needs movies when reality comes up with stuff like this?
Yeah... They'll convict him.
Luigi is innocent! Free this mans!
All Cops Are Criminals
Arrest her
Ah yes, twitter, the best source of facts...
I think his only way to not being found guilty is for the real killer to strike again with the same gun. And even then they might say the "second one" is just a copycat.
You don't need a warrant to search the belonging directly on the person of someone arrested.
There is probably a chain of custody question involved here.
You do have to marandize the suspect though, otherwise they were in custody illegally. And this everything found in his possession was found without probable cause. Luigi was not ready his rights and was placed under police custody illegally.
Miranda warnings are required before interrogation.
He matched the description of the suspect. That's probable cause for arrest.
He literally walked up and shot the man in broad daylight on the street.
I really hope he goes to jail at this point regardless if he did it or not.
I am tired of hearing about this over and over again. It was entertaining like for a week maximum