cross-posted from: https://gregtech.eu/post/7570120
Title. It seems like the police just chose a random person to have someone to prosecute.
You must log in or register to comment.
I haven’t seen enough of the evidence to know. I feel like everyone in power has decided he’s guilty, but there hasn’t been a trial. I don’t think it’s wrong for people to have their opinions on a personal level about his guilt, but I am not willing to at this point. Honestly I was leaning towards guilty until I saw how the cops were parading him around. I don’t trust that behavior.
I believe he deserves a presumption of innocence as is his constitutional and human right.
He may have pulled the trigger but Brian Thompson loaded the gun
I don’t have an opinion on if he was the shooter. I do have the opinion that the shooter is an American hero though.
No I don’t believe he is the shooter, even if he is the shooter he should be found not guilty. Those CEOs caused millions of deaths with their denial claims, that man got what he had coming "unfortunately. "
No, but it doesn’t really matter. The government has selected its scapegoat. I just hope that the jurors understand what jury nullification is before they go in. Gawd knows the courts don’t want anyone funding out.
Probably, judging from his responses, but the courts can figure it out.
Anything is possible
Wellllll, if I was on the jury, I would be able to be convinced by evidence that he did it. Still wouldn’t go along with conviction, but that’s a different thing.
That being said, assuming all information publicly available is true, then he probably did it, or did it alongside someone with the plan of him taking the blame.
But that is the assumption that would have to be made, and I don’t assume that. I assume that the prosecution has to make a jury believe it. I’m damn near absolutist about not making a final judgement on my end until the person has had their day in court. Since it’s a fact that police can, will, and have manipulated evidence, have gained false convictions because of it, and sometimes prosecutors will go along with that, there has to be something a lot more definitive than what’s been shown in this case for me to state that he did it.
Since this was a high profile murder, the stakes are high enough that it is entirely possible for there to have been collusion between law enforcement agencies to rush a suspect into custody and fake a case around them. That’s as the extreme end of possibility to the extent that I seriously doubt it, but it’s possible.
So, the real answer is that I don’t believe much of anything about the case. If I believe something about it, that’s a matter of faith, not fact, and I simply don’t have enough facts that are proven to my satisfaction. I can still admit that he’s probably the guy, but that’s beside the point.
Thing is, in full transparency, the only thing the killer (be it Mr Mangione or someone else) did wrong was taking out just one target, or the wrong target, depending on how you look at it. A CEO is just a sock puppet for a board of directors and majority shareholders most of the time. Killing a CEO is like killing the sergeant of a unit; it’ll disrupt things, but it isn’t crippling. There’s still generals giving the same orders, and then have a new flunky in place in no time. A CEO is just the easier target because there’s only one of them.
You want to disrupt a major company like United, you have to go after more than one piece of the apparatus.
No
I don’t have any reason not to?
That’s not how it works though
He’s just a dude, not a government judicial system
How does “it” work, exactly? Should I work under the assumption that everyone who is accused of a crime is innocent?
Why lie about it? You really think with the infinite resources available to the gov that they couldn’t figure out who shot a CEO on a busy NYC street in broad daylight?
You really think with the infinite resources available to the gov that they couldn’t figure out who shot a CEO on a busy NYC street in broad daylight?
You really think that the infinite (human) resources in the gov care about putting the effort to find the actual shooter, when they can just manipulate all media and make the scapegoat feel real?
Again, I ask:
Why lie about it?
When you have a hammer in hand, everything looks like a nail.
When selling a lie is the skill an org has put the most XP in, that’s what they seek to do first.
Also, I see some group of competitors finding out that the guy had some plan to get on top and decided to off him first.
When you have a hammer in hand, everything looks like a nail.
I don’t think you understand this analogy. There is a nail. You’re suggesting they’re driving the nail into the wrong board on purpose for no reason.
Let’s go by: Because they didn’t learn to use a screw driver properly, they went with the hammer.
Also, alternatively, if the “competitor’s job” assumption is correct, then of course they want to keep the actual actors out of the investigation and away from media.
Should I work under the assumption that everyone who is accused of a crime is innocent?
Innocent until proven guilty is what the law is SUPPOSED to do. I personally think he did it, but shouldn’t be punished.
No one asked about the law. They asked what I believe.
Can’t be. I was with him at the time of the murder.
Me too! What a great time we all had not doing murder.
I believe he was the shooter, and that he should be found not guilty.
Unlikely, but there’s always jury nullification. Which I just realized would be recorded as a “not guilty” verdict, though the implication is “he did it, but we think it’s OK”
iirc jury nullification doesn’t always stick because they can declare a mistrial if it seems fishy.
Call me jaded but I am not predisposed to take the NYPD at their word.
People seem to forget about the innocent until proven guilty part, the raw amount of perjury with the theater surrounding this person is mind-numbing. If he makes it out of this he will be come a billionaire out of defamation alone, almost all mainstream news sources treated his guilt as a foregone conclusion with barely an “allegedly” in sight.
Not guilty regardless.
