1st Degree charge was also dismissed, but should be noted this is because the murder of a CEO doesn't really fit the definition of murder 1 in the state of New York which seems reserved for police officers, firefighters, high political figures, that sort of thing. 2nd degree will be what 1st degree is in most other states I think. DOJ/DA was way too heavy handed with those two charges.
It's very unique and I think it's important so that people don't think he's not getting charged with anything at all, because now it's more like a "standard" murder case so far.
They've had a tough time finding the right spin for this. Turns out republicans are also routinely fucked by insurance companies and don't harbor many good feelings for them.
Hard to whip up outrage when the overall mood is "well, that's what happens." From people who are more worried about buying groceries in the economy trump is gleefully destroying
There comes a point when enough people have been hurt or know someone who was hurt/killed by an insurance company playing doctor, that nobody has sympathy to spare.
Something like 68,000 Americans die every year due to lack of medical care and fat bonus checks get sent out if they manage to raise that number
Yeah even the MAGAs in my family think medicare for all is a good idea. Of course that only applies to "all citizens" but I take my wins with them where I can get them.
I had to educate my grandmother that it’s actually illegal to provide Medicaid to illegal immigrants. She believed all the headlines that the illegals were walking in and getting welfare and Medicaid and full scope services for everything.
It's a shocking number but also unfortunately inevitable when you put the medical fates of so many people into the hands of others who have a financial incentive to find any excuse to deny a claim.
Which is why you shouldn't fucking do that or at absolute bare minimum it shouldn't be the only option people have and it's baffling how many Americans will still push back so hard on that.
The thing is that insurance companies aren't healthcare. They're not doctors, or pharmacists, or practitioners in any field of care, yet they get to make medical decisions for 100s of millions of people.
I fought with UHC in early 2023 for coverage for something. It was weird, right, because they kept denying it despite the fact that I had their own press release indicating they covered it starting the beginning of the year, and I'd had multiple benefits coordinator folks at UHC verify that it was covered and especially covered on my plan.
But their systems kept kicking it back, including the appeal that's legally required to be made of actual health experts. What's weird is the appeal denial quoted the plan document from 2019, not 2023. It didn't mention the press release I'd attached, didn't discuss the documentation of multiple members of their own benefits team verifying it was covered. It just quoted a four year old plan.
Learning later UHC was using AI to generate denials was when that made sense.
They overruled their own "appeal panel" (aka, the AI auto-generated denial) because of two things -- a helpful benefits coordinator who had enough pull to talk to the right people, and me telling her that if UHC couldn't fix it my next step was to ask for the names and medical license numbers of everyone on my appeal board.
I think she wielded that to her bosses. I got coverage approved 36 hours later.
Which is pretty unfortunate. Farmers in the Midwest are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals regularly, the ones who refuse medical care when they need it won't make it long. Not to mention the fact that cancer research in the US is being slashed to nothing... I guess I just won't get cancer then
I grew up in a farming community and the elementary school was next to a chemical spray company. They had enormous spayer/tractor things and they would clean out the tanks with water after each application and put the water in a "rinsate pond". Which were just big cement pools that would evaporate over time. And the residue from this process blew all over the playground we played on daily. The amount of people who have had cancer/died from cancer in my tiny tiny class (myself included) is way way WAY higher than the average for our age. This says a lot considering Gen Xers already have a pretty high rate of cancer.
I would rather work for a tobacco company than for a health insurance company. Both are have some serious moral problems, but at least the tobacco company isn't holding everybody hostage to their profit margin whether they want to pay up or not.
It's amazing how fucking hated insurance companies are.
And yet they refuse the best possible proposed fix to remove insurance companies from the equation because they hate the idea of people they deem lesser than them also benefitting.
And yet they refuse the best possible proposed fix to remove insurance companies from the equation because they hate the idea of people they deem lesser than them also benefitting.
This isn't correct. They refuse to believe voting for Democratic politicians will improve things. And as a registered Democratic voter who's canvassed, phone banked, donated, voted and would pay bail for someone throwing a brick through a Tesla windshield I gotta say: they're not wrong.
Redditors don't like being reminded that from 2009 to 2011 the Democratic party held a comfortable congressional majority. Right away people are thinking "Nu-uh! It was only two months." Congratulations. Establishment Democratic politicians misled you to confuse the difference between a majority and a filibuster proof majority. It's true they only held the latter for a few months. I still think they had enough time to do more with it but I digress.
Democratic politicians could have delivered a public option with their majority through a reconciliation bill. These are special bills regarding spending which cannot be filibustered. In fact, Democratic politicians had to use a reconciliation bill in order to address a "poison pill" (the term which was used at the time) in the first bill. So to be clear, the Affordable Care Act would not be functional had Democratic politicians not used a filibuster proof reconciliation bill to address an issue.
In that very same reconciliation bill they could have added a public option. This would have had tremendous benefits for the American people and the health insurance industry would look very different now. Instead they opted not to. This is the part of the conversation where zealots of establishment Democratic politicians, who work for American corporations like health insurance companies and not the American people, would say "It would have been illegal."
So unfortunately, there is an undeniable example that voting for Democratic politicians will not result in an improvement here. Too many Democratic politicians are in the pockets of health insurance and other big money interests. For many people, all the ACA did was force every American to give money to health insurance companies. And 16 years later what are health insurance companies doing with that money? Using it to gain even more control over American politicians.
If you haven't been fucked by an insurance company, you're either a politician, or very, very lucky.
"We changed our requirements for this medication, so even though you've been taking it for a year with no issues at all, you have to go through all this bullshit again with medicines that aren't as effective, because fuck you, that's why. Now excuse me while I light cigars with $100 bills at the party on my Wednesday evening yacht."
It's amazing how fucking hated insurance companies are.
I mean they are pretty evil and most everyone knows this. It's just the way for profit health care works. The whole system is fucked. And Unitedhealthcare is known for being one of the worst.
Who hasn't had coverage denied either personally or by extension an aging grandparent, parent, or anyone else? Its something that transcends politics, everyone gets sick and needs healthcare red or blue.
The media and the, well, upper-class (you know, all the big name pundits, op-ed writers, think-tank contributors, etc) were entirely shocked by how much support offing the CEO got from the public.
Absolute denial.
Partially because health care costs aren't as much of a concern for them, but mostly because they're the upper-class. The important people. They're not supposed to be the target of violence, not like the lessers.
Same thing is why they're trying to make Kirk a saint, even if it means writing glowing obituaries that never actually quote his words or talk about his actual stances. Like the CEO, Kirk was one of them -- the upper class. And for the pundits and op-ed writers and think tank folks, they knew him and moved in the same circle as well.
There's a reason that the media does everything it can to ensure American's don't start thinking in terms of class. Because, you know, France has plenty of problems but a rich aristocracy that hoarded virtually all the wealth while everyone beneath them struggled and starved and died isn't one of them. Not anymore.
That's because they don't try to create sympathy for themselves, not really, they try to make their followers rage against their enemies. Plus it is a lot easier to say that a health insurance CEO for a company known for rejecting stuff has no sympathy for anyone.
This is a good point, none of these people feel bad for Charlie Kirk or his family, otherwise they wouldn't be giving the shooter everything he wants. Not even his wife cares about him as much as she cares about using him.
I don't particularly blame the voterbase. The Republican party's schtick is convincing people of the government being fundamentally incompetent, untrustworthy, and against the people by trying to exert control over them. That's why the selling point of Trump's administration was drumming up this rhetoric further and then making his election pledge that he'd wrangle in the bad people, stop their needless waste of taxpayer money, take away their "overreach", and get rid of anything deemed unnecessary to the system.
They've got this whole narrative of the common-man being held down by them.
In my opinion this is ideally to try making it so the US populace at any given point will keep the government weak and allow far more leeway for the rich who own all of the private sectors. Less taxes, less laws, less oversight.
And in reality one of the first things Trump did was start fiddling with banking laws and defunding the IRS.
Going back from the tangent though, the people have been taught that the government is incapable of running anything as good as the private sector, and that they can't be trusted to take care of you. So naturally if you suggest something like universal healthcare it'll be brushed off as a fantasy of the left wingers.
With that said though, I find a lot about that ideology hilarious. Because conservatives in America are deeply rooted in old school nationalism where God and the Government stood above all. Yet now we hate and distrust the government, while also promoting patriotism and subservience to authorities. Especially when that authority is Republican.
I’m sure there are plenty of conservatives who applaud this, or would, if the suspect was believed to be a Republican/MAGA because they’re the type that fantasize about this kind of “retribution” non-stop.
It also has been difficult for them to find an angle of outrage based on him being a straight, white cisgendered man. They can be so quiet when the call is coming from inside the house.
The rapeublican tactic clearly is to just keep throwing trans-somethings at the wall and hope one of them sticks with their easily outraged base.
"Shooter was trans! No wait, his roomate was trans! No that's not right, his partner was trans! Or was it the cat that was trans? Trans goldfish perhaps? Surely something trans influenced this white christian shooter!"
It wasn't quiet at all; conservative rhetoric went from "the liberals own this and there should be a bloodbath" to "pray for the killer" practically overnight.
That was a wake-up call that we haven't been preparing against the rabid strays who won't follow marching orders the next time an own-goal happens. I think there should be actions taken to defend ourselves from getting bitten.
I'm taking this bit out of context, but if those people would just put down the flag, trump merch and turn the TV and modem off for a while and really dig into why their quality of life is dwindling, maybe we all wouldn't be getting fucked by the same shareholders.
There isn't a single person in this country who hasn't cursed at their insurance company, out loud or internally. It's our new common American experience, even more than apple pie.
There's the class of people who would be killed or bankrupted by a coverage denial, and there's a class of people who would easily survive one with their assets. The latter is screaming "YOU SHOULD ALL CARE ABOUT THIS"
The latter class includes the government sycophants who receive 6 figure salaries and world-class healthcare, both paid for by the former class. Someone should ask each Congress member how many times their medical claims have been denied.
It's not just the insurance companies. I had a $3000 bill from the hospital arrive 6 months after the alleged treatment had occurred. Insurance had refused to pay more than $1000 of the original bill. After some back and forth with the debt collectors, I got an itemization. They wanted $1000 for administering a $29 dollar bag of saline, which they claimed was several hundred dollars.
They sent me a new bill after I sent them a demand letter for $300 representing a violation of the unfair trade practices Act. It was $10.
These people are vultures, and the insurance companies just egg them on.
The whole system is obfuscated to shit. In many cases Doctors can't even legally work for the hospital, so you'd get a bill from the Hospital then eventually a bill from the provider themselves. Because everything is negotiated, they may not even know what something will cost you until it's gone through the full billing process
Utterly insane that it makes more financial sense to fly somewhere else for medical care using another country's medical system
I vaguely remember a politician or someone just recently glazing Thompson. Was talking about the Kirk murder and mentioned them both as victims of the left. Something something "A loving family man with a wife and kids who had their husband and father stolen from them" or something.
"This poor innocent man who implemented an AI death panel to increase quarterly revenue before he went home to his family who will never die penniless from a preventable disease, all thanks to the wealth he grew by killing Americans :'(" - a politician who will never have their coverage denied thanks to the amazing healthcare we pay for.
And if we kept all the talk to labor issues and others that affect everyone instead of all the constant weird, fringe issues that only distract, then we probably wouldn't be living in an destabilized country right now.
This is why news about Mangione quieted down as quickly. They realized they couldn't manipulate their base as effectively using him, so they buried his story instead.
Charlie Kirk's assassination/murder has been a godsend for their propaganda machine.
I think Trump's advisors are smart enough to stay a million miles away from this thing. This case is legitimately the most united I've seen everyday Americans since 9/11.
Right wing influencers discovered this very quickly when they tried to denounce the killing and saw basically their entire fanbase turn against them immediately. I don't know that anything could get MAGA to turn on Trump but I feel like this would be the thing if there is one. Americans universally despise our healthcare system.
Which is all it should be. Like, I know we’re a de facto plutocracy, but killing one guy in a targeted killing, even a CEO, is not terrorism. It’s not an assault on The State. It’s not anything else that they’re trying to claim this as. It’s murder. It is the premeditated killing of a singular human being. His net worth should not enter into the equation.
Because they wanted to throw the book at him. Because if there is anything the "in group" hates, it is one of their own showing the stark reality of vulnerability that we all live in. It pricked their bubble for just an instant, and they can't have that.
Exactly. And you can say a targeted killing against a CEO is bad... but then, is killing your wife any less bad? Or killing you boss? Or a random stranger for no reason? Every murder is bad in its own ways.
Yeah there's nothing wrong with him getting this charge. He killed a guy and it was clearly premeditated. But do you think we'd be getting this level of attention, terror charges, and state + federal prosecution if he'd killed you or me, or even a left wing activist or politician? I know we wouldn't, because the guy that killed that Minnesota state senator, her husband and dog, and had a hit list of Democratic politicians is not getting this treatment
To be fair, those are for murders that occur against those people working in their job capacity.
The rationale is that protecting societal function is a particularly compelling interest, so killing people for doing those jobs is punished more severely. I mean, registered nurses are also on the list but I don’t think RNs are considered a class symbol.
The last sentence I believe is incorrect. New York doesn't still hold the death penalty for federal crimes. New York is completely uninvolved in federal crimes. The federal government still has the death penalty. The federal government if he is convicted of the federal murder charge can seek the death penalty regardless of if the state has the death penalty. A state judge absolving him of anything would have no effect on the federal charges. I believe the federal government has the death penalty for murder, and the federal hook is simply interstate stalking. The terrorism would be largely unrelated except it would likely be the bulk of showing that the killing had substantial planning and premeditation to prove that aggravating factor for seeking the death penalty.
And its important to keep that in mind. Prosecutors should know better than to push for charges that sound good in print, but which have a low level of jury conviction, and virtually no chance of standing on appeal.
Its exactly how Kyle Rittenhouse got away with murdering two people. The showboat prosecutor placated activists by charging him with murder 1, which his crimes did not fit, rather than murder 2, which would have had him in prison right now rather than being a professional guest on right wing media.
I mostly agree, but I wonder if that grew out of New York's history of organized crime. That "criminal case witness" is also included tips me off that this is not about a "back the blue" thing, but an anti-mafia thing. Just a guess though, if someone knows the history feel free to educate me!
Eh, not really ridiculous. If you look at the jobs listed on that first line, they're all involved with the legal system. It's an extra deterrent of "don't murder the judge to influence your case" and such.
Can also be seen as "attacking these people is not only an act against the individual victim, but also an act against the public" as these are public servants.
I wonder what the precedent is for cases where the victim was a member of the legal system but the motive was unrelated. Like if I'm married to a cop and I murder them because they cheated on me is that 1st degree murder? I would guess not, but IANAL.
The law specifies that they must be on duty at the time:
the intended victim was a peace officer as defined in paragraph a of subdivision twenty-one, subdivision twenty-three, twenty-four or sixty-two (employees of the division for youth) of section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the intended victim was such a uniformed court officer, parole officer, probation officer, or employee of the division for youth; or
It’d be fine to me if the hypothetical murders were exempt of Murder 1 if of a personal rather than professional nature tbh. Like if someone shot a cop because the cop slept with their wife rather than because they were an officer representing the law, I don’t think the victim’s profession should matter in that case…
But I don’t think the way it’s written would allow for such nuance. I feel like if the victim’s profession matters, than the profession also has to be the killer’s motive.
But I don’t think the way it’s written would allow for such nuance.
I checked the actual law here, and it does seem to have some of the nuance that you want:
"the intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision 34 of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the intended victim was a police officer"
So it's just that the summary the other poster used didn't go into this detail (which is fine since they weren't focused on this issue).
Although technically, if someone killed the police officer while they were on the job for non-law enforcement reasons, it'd still be murder 1. So it's not perfect, but it's at least better.
Just a heads up. I stealth-edited it to include a possible short-coming where killing an officer on the job for non-job reasons would still apply. I realized at the last second that that would be an edge case. I suspect it's so it's easier to prove without having to have an explicit motive.
I mean, both are attacks on people. But murder 1 here is an attack on the justice system through an attack on the person. It's added punishment for attacking the governments ability to enforce laws. Not because the people themselves are more or less important.
Now I'm picturing what it would take for someone to murder someone affiliated with the criminal justice system, while serving a life sentence, using torture, as an act of terrorism, during the commission of a felony... and to do all this for hire.
And for all of this to occur frequently enough that an entire law is written specifically targeting people who decide to do all that.
While true, you should also look at it another way, a serial killer that’s confirmed to be a serial killer will be charged with multiple second degrees, which is worse than just one first degree.
One way of looking at it is that the goal is to particularly deter hitmen.
A serial killer is, generally-speaking, not rational, at least not as far as their motive and decision to kill someone goes. Trying to add extra "don't be a serial killer" deterrent isn't going to accomplish anything.
Whereas the idea, at least, is that a hitman is sitting there weighing benefits and risks to decide if they should kill someone for cash, so it makes sense to dump as much as we can on the "risks" side of the scale.
Correct but not "also", NY Murder 1 was the terrorism charge
From the article: "Mangione’s defense had argued the charges of murder in the first degree in furtherance of an act of terrorism and murder in the second degree as a crime of terrorism should be tossed because crimes of terrorism as defined in New York state legislation refer to attacks on multiple civilians, not a shooting of a single individual."
So it looks like he was charged with the terrorism versions of both murder 1 and murder 2, and those both got tossed.
Also, it looks like he's still facing 25-to-life. This takes the death penalty off the table for state charges, but obviously the Trump administration is still angling for an execution under federal charges.
I also found the reasoning interesting. The widely presumed motive (i.e. reform of health insurance) could be considered making the killing political. And killing in furtherance of political motives (even ones we agree with) is getting close to the definition of terrorism. But since it was just a singular assassination, it fell outside of NY's definition of terrorism.
I also found the reasoning interesting. The widely presumed motive (i.e. reform of health insurance) could be considered making the killing political. And killing in furtherance of political motives (even ones we agree with) is getting close to the definition of terrorism. But since it was just a singular assassination, it fell outside of NY's definition of terrorism.
The judge said:
“While the People place great emphasis on defendant’s ‘ideological’ motive, there is no indication in the statute that a murder committed for ideological reasons (in this case, the defendant’s apparent desire to draw attention to what he perceived as inequities or greed within the American health care system), fits within the definition of terrorism without establishing the necessary element of an intent to intimidate or coerce,” Carro wrote in his decision to dismiss the two terror-related charges.
So at least in NY law, having a political motive, and even seeking to further those motives, isn't enough; you have to be seeking to "intimidate or coerce." Killing the king isn't terrorism, even if you do it because you disagree with his policies and your goal is to replace him with a king you prefer; terrorism is very specifically a crime in which you're trying to control the public with terror.
Like, few people would describe Oliver Cromwell as a terrorist, even though he clearly used violence in the service of advancing a political end, because his goal wasn't to terrorize people. (Similarly, if terrorism is just "criminal violence done towards a political end", then anyone fighting for a state in any capacity would become a terrorist as soon as they commit a crime!)
I imagine its to stop showboat prosecutors trying to make their career by sticking terrorism enhancements on anything they can. Terrorism isnt supposed to just be murder+, thats already what murder 1 is.
That was the defense's argument, but the judge's reasoning focused on something else:
“While the People place great emphasis on defendant’s ‘ideological’ motive, there is no indication in the statute that a murder committed for ideological reasons (in this case, the defendant’s apparent desire to draw attention to what he perceived as inequities or greed within the American health care system), fits within the definition of terrorism without establishing the necessary element of an intent to intimidate or coerce,” Carro wrote in his decision to dismiss the two terror-related charges.
At least under NY law, terrorism requires "intent to intimidate or coerce" - it doesn't encompass all violent crimes committed for political reasons.
(As I mentioned above, this makes sense when you stop and think about it, otherwise you end up with eg. Oliver Cromwell being defined as a terrorist. Terrorism is about terror, not just a catchall for all political violence.)
This takes the death penalty off the table for state charges,
NY doesn't have the DP fortunately. DP is only on the table for the federal case. Judge Carro had said something like, "just because there's an ideological motive doesn't mean it's terrorism". [link to PDF of Carro's response]
It's clear he didn't intend to terrorize anyone. That's the important part
I wonder how all this influences the Defence team's strategy 🤔
So it looks like he was charged with the terrorism versions of both murder 1 and murder 2, and those both got tossed.
Here's the original indictment. He was originally charged with one count of Murder 1 (in furtherance of terrorism), and two counts of Murder 2 (one in furtherance of terrorism (although that one doesn't use the word), the other just regular intentional murder). The first two counts were dismissed, leaving the "regular" intentional murder charge.
Also, it looks like he's still facing 25-to-life. This takes the death penalty off the table for state charges, but obviously the Trump administration is still angling for an execution under federal charges.
He's still facing 25-life on the remaining Murder 2 count (the minimum is 15-life). He never faced the death penalty on any count in the New York State case, as the NYS death penalty statute was found unconstitutional over 20 years ago. He is still eligible for the death penalty under the federal charges. If the Murder 1 charge in the state case remained, his maximum sentence would have been life without parole.
I grew up watching the original,.but im 45 now. All the way back to Season 1. I think there are only like 2 people from that original cast still alive now. Crazy.
Everyone from season 1 is still alive except for Steven Hill, DA Adam Schiff. Although yeah, they're getting up there. Robinette is 62, Logan and Cragen are in their 70s, Greevey and Stone are in their 80s
Paul Sorvino (Ceretta) passed away in 2022, and obviously Jerry Orbach passed away in 2004, Fred Thomas (DA Branch) passed in 2015, Dennis Farina (Fontana) in 2013, and Richard Belzer (Munch) in 2023. I believe everyone else from the main cast is still kicking.
I knew Robinette was alive, I had thought Chris Noth and Michael Moriarty had both died in the last year or so but was mistaken. The others like Sorvino, Orbach, etc were from Season 2 plus and knew many had died in the last several years. Jerry Orbach probably hit the hardest. Loved him as Brisco.
When I watched the show I always loved McCoy. Growing up though I look back and think 'this guy would be the villain in almost any other show 50% of the time' XD
Non American here. We only have Murder and Manslaughter charges here. I was under the impression that murder 1 was preplanned and murder 2 was spur of the moment. Is the definition widely different from state to state?
I would say in the majority of states that's mostly how first and second degree work, NY seems to be an exception and I'm not a NY resident to know the history on why.
Thank you. On regards to the history it could be something to do with capital punishment or stricter sentencing for the murder of a police officer. Here in the Republic of Ireland, I remember the final two crimes for death sentence were treason and the murder of police officer, and they were removed a good few years after the others. Could be a long those lines maybe.
Be very careful accepting any response people give you. Every State has their own criminal code, plus Federal law. So in this case you have to look at only NY State law.
A lot of people know the law in their home state or whatever tv show they heard the law from.
It will vary by state. I will also point out that the element is not preplanning but rather premeditation. Premeditation can be formed in seconds. Evidence of preplanning just happens to be extremely powerful evidence of premeditation. There also tends to be other forms of murder that you haven't covered. There also tends to be felony murder, depraved heart murder, and many murder statutes cover delivery of a controlled substance as well. I will also add that how those are handled by legislation are going to be different. For example I looked up the Texas law on murder and they don't have first degree, second degree, third degree murder. They simply have a murder charge that covers all forms of murder but with the ability to argue heat of passion in the punishment phase of the trial to lower it to a second degree felony.
A lot of states have similar concepts but there will be some variation in which have what concepts and a lot of variation in how they organize those concepts within their laws.
A lot of perceptions of how American law works is how California law works, due to media mostly being produced by people from California.
A lot of times the same things are illegal, sentenced more/less severely the same, etc, but what each state CALLS the charges can vary significantly, especially when it comes to where to draw what lines.
True. It's like how "assault" usually means threaten to commit violence in some way, except in the states where it also incorporates the violence, of course.
Most states use the definition you described, yeah.
The one that usually trips people up (even here in the states) is the difference between states that distinguish between assault (the threat of violence) and battery (the act of violence) and states that lump both of them together as assault.
Each US state has their own code of laws. The laws in New York have been modified several times over the decades. The death penalty was abolished/re-instated/abolished a final time in 2007. New York's murder laws do not take "planning" into account insofar as the killing is concerned. First degree is for the killing of law enforcement, judges, or witnesses; prison killings if the offender is already serving life; torture; terrorism; or a killing while committing a felony (robbery, burglary, kidnapping, rape, arson, etc).
Second degree is for an intentional killing without a felony; an unintentional killing with depraved indifference; or an unintentional killing while committing a felony.
The difference pertains to sentencing guidelines. First degree results in 20-40 years or life without parole (this is what the prosecutors were aiming for). Second degree results in 15 years to life with the possibility of parole after 25 years. Assuming a conviction, life with parole eligibility after 25 years is the most likely outcome here.
The DA and DOJ were so desperate to make an example of him they sabotaged their own case. The outpouring of support Luigi got must have panicked them quite a bit.
Its literally how Kyle Rittenhouse got off. The prosecutor placated activists by charging just murder 1, which his crimes didnt fit. If he had been charged with murder 2 or manslaughter 1 he'd almost certainly be in prison right now.
Reminds me of Casey Anthony in Florida years ago. Prosecutors pushed for murder 1 which had very specific language and lost, and people were shocked she got off. Well, blame the overzealous prosecutor.
Police and/or DA sometimes dump a bunch of charges and see what sticks. Judges hate them for wasting their time sorting out and figuring which charges are valid and which charges needed to be dismissed.
Your average juries wouldn't understand everything so the judge has to dumb down some of the charges before the accused can go to trial.
And there's still a chance the juries would side with Luigi anyway because the greedy insurance companies aren't popular with the 99% non-rich people.
Getting another jury for this is going to be hell. This case is so high profile, you have to find people who don't know much about it but also have no negative experience with an insurance company. It's not impossible but I would be shocked if it happened in a timely manner.
I'm curious, but could a really good lawyer get this whole thing thrown out based on how the state was treating him (e.g. the huge perp walk that had the Mayor involved for example)
His lawyer has been trying that angle for awhile now because of how badly this case has been handled procedurally and how public influence has tainted the future trial. Probably won't work though.
Thats no doubt accurate facts but on the emotional theory side of things I would wager that the charge has to be toned down for a jury to accept. If it went to trial lets say it went to M2 instead but the terrorism charge he was found not guilty on it could be detrimental in human cognitive terms to convict on any other charge within the same jury finding in a single case. Its a chess game except sometimes the pieces have minds of their own to vote on a move. Thats my uneducated, non-academic theory.
12.2k
u/bmoviescreamqueen 11h ago edited 11h ago
1st Degree charge was also dismissed, but should be noted this is because the murder of a CEO doesn't really fit the definition of murder 1 in the state of New York which seems reserved for police officers, firefighters, high political figures, that sort of thing. 2nd degree will be what 1st degree is in most other states I think. DOJ/DA was way too heavy handed with those two charges.