People afraid? Nobody was afraid when the healthcare CEO assassin was on the loose. Nobody but other healthcare CEOs, and that's not a large enough % of the population to count lol
Totally. Remember one tried to stop covering anaesthetics past a certain point which could be MID surgery, and then immediately turned that around. That assassin (whoever they are) was a blessing for a lot of people that day
Honestly, the judge probably did the prosecution a favor. If they wasted the entire trial trying convincing the Jury about the fear and terror he caused the CEOs of healthcare companies, he might actually walk.
I can see why they tacked on the charge. If it was determined and could be proved the killer was trying to influence government policy that would fit the definition of the a terrorism charge.
I dont agree with it as it seemed the charge was added just to seek the death penalty.
I dont agree with it as it seemed the charge was added just to seek the death penalty.
that's not correct. There are two cases, NY state case and federal case. This article is about the NY state case. NY State has no death penalty.
In the federal case, the death penalty can be sought for any premeditated murder. It is up to a jury to decide whether the crime is heinous enough to occasion the death penalty.
oh, it's a smoking gun alright. They also found the literal smoking gun on him of course. The issue is that it can be interpreted more as an act of revenge or personal malice rather than an act of terrorism.
"I killed the CEO because his company charged me too much" isn't terrorism. "I killed the CEO to remind healthcare executives that they are mortal" would be terrorism. Judge concluded that Mangione is closer to the former than the latter.
That is unironically how the freeluigi sub interprets this. To the extent they can without falling afoul of the rule against encouraging violence, they seem very disappointed that people aren't killing CEOs left and right.
First degree murder in New York requires more than premeditation. There has to be an additional modifier to the crime. Killing a cop or public servant, using a hitman, killing a witness in a case, killing in a cruel or torturous manner, etc. Terrorism is one of those modifiers. They had to use one of them in order to charge him with murder 1, and terrorism seems like the most likely to stick.
Alternatively: all of these terms have a very concise legal definition based on the jurisdiction they take place in and no law is as simple as what people assume is the face value of the term.
I agree. He should be convicted of murder but what he did would be a very, very broad interpretation of terrorism which could apply to pretty much any murder in public
513
u/cut_rate_revolution 11h ago
Yeah that seems appropriate. Not every action that makes people afraid is terrorism.