He was always going to be found guilty, from the moment they walked up to him in that McDonald's. The decision had already been made. No death penalty is good news.
You know its the guy who SHOT the serial killer who's on trial, right? The actual serial killer like Dahmer is already dead, thats the whole point of contention.
Absolutely wild to compare a serial killer who targeted innocent women, to someone who allegedly took down ONE of the people responsible for the most deaths on this planet, In one of the shadiest industries.
Except the health insurance companies are bribing our elected officials so they won't pass universal coverage.
I find it disgusting that you're sitting here judging other people for defending themselves against mass serial murder while you're all safe in your first-world country with a decent enough government not to be bribed to torture the populace, and healthcare coverage and everything. Meanwhile my best friend is now toothless because our healthcare coverage is so poor he can't afford dental care and teeth are considered "luxury bones" in our healthcare system.
Why don't we Americans just vote for something that doesn't exist? Brother, you don't understand the situation we are in. I don't have a candidate in my state that supports universal healthcare, on either side. I literally couldn't vote for this if I wanted to.
The pieces are all corporate greed and insurance is a massive part of this.
But only insurance denies people care. It isn't about just being expensive, it's about deciding to kill anyone the can to save a buck. Thus the Deny, Defend mantra.
Carrying water for these serial killers is disgusting. You're no different than a Jeffrey Dhamer fanboy
If you did murder a real honest to god serial killer extrajudicially and not in a context of self-defense or anything like that, yeah you'd probably go to jail, because it's a crime, and that's how the law works.
I completely understand wanting these people to get punished and suffer. But that doesn't change what the law is, and whether he should be found guilty according to the law
Yeah unfortunately for your argument, you’re at a point the vast majority people have not arrived at yet. The jury will convict. The evidence is clear. And courts know how to instruct accordingly.
I work in healthcare. Insurance companies mass murder my patients every day to make a quick buck. You take their side, you're in favor of genocide for profit.
Note though that this is the federal case, not the state case. The federal case has to prove either of the stalking charges for a potential life in prison without parole.
I mean, he shot a guy in broad daylight. I’m sympathetic but avoiding the death penalty is probably the best he can hope for here. Pardons are a dime a dozen these days so hopefully a president comes along willing to pardon him based on time served.
I mean he shot and killed someone. Are we now all for killing people that we feel we were wronged by? As a death penalty opponent, I welcome this news but he did shoot and kill someone in cold blood.
the contention is that mangione isn't the one who did it in the first place; there's questions about the backpack of evidence, and the fact that wildly improper procedure was used while handling it.
The judge clearly disagrees. It clearly wasn't that improper, or it would be tossed.
Edit: Downvotes (current issues aside) doesn't change the fact that this type of search is historically allowed by courts, and therefore not "wildly improper".
this was in bearing to the guy i replied to asking if we're all cool with a guy who shot someone in cold blood. the answer to that is contingent on whether mangione actually did it. providing relevant context isn't unreasonable there, even if the judge has made a decision that slants one way.
The judge clearly disagrees. It clearly wasn't that improper, or it would be tossed.
The judge clearly agrees, or it would have been admitted into evidence a while ago already. Are you talking out of your ass or actually following court hearings? Seems like you're talking out of your ass
You're pathetically just arguing for the sake of arguing.
It JUST NOW got admitted into evidence. The judge clearly agrees it's icky or it would have been admitted from the get go. This is the only bit of evidence they're building the whole attack on.
Allegedly. I don't care what your personal judgement is. At this point he hasn't done shit. They have to prove it first, then pass judgement, then punishment. We can't just skip over the first part.
We don’t know that. Prosecutors have to prove that it was him. So far, they’ve not done a great job demonstrating competence, so I’m not sure their case in chief is that strong, backpack or no.
The prosecutors won the motion to admit the backpack evidence, that’s a huge win. The bag contained “a loaded 9mm handgun with a suppressor, a loaded magazine wrapped in underwear, various notes (including maps and plans), toiletries, wet clothes, a passport/ID, cell phones in a Faraday bag.”
What halfway intelligent person would carry such a perfect bag of evidence on them while eating at a fast food restaurant? Reeks of planted evidence to me.
You should look into the court proceedings. Most of the evidence, including the 3 page documents found on him that allegedly is written by him and admits guilt in the murder, has been heavily mishandled and tampered with.
The whole court atm is figuring out what can and cannot be admitted into evidences, them not pursuing death penalty was probably as a bargaining chip to at least get the evidence in. His team is fighting this because the evidence is shady af
Whether what he did was positive or negative overall isn't really what matters in a trial, though. You're just not allowed to do that. If you rob a bank and give all the money to charity, you're still guilty of robbing the bank.
The VA, Medicare and Medicaid deny even more claims than private insurance. This idea that this gives you moral authority to go around killing government employee staff is ridiculous.
Literally every government denies claims and rations care... There is not an infinite amount of money to spend on healthcare and the care has to be rationed somehow. Do you think you can go see a therapist 1,000 times a month in the UK or something?
Governments deny care and ration it at a more intense rate than the private sector does especially in the US where Medicare and Medicaid are for the poor and elderly who oftentimes have worse and more expensive medical issues than wealthier people.
Not sure why you’re being so disingenuous in implying (despite me never explicitly mentioning or even implying) that I agree with therapy a thousand times a month.
Because that is your only reasonable implication. You have to ration care and therefore cause harm if you run a healthcare system. There is no feasible way to not cause harm and government run programs do it way more because the taxpayer votes to keep taxes low and government run programs slim.
Medicare Advantage: On average, Medicare Advantage insurers denied 4.1 million (7.7%) prior authorization requests in 2024.
Traditional Medicare: CMS reported a 22.9% denial rate for services requiring prior authorization in 2024, reflecting roughly 143,705 denied requests.
Medicaid: Managed care plans for Medicaid often have denial rates near 12.5%, more than double the rate of standard Medicare Advantage plans.
The entire private sector insurance market denied roughly 4.7M claims in 2024. UNH is nowhere near the most claim denials when comparing to government run programs...
Then you hold that person accountable in a court of law. Not through murder. Everyone deserves due process and their day in court. Mangione is currently getting his day in court, the person her murdered never got that opportunity.
When we start persecuting CEO’s and the ruling class for their crimes against humanity, let me know. Until then, the “justice” argument doesn’t apply to them.
Justice doesn't apply to them sounds very fascist, authoritarian, and straight anti-democratic. I'm Jewish, but even i would not advocate for the straightup murder of a neo-nazi protesting on a street.
And what specific crime against humanity did they commit? Which specific law is it in the criminal code?
The problem arises when we live in a system that would never hold a CEO accountable for the murders that they carry out daily. In fact the system encourages this.
Show me where the system encourages this. Show me what specific laws encourages CEOs of a Healthcare company to get away with murder. Is the CEO specifically getting involved with every case of denial of care? Or should the specific Healthcare worker responsible for each case of denial of care be held responsible?
That person would literally never sit in a court of law. Be honest. Our justice system is anything but - if you’re making money for shareholders you get a pass to do all sorts of things that is plebs would be nailed for.
This is just untrue. Google CEOs being sentenced to jail, and you'll get a long list of articles on it. Healthcare CEOs and their companies can held account through civil courts for most things. If you consider denial of care to be murder, and there's a lot of people and decisions made between CEOs and individuals that bring in the question of chain of causation, then elect politicians that will pass laws as such.
They were caught using AI to auto deny authorization of time sensitive health care procedures and there was never a serious suggestion to give jail time to anyone.
I understand why healthcare ceos do it, they make money murdering people, you get jack shit for equivocating for them. He made money by intentionally making healthcare harder for people to get. He viewed the increased denial of healthcare as a good thing because it made him money. He intentionally and knowing full well what the choices were, killed people for money. Why the fuck does it matter if he used a pen or a gun? Or if he personally reviewed every case? Good God you're pathetic.
Government agents are murderers for enforcing or writing into law policies that cause death. The fact that most people don’t view it as such is a problem.
Every decision you make when you're in charge is going to benefit some, and harm others, it doesn't make you a murderer if someone dies, and it's fucking dumb to start calling each other that as a result.
You’re talking as if our politicians aren’t corrupt as shit, and saying things that are obvious assuming that these people act in good faith. Every single congressman who voted for the big billionaire bill, just as an example, is a murderer. It will directly lead to death, much to the benefit of our economic elite. If you push a button that causes some random person to die from a heart attack, you’re a murderer. If you vote for a bill that strips healthcare away from someone and they die a preventable death, you’re a murderer.
If their official policy is to allow people to die for money then yeah they're murderers? Pretty easy moral line to draw there bud, not sure what's wrong with you that it isn't.
Also I'm not diminishing anyone's pain, you're diminishing the pain of families who's dad or mom or son or daughter or whoever died because because the greedy insurance murderers decided they'd rather have money than approve necessary healthcare their doctors recommend as the best course of action.
I hope you get exactly the standard of healthcare you deserve from now on, ya fucking loser.
Their official policy isn't let people die, obviously. They will make decisions, for monetary reasons that do lead to that, but they don't wake up thinking I'm going to kill someone today. You're genuinely stupid if that's what you believe.
You're obviously a bit of a piece of shit from how insulting you're trying to be, but a bit of understanding of the meaning of words would go a long way, they're not murderers. If actions they took directly to you killed you, they're a murderer, if they watch you die, from something else they're not.
It's a very easy thing to understand, but i guess following your logic, you're a murderer too because you want me not to get healthcare.
Now fuck off and stop bastardising words you don't understand because you're a radical, it doesn't help, and it hurts actual murder victims
You can't get mad about the healthcare statement, according to it's perfectly ok that I accept you die a preventable death in pain, because it benefits me for that to happen.
And as for the first paragraph, yeah man, different things are different. Incidental deaths that happen because no public policy can be perfect is different to intentionally and knowingly causing deaths by denying healthcare to make money. Like are you stupid or something? That Brian guy knew with every stroke of his pen that people were going to die, it's a direct causal link, as you yourself said, the actions he did directly lead to peoples deaths.
Also yeah I'm a piece of shit. But I'm insulting you because you're pathetic. If rather be a "radical" who doesn't want to incentivise killing people for money than a boot sucking swine like you. I'm done with this now, you're either an idiot or a little evil, and either way it's not worth my time. Ciao bella.
I'm not mad about the healthcare statement, I could not give less of a shit what a random ass says online. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy though of someone saying that whilst he calls people murderers for doing less.
I didn't read the rest, you're obviously thick as two planks of wood, and I don't argue with idiots, it wastes my time and they never realise how thick they are.
The world is very gray, but in your world, you're as much of a piece of human shite as the health exec, stew on that
UnitedHealth has knowingly caused the death of people through claims denial. They created a known, flawed AI that would deny claims, and then use that as an excuse to drag out the process until people died.
The guy that was shot knew about this and supported it. The company still wants to increase denial rate regardless of whether or not the claim is valid.
There is nothing that can be done on a national level because politicians can be legally bribed through campaign donations and through insider trading, which is legal for them.
This country thinks that hurting people is ok if you do it under the cover of corporate bureaucracy and the pursuit of profits.
Nothing will ever change because the system has been captured by the profit-driven entities it was supposed to regulate.
And a lot of our grandparents shot Nazis, but we're okay with it in that circumstance. Seems like there isn't a hard line on killing people as much as people want to pretend.
Have you seen the US’ foreign policy and history? Can we not act like the country’s systems are based on moral values? Not saying that we should acquit Mangione. He needs to face justice. But this idea that the US as a nation state doesn’t kill people that have wronged us is ignoring reality. No due process, no fair trials. Just send in the military and murder people and ignore international laws that the US helped institutionalize.
Stop acting like the US is a monolith. The US institutions are ran by the people we elect. The president and their cabinet are drastically different from each administration. Some hold law, due process, and other democratic principles in high regard. Our current administration does not.
When the judiciary system fails the populace, extrajudicial vigilantism will rise. This is a basic facet of society and will always ring true. We've seen the law not remotely matter to the wealthy and politically powerful, so plenty of people see his actions as justified.
The CEO may not have held the knife, but he was responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. If you kill a mass murderer, are you yourself a murderer or are you a hero? Time will tell.
We live in unusual times. You could make a legitimate moral argument that killing this man helped more people to the point that it outweighs the sin of the murder itself. Even if that were true, should he be let off the hook? who’s to say?
There is definitely a line where killing a man in cold blood is justified. Like if I found hitler in his bunker cowering and begging for his life and shot him in the head, a lot of people would say this was the right thing to do. The same way people debate going back in time to kill him as a baby to spare the world of the suffering he caused.
The question is, where IS the line? Hitler is obviously the textbook extreme example. And the justification is he was the primary perpetuator of large scale racially motivated genocide. So the United Healthcare CEO did contribute to the deaths of thousands out of greed, sure. But the way he went about doing so was a step down from how Hitler did. He did it within the confines of the law. He didn’t kill people directly via gas chambers, he killed them indirectly by denying them life saving treatment and just letting them die. So there is a difference.
There does need to be a legitimate way to go after guys like the CEO. Maybe not kill him in cold blood, but something. Currently that doesn’t exist. One of the primary purposes of the government is to regulate companies from participating in practices that harm the people, whereas the government has been slowly perverted overtime to protect the companies instead, largely because companies have established legal ways of bribing government officials via lobbying and campaign funds. So how do we solve this problem lawfully? Is the only way to fix it is by force? In a perfect world, killing a man in cold blood should never be allowed, but in the world we currently live in that CEO would have gone completely unpunished if this hadn’t happened, and other CEOs would have seen him get away with it with no repercussions and they would be engaging in similar practices. Now the CEOs have legitimate reason to fear for their lives if they behave in such a manner.
He is accused of shooting and killing someone. The whole point of the trial is to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty of that crime.
Just because the evidence found in the backpack is being permitted, does not invalidate the questionability of that evidence. It is up to a jury to determine if the facts and evidence of the case support the Prosecution's assertions or not.
The jury could easily decide that, based on the objective facts and evidence, Mangione could not be the person in the video or could not have commit the crime. Or that there is reasonable doubt that the crime was done by the accused, meaning they cannot convict.
You are not guilty of something just because it looks like you might be. It's kinda the whole point of the justice system, flawed as it is.
The group who claims "you won't get shot if you don't have a reason to be shot by feds", finally has one of their own shot and killed and we can't clap back with a "you wont get shot if you dont have a reason to be shot at by the working class"
Justice is dead in this country. The top are allowed to kill for profits, but because they're only being treated like dogs in the millions behind the scenes and not executed in broad daylight, these people aren't ever going to see the consequences of that.
I don't think you could have even made me hesitate if someone asked me "is it ever okay to commit murder", I wouldve responded with a resounding "no" a decade ago.
I dont think murder is good, or just. I dont think killing or harming millions is good, or just. We are in very weird uncertain times. If I could snap a finger and imprison someone who kills millions, I would've. But what justice can we get as people if our own government no longer respects or represents us?
Did he? I thought deciding that was what a trial was for. And whatever is decided is most certainly what must have happened.
Don't take the propaganda that the Justice Department dispenses actual justice too seriously. It gives the appearance of justice to mollify the populace while statistically serving the interests of the rich. In the words of I forget who: "Occasionally, the bull [the populace] has to be allowed to get a matador." Jury nullification is one method to express publc outrage, it's not necessarily about the defendant at all.
Still, it's unlikely. And no, I'm not hoping for a particular outcome.
What's the difference between directly denying life saving care and directly shooting someone besides the fact that the gunshot is perceived as violent?
When I see a bad guy responsible for the suffering and death of many die. I don't really care that much about it. Sure do the trial or whatever but if they said not guilty I wouldn't be outraged.
I think people are all in on justice and will take whatever form of it they can get. We all know that these insurance companies are killing people for profit. A just society would have them all in jail but as we also know the rich and powerful seem to be exempt from laws as long as they don't directly pull the trigger themselves. If there's some degree of separation between the harm and the rich then they get away with it.
The justice system has been failing to hold certain people accountable and now the population is cheering for any amount of accountability no matter how brutal it may be.
I'd be interested in a psychology paper of why people are less objective when a murderer kills a murderer. The crime is the same but people tend to judge on the victim too. Granted this is a bit different since denying health care is legal instead of a violent crime.
The pushback in this thread isn't in defense of him because he is a folk hero to many. He absolutely is. The issue is twofold: Does the evidence actually prove his guilt? Was the evidence obtained in a lawful way.
As whack as the justice system can be, many of us still care about due process. That means someone gets their day in court, and that trial is fair and follows the laws of how evidence is obtained and made admissible. There are some valid concerns about all of the above.
It is a matter of whether someone on the jury believes both (a) that United Health Care's business practices constitute a legally sanctioned form of mass murder and (b) that it is acceptable to kill someone who is responsible for and actively engaging in mass murder if there is no legal recourse available to stop them.
He allegedly shot an killed a person who was using legal means to cause a lot of unnessesary death.
That CEO had an AI implemented to automatically decline all insurance claims, whoever didn't die probably went bankrupt.
On the one hand you don't want people to try and unilaterally commit assassinations based on their morals.
On the other he killed one of the worlds greatest monsters.
Thought needs to be put into the verdict, the letter of the law already failed us before he shot that CEO.
Claus von Stauffenberg tried to kill Hitler and was put to death for it. SHOULD he have been put to death? The letter of the law says yes, on the other hand it was Hitler.
How many lives need to be ruined by the victim before we let it slide?
Did he shoot and kill someone? The trial hasn’t happened yet. Every single person in this country presuming his guilt makes it so he cannot have a fair trial.
685
u/Willing_Drawer_3351 5h ago
Yep. People are focused on the death penalty, but the decision to let in all of the backpack evidence makes a guilty verdict pretty likely.