NY - UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Midtown. #12 *Arrest*

[sunspun]

What do you think he would have done if he had not been caught? Yes, I've heard a lot of people say they think he would have chosen his next target and killed again. But if we can possibly disregard that awful possibility for the moment, I wonder what he would have done about THIS killing if he hadn't been caught. If he managed to do it anonymously and remained anonymous, uncaught and unnamed, surely that wouldn't have been enough for him. Would he anonymously release some manifesto about it (which probably would lead right back to him anyway)? Or is it possible he could have gone on about his life without feeling an irresistible urge to take credit in some way for his deed? What would have been the purpose then anyway? He may have not been able to keep from outing himself. Possibly would have told his secret to others. I wonder if he thought about this. If he managed to do it without being caught or found out, did he think that would be the end of it?

 

[LinasK]

What do you think he would have done if he had not been caught? Yes, I've heard a lot of people say they think he would have chosen his next target and killed again. But if we can possibly disregard that awful possibility for the moment, I wonder what he would have done about THIS killing if he hadn't been caught. If he managed to do it anonymously and remained anonymous, uncaught and unnamed, surely that wouldn't have been enough for him. Would he anonymously release some manifesto about it (which probably would lead right back to him anyway)? Or is it possible he could have gone on about his life without feeling an irresistible urge to take credit in some way for his deed? What would have been the purpose then anyway? He may have not been able to keep from outing himself. Possibly would have told his secret to others. I wonder if he thought about this. If he managed to do it without being caught or found out, did he think that would be the end of it?

I see him as too much of a narcissist to not want to take credit for his kill, also I've read the book Crime and Punishment- it's just waiting for the other shoe to drop...

 

[citygirl]

BBM above " It will always annoy me that people can't see this for what it is" - ...he did this for notoriety and ego.

So here I am I sense - one of the posters that annoy you.
And I am okay with that
In my life experience not everything is as black and white as I would like it to be.
Black and white = basically killing is wrong and against the law so if you kill you get punished etc – no disagreement here.
How people get to that point of killing in my mind is not always so transparent or as black and white as I’d like.You might say does it matter – and I think yes it does – not to absolve a person of their crimes, or let them off the hook, but to gain knowledge to prevent future killings. We have a mental health crisis in this country that I believe is at a boiling point. Simplistically, people who have chemical imbalances in their brains cannot just pull themselves
up by the bootstraps or just toughen up. It does not mean they should not be held accountable.(
the fact that I have to highlite/bold this also makes me "crazy" that people cannot see that its not a" killing is wrong, but.... statement).

So my pet peeve is those that show no understanding of mental illness or think it is just an excuse for poor behavior. Or ego or something logical.If no one in your circle has ever been touched by the inopportune onslaught of schizophrenia and the like, you are very fortunate indeed.

In my way of thinking there are no two truly mentally ill people ( I am not talking about the garden variety anxiety and depression) that think alike and there is no way in hell to understand what they are thinking unless they tell you.
And even then what they tell you is often what I might classify as bizarre and many times do they even know what they were thinking.

Medication helps some people etc but not all.

Our jails are full of people who went untreated for mental illness and probably remain that way. Lots I imagine turn to alcohol/ illegal drugs to self-medicate and try and keep the bad thoughts about self harm/harm of others etc at bay.

As far as I know we have not seen any actual medical evaluations on this guy - so it's tough to see it ( his reason for killing) for what it exactly is or to pin it with any certainty - so my mind is certainly open but I see all the ear marks for a deeply disturbed individual. Someone who took a big drastic wrong turn for seemingly no logical reason.

But that's just my opinion

BRAVO!

 

[citygirl]

Do we really think this case is going to trial ?
Is that in the best interest of Mangione?
Is that in the best interest of United Health ?

My thoughts:
-Mangione is from a well connected as well as monied family out of Baltimore who has "sway" imo. HIs best interest as well as his families, who value their privacy, is served by negotiating a plea. He's not directing the lawyers - the people paying for his defense are - his family is in charge. He really has no other choice IMO
-United Health Care - you don't think United Health Care will be on trial ?- Sure the prosecution will try and keep things out of the court room but social media/MSM etc will be on FIRE with all the "bad" deeds of the corporate entity.
United will want the damage contained. They will very much want to move on and not be mired in this.
So, I still think there will bea a plea here. It benefits both parties.

Or ..maybe I have just watched too much netflix lol - but I am sticking with plea

I’m with you. MOO.

 

[citygirl]

Much older I believe he’s 70.

I had a friend that reminded me of LM. Very bright, older parents and siblings. His parents would basically live ‘retired life’ and leave him to his own devices. He was very lonely and angry. All MOO/personal experience.

I don’t think this is the case with Luigi. JMO.

 

[citygirl]

It doesn't matter who is paying for his defense, ultimately, he makes the call when it comes to what his lawyers do (deal or otherwise).

I think any deal in his state case would be for 25-life, which is already the most probable outcome at trial, IMO. So I wouldn't be surprised if he felt inclined to roll the dice, especially because I believe he craves the attention.

The state charges are the least of his concern though, as the most probable outcome in Federal Court is life without parole. That's where they need to strike some sort of deal, and I can't see the government doing that unless it's very lengthy (decades).

I must say, this pains me. MOO.

 

[arielilane]

Suggesting to those choosing to read this article to take it w/a lot of salt, y'all ...

Diddy 'is raging that Mangione is getting more attention' in jail

The rapper, 54, and Mangione, 26, are both awaiting trial at Brooklyn's infamous Metropolitan Center in New York.

www.dailymail.co.uk

1/7/2025

 

[citygirl]

I just got around to reading my delivered WSJ from 1/4/25
Interesting take on Luigi titled, “Chronic Pain
A Cause a Kind of Madness. I Know This Personality” authored by Melanie Thernstrom.
I don’t know how to gift it. It has a paywall.
Posting this for the people that do have access to it.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Where is the father in this story about LM? He doesn't appear in any scene, afaik, although he is responsible just like the mother, if parents are responsible for their adult children.

We haven't heard from the father that I know of. It was LM's mother that filed the missing person's report so it makes sense that LE would speak to her. Who knows, maybe the father was present in these conversations with LE, but didn't have much to add. IDK

No parent is responsible for the actions of their adult children, especially when they have moved out and been living on their own.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Do we really think this case is going to trial ?

I'm torn on this, I think it could go either way depending on a full psychological work up on LM and his desire or not to be known as a Martyr for a 'cause'.

Is that in the best interest of Mangione?

It might be in LM's best interest, but that is not what the law it about. LM needs to answer for killing a man in cold blood just like anyone else. It shouldn't matter who his family is or what their desire is. They might be paying for LM's defense, but they are not calling the shots. His Defense Attorney represents LM, not his family. She is good at her job, so a diminished capacity or insanity defense seems a logical defense. What if LM doesn't agree to that? He has made a bold stand and was certainly capable enough mentally to pull off a rather thought out crime.

Is that in the best interest of United Health ?

United Health is not going to allow themselves to be held hostage by the actions of LM. They are too powerful and have too much $$$$ to admit any responsibility. I don't blame them, he or any family members were never insured by them. Why would they fold because LM randomly picked their CEO Brian Thompson to murder and make his statement?

<RSBM for Focus>

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Much older I believe he’s 70.

I had a friend that reminded me of LM. Very bright, older parents and siblings. His parents would basically live ‘retired life’ and leave him to his own devices. He was very lonely and angry. All MOO/personal experience.

LM was afforded a very luxurious style of living, and a stellar Ivy League Education. He graduated from College and got a job. Was laid off for whatever reason and traveled around. He was a 26 year old man, not a child and looked quite happy and content in his many Insta and TikTok photos.

I don't think the age of his parents is to blame for his actions.

JMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

LM was afforded a very luxurious style of living, and a stellar Ivy League Education. He graduated from College and got a job. Was laid off for whatever reason and traveled around. He was a 26 year old man, not a child and looked quite happy and content in his many Insta and TikTok photos.

I don't think the age of his parents is to blame for his actions.

JMO

Definitely not ‘to blame’.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

First-degree murder charges in New York require specific aggravating factors and are only doled out in exceptional circumstances, such as when a defendant is accused of killing a police officer or trial witness, carrying out contract killings, or committing acts of terrorism.

"The statute talks about attempts to influence or coerce a civilian population, the statute talks about intending to influence a policy of government, and it talks about seeking to put forth things sort of similar to that by murder. So the plain language of the statute is clear," said Bragg. "In the middle of Midtown, the beginning of a busy day. Tourists, commuters, business people. The intent was to sow terror."

Luigi Mangione's Mother Told FBI She "Could See Him" Shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO

The FBI spoke with the suspect's mother two days before he was identified and apprehended.

people.com

 

[imstilla.grandma]

 

[Marantz4250b]

First-degree murder charges in New York require specific aggravating factors and are only doled out in exceptional circumstances, such as when a defendant is accused of killing a police officer or trial witness, carrying out contract killings, or committing acts of terrorism.

"The statute talks about attempts to influence or coerce a civilian population, the statute talks about intending to influence a policy of government, and it talks about seeking to put forth things sort of similar to that by murder. So the plain language of the statute is clear," said Bragg. "In the middle of Midtown, the beginning of a busy day. Tourists, commuters, business people. The intent was to sow terror."

Luigi Mangione's Mother Told FBI She "Could See Him" Shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO

The FBI spoke with the suspect's mother two days before he was identified and apprehended.

people.com

I'm not sure that this is an easy inference to draw, tbh.

It is exceptionally hard to prove what a person's intentions are - how do you show what a person's actual motivation was when they did a particular act?

As an example, in this country, UK, attempted murder requires a specific intention to cause death. Murder only requires an intention to cause GBH from which death resulted. In short - you do not need to show an intent to kill in order to get a murder conviction but you do for attempted murder. Attempted murder is a very high bar to clear in order to get a conviction.

I can envisage similar problems with the terrorism charge against LM. The final few words in your post ...In the middle of Midtown, the beginning of a busy day. Tourists, commuters, business people. The intent was to sow terror, don't automatically accord with what went before.

In the statute, "terror" is very specifically defined by the parameters mentioned; it has to be carried out with the intention to control/influence/coerce the government or population. That is an extremely difficult thing to prove and, to be honest, I'm not sure that the evidence we have at present is enough to show that.

Terrifying people isn't the definition of a terrorist act. Two random drug dealers shooting it out in the street will certainly terrify people but that's not the same as the means rea in the statute in question. Even if he did intend to cause people to be terrified and cause "terror" in those nearby, that still isn't the definition in the legislation. It needs to be an act calculated to cause a change in public policy, essentially.

In short, the prosecution needs to prove his motive behind his actions. That is rare because the vast majority of crimes require only that the defendant actually did it, his motives are irrelevant. That isn't the case with this specific 1st degree terrorism murder charge.

I'm not at all convinced that the evidence (as far as we currently know it) is sufficient to prove that very particular charge.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm not sure that this is an easy inference to draw, tbh.

It is exceptionally hard to prove what a person's intentions are - how do you show what a person's actual motivation was when they did a particular act?

As an example, in this country, UK, attempted murder requires a specific intention to cause death. Murder only requires an intention to cause GBH from which death resulted. In short - you do not need to show an intent to kill in order to get a murder conviction but you do for attempted murder. Attempted murder is a very high bar to clear in order to get a conviction.

I can envisage similar problems with the terrorism charge against LM. The final few words in your post ...In the middle of Midtown, the beginning of a busy day. Tourists, commuters, business people. The intent was to sow terror, don't automatically accord with what went before.

In the statute, "terror" is very specifically defined by the parameters mentioned; it has to be carried out with the intention to control/influence/coerce the government or population. That is an extremely difficult thing to prove and, to be honest, I'm not sure that the evidence we have at present is enough to show that.

Terrifying people isn't the definition of a terrorist act. Two random drug dealers shooting it out in the street will certainly terrify people but that's not the same as the means rea in the statute in question. Even if he did intend to cause people to be terrified and cause "terror" in those nearby, that still isn't the definition in the legislation. It needs to be an act calculated to cause a change in public policy, essentially.

In short, the prosecution needs to prove his motive behind his actions. That is rare because the vast majority of crimes require only that the defendant actually did it, his motives are irrelevant. That isn't the case with this specific 1st degree terrorism murder charge.

I'm not at all convinced that the evidence (as far as we currently know it) is sufficient to prove that very particular charge.

Well, he's outlined "corruption and greed" in his manifesto, which are matters for government oversight and regulation.

Unless he can show somehow that killing the CEO was intended to put United Healthcare out of business, and solve those issues, or that he and his family had a personal grievance with United and/or suffered a personal loss, I think by elimination it comes down to terrorism.

IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

Well, he's outlined "corruption and greed" in his manifesto, which are matters for government oversight and regulation.

Unless he can show somehow that killing the CEO was intended to put United Healthcare out of business, and solve those issues, or that he and his family had a personal grievance with United and/or suffered a personal loss, I think by elimination it comes down to terrorism.

IMO

I hear what you're saying but the terrorism element is a very specific thing they need to prove.

Don't get me wrong because, yes, in all probability I'm sure he sees himself as some sort of savior/deity type chasing some narcissistic dream ending with him being covered in glory by changing the system but it's a difficult thing to prove.

If his defence takes the tack that ...yes, he hates all the corporate greed and corruption but accepts that he'll never change anything and wasn't setting out to but, rather, just decided to give these people what he felt they deserved... then does that meet the very specific criteria in the legislation? On the face of it, no, I don't think it does.

 

[Tortoise]

I hear what you're saying but the terrorism element is a very specific thing they need to prove.

Don't get me wrong because, yes, in all probability I'm sure he sees himself as some sort of savior/deity type chasing some narcissistic dream ending with him being covered in glory by changing the system but it's a difficult thing to prove.

If his defence takes the tack that ...yes, he hates all the corporate greed and corruption but accepts that he'll never change anything and wasn't setting out to but, rather, just decided to give these people what he felt they deserved... then does that meet the very specific criteria in the legislation? On the face of it, no, I don't think it does.

It's a tall order, I think, to show that he was targeting / punishing 'people' and not a company, which is not a feeling entity and will continue like a machine with the same structure and profit goals etc.

 

[MassGuy]

I'm not sure that this is an easy inference to draw, tbh.

It is exceptionally hard to prove what a person's intentions are - how do you show what a person's actual motivation was when they did a particular act?

As an example, in this country, UK, attempted murder requires a specific intention to cause death. Murder only requires an intention to cause GBH from which death resulted. In short - you do not need to show an intent to kill in order to get a murder conviction but you do for attempted murder. Attempted murder is a very high bar to clear in order to get a conviction.

I can envisage similar problems with the terrorism charge against LM. The final few words in your post ...In the middle of Midtown, the beginning of a busy day. Tourists, commuters, business people. The intent was to sow terror, don't automatically accord with what went before.

In the statute, "terror" is very specifically defined by the parameters mentioned; it has to be carried out with the intention to control/influence/coerce the government or population. That is an extremely difficult thing to prove and, to be honest, I'm not sure that the evidence we have at present is enough to show that.

Terrifying people isn't the definition of a terrorist act. Two random drug dealers shooting it out in the street will certainly terrify people but that's not the same as the means rea in the statute in question. Even if he did intend to cause people to be terrified and cause "terror" in those nearby, that still isn't the definition in the legislation. It needs to be an act calculated to cause a change in public policy, essentially.

In short, the prosecution needs to prove his motive behind his actions. That is rare because the vast majority of crimes require only that the defendant actually did it, his motives are irrelevant. That isn't the case with this specific 1st degree terrorism murder charge.

I'm not at all convinced that the evidence (as far as we currently know it) is sufficient to prove that very particular charge.

Whether or not the charge is appropriate (some legal experts were saying it was before he was even charged in the first place), I was convinced from very early on that he was behaving as a terrorist. If this was something personal, there was no reason to write on the casings, nor any reason to leave Monopoly money. So you could go two ways with this:

A mentally disturbed guy with a monstrous ego who wanted to show everyone how smart he was, and picked a target that would psychologically allow him to do this. He wanted to be relevant, and fill that void in his life (like most assassins).

A guy who wanted to influence policy by targeting a very unpopular segment of the population. It wasn't about this one guy, but what he represented, and the goal there was to draw attention to that and bring about change.

Honestly, I kind of lean towards the first option, despite the optics telling me that this was closer to terrorism than anything.

I think he's convicted of second degree murder in New York, before he has to face the Federal charges, which are much more severe and easy to prove.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

“Extreme emotional disturbance doesn’t require that the disturbance has happened instantaneously or even suddenly – that doesn’t mean there can’t be planning, that doesn’t mean there isn’t intelligence behind the act,” they said.

With the right lawyer, assuming this is what he wants, and he has a lawyer willing to do it, he can use his trial to further the national discussion that he began

“He has one and only one viable defense and that is extreme emotional disturbance,” said Ron Kuby, a veteran criminal defense attorney whose practice focuses on civil rights.

“One version of extreme emotional disturbance is he just snapped, but the defense is broader than that and certainly covers the slow, bitter, corrosive wearing away of normal sentiments of right and wrong until it all collapses in pain,” Kuby explained.

‘Only one viable defense’: how might the CEO murder case play out in court?

Lawyers weigh suspect’s options to fight charge he murdered UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson

www.theguardian.com