You must log in or register to comment.
How tf can killing a single person with a handgun be classified as terrorism?
Because the ruling class is terrified
Because they don’t like him.
I mean Dylan fucking Roof shot dead 9 black people and they didn’t consider it terrorism.
Dylan Roof did get charged with hate crimes and was convicted on all 33 counts, leading to a death sentence. Stacking terrorism charges on top of that would have been pointless.
Mangione, by contrast, is getting charged in a state without capital punishment. You need the terror charge to make this a First Degree Murder case. Otherwise he’s looking at parole after 15 years.
This sounds like a legal playbook for would-be assassins. Kill at the cost of 15 years with parole max
I mean, we’ll see if he even makes it to trial or if he has an accidental-in-his-cell whoopsie doodle suicide.
“They’re making us CEO’s afraid, terrified even, so he’s clearly a terrorist. The implication that the working class could actually fight back against the systemic oppression we inflict on them? That’s horrifying. We can’t allow them to believe they could ever fight back. Make an example of this person.”
The rich assholes or something
Crimes against the ruling class are more harshly punished than crimes against the plebs.
Because it’s making the CEOs and politicians Terrified.
Our most sacred 21st century nobility. Guess we’ll have to cut their taxes to show our deference
They used to be terrified a lot more often when history was closer to JFK, Mussolini, Lincoln, and the French Revolution. When the leaders really thought the punishment for bad leadership was their ass, they gave a shit more.
As long as the action terrorised a large enough group of people it’s terrorism, it’s just this time, the terrorised people are the rich cunts hiding in their mansions like the traitorous cowards they are.
So this is terrorism but they refuse to give terrorism charges to local militias?
They also don’t charge people who blow up abortion clinics with terrorism either. They haven’t since the 60s - 70s.
If you look it up the courts have been petitioned several times to associate abortion clinic bombings with Christian terrorism but they keep refusing to call it what it is.
After reading about that fiasco I have very little faith our government actually has a working definition of terrorism that doesn’t shift at their convenience.
Hardly shocking that the christofascist courts of America refuse to classify abortion clinic bombings as domestic terrorism.
Local militias are perfectly acceptable as per the second amendment, as long as they’re “well regulated”, whatever that means…
it means that it needs to be an actual maintained organization, not Jim bob and his buddies threatening anybody they don’t like. it’s also not a requirement, it’s only the reasoning provided.
Well, that’s when Jim Bob and his friends can get together and form a neighborhood watch group and suddenly it’s perfectly legal.
Hence the joke
Whatever helps the ruling class protect their money
The dead guy was the terrorist.
But he was white…?
fine “Domestic” terrorist
So he was a “lone wolf” then
So was Timothy McVeigh.
The good old boy???
Good? No, he murderd a lot of innocent people.
Old? He was in his 20’s? Did he live to see his 30th birthday?
boy? Apparently.
Was he actually Italian though? As in, speaking Italian, having an Italian passport etc.? Y’all Americans have weird definitions of nationality, just having a foreign sounding last name isn’t really enough…
When someone from America says they Italian or whatever they aren’t talking about nationality, it’s about ancestry, where your family came from not what county you were born in
No no no no…it’s about what kind of food your mom cooked when you were a kid.
Which makes me…uhhhhhh…clown? I don’t know. She bought a lot of McDonalds.
So… Scottish?
I don’t know how, but your comment wove a huge Scottish folk tale in my head revolving around fast food franchises.
in a loud Scottish accent “Let us sing of the day that the McDonalds slew the evil Burger King and rescued Wendy from her castle top prison, which was guarded by the monstrous Jack in the Box!”
Subscribe to The Juicy Tales of Ronald now. Written by aeronmelon, narrated by Sean Connery.
Old MacDonald had a grill, E-I-E-I-O!
And on his grill he put some beef, E-I-E-I-O!
With some onions here and a pickle slice there,
Ketchup squirt, mustard squirt,
Buns top and bottom keep the mess off his shirt,
Old MacDonald had a meal, E-I-E-I-O!
She was constantly making lemon meringue pies?
Dude’s name is Luigi and his last name sounds like a pizza restaurant. That settles it for me, thank you very much.
You joke, but that kind of prejudice is pretty hurtful in day to day life
It’s important to remember that the Italians and the Irish were treated as a low rung of American society not all that long ago.
They are legitimate victims of the brunt of American hate.
Is there anyone Americans haven’t hated and/or discriminated against yet? Anyone ever not been a victim of the US?
The wealthy.
Hard to discriminate against someone who can buy their way past it.
Counterpoint, CEO’s death being praised by many. Seems like hatred is an equal opportunity thing, but some are more insulated to it than others.
Counterpoint to counterpoint: the CEO was hated for being a shitty person who lead the charge in denying healthcare, not because of his wealth.
the rich?
Is it though? You would be hurt if someone thought you were Italian? You must think pretty poorly of them lol
In America since we came here and took the land from the natives we just assume everyone’s family came from somewhere else at some point in recent history. A lot of families are very proud of their ancestry and talk about it a lot.
My name comes from an ethnic background but I dont look ethnic so I always get weird Looks at doctors offices because of it. I think its pretty funny but I guess some people dont find it as funny to be “profiled” so to speak. It really depends on the culture you grew up in and how high tolerance actually was for that sort of thing in your life, at least thats my two cents. I dont mind it but others might.
I’m not trying to hate on you but there’s a real problem with using the word ethnic to mean non white. You are certainly ethnic. You belong to an ethnicity.
Buddy, I’m German, I assure you I’ve been subjected to plenty of prejudice myself. Ever seen Die Hard? So flattering (not).
on average, how many "nein"s do you hear from non-germans per day?
Well, fast food places are a nightmare, for one. It’s always “neiny nein” this and “neiny nein” that.
Neintynein McDonald’s burgers
Giving me a sleep disorder
To worry, worry, super scurry
Seek out the restroom in a hurry
I have the perfect response to that but this is by far my favorite sub and I don’t want to risk offending the mods, so I’m afraid I can’t answer that question.
sorry but Luigi Mangione sounds like a name a token Italian character would have in harry potter. idk how prejudiced it is to assume this is an italian name.
Everything is hurtful now. Even nationality… jeez
Who cares?
According to Italian law if you have Italian ancestry, you’re Italian. There’s a whole process (with many asterisks and exceptions) in which you can apply to get your Italian passport
My great grandfather was an Italian immigrant. My father is looking into getting an Italian passport. Maybe being a soon-to-be physician will improve my chances of getting one too. (Maybe I’ll switch from learning French to learning Italian too)
The word you are looking for is enthnicity. Enthnicity describes the (self-)perceived belonging to a population group. This is of course highly subjective.
There is undeniably perception of grouping in the US based on heritage, where it doesn’t really matter when your ancestors arrived, just from where. So from an American POV it makes sense to call him Italian, because he is in the same perceived group as all the people from Italy.
On the other hand from a European POV it doesn’t really matter, where your great grandparents come from. You are part of the US-Group, so you are American.
This is not an exclusive US Problem, but a general migration problem & it happens everywhere. Comments like yours are the reason, why people from migrated families feel like they are in-between cultures. Instead of writing snarky comments on the internet, just accept that your perception of ethnicity is part of your ethnicity and other people can have other perceptions.
Ever heard a white American try to have the tired-ass what’s your ancestry conversation with a black American descended from slaves? It’s pretty awkward. I hate these conversations and they need to stop.
I get it all the time because I’m 7/8 “white” and my last name is pretty distinctively German, even though it’s been anglicized.
More of a
visits Italy for the first time over summer
continues to tell every living soul that their father’s father’s neighbour’s goldfish, was italian
… scenario
“I learned it from watching you, ok?!?!?”
Let’s hope the jury disagrees
They charged him with terrorism so a regular jury won’t get to make that decision. It will be a federal grand jury of selected stooges, and maybe even a secret court.
A federal grand jury isn’t a replacement for a regular federal trial jury. They’re completely different things. A grand jury decides if there is a strong enough case to take the charges to trial, or if they should just be dismissed. When a grand jury isn’t used, the trial judge makes that determination themselves. I agree that the terrorism charge will affect how the trial is conducted, but I don’t know enough on that topic to comment further.
That’s true but the way that a federal jury works is very different.
It allows them to choose people from outside of the area in which the crime occurred.
Making it a federal trial jury instead of a state trial jury allows them to charge this single murder against an individual perpetrated by another individual who made no public statement with a much more severe crime than the state laws that he broke would normally allow.
It’s also important to note that making it a federal trial makes it less public as there will be no cameras allowed. They don’t want him tried in the state of New York because that could legally be televised which is a bad look when you’ve already got judicial homicide lined up and the trial is purely performative.
Being that they can choose people from all over and that the process of jury selection is even more opaque at the federal level they can make sure there won’t be any nullification issues.
The way they are treating Luigi whether or not he’s guilty indicates that it’s not relevant whether or not he’s guilty. They legitimately don’t care, this is about sending a message that the poors don’t get to fight back.
Oh. So that was their play.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
“Nothing will meaningfully improve” is a good translation of biden/harris’s “nothing will fundamentally change” promise.
It also addresses people pretending like knocking down statutes and similar moral victories are meaningful progress twoards addressing real problems.
Uhuh… And the school shooters? No terrorist charges?..
I’m pretty sure it’s up to the state attorney to decide what charges to bring is all I’ll say.
Those tend to be a personal grudge, not a political statement.
Pretty sure you could agree he had a personal grudge as well
Potentially, but I think that’s true of most terrorists.
I think that for terrorism you need the goal to instill terror in the population. Since it was so specifically targeted and only one victim, I don’t know how well it fits. Also, most of the population doesn’t feel terror, maybe he should be hit with satisfaction charges.
The definition of terrorism doesn’t say you need to terrify people at all.
Besides, there’s been a lot of acts that are generally agreed to be terrorist acts, that have targeted a very small group of people, such as a religious group, or even one specific individual. The IRA’s famous reply to Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.
It seems his goal was to terrify one small group of people, namely senior people in the healthcare industry, and I think that counts.
I’m starting to think your username isn’t true, at all!
“Unlimited scope of people” does not require political statement.
Have you done actual research or are you assuming because it feels right, it must be?
Research on what?
Cool
the definition of terrorism from the FBI is very… vague
Here’s an exerpt from the declaration of Independence :3
Lemmy is filled with domestic terrorists!
Me included!
Don’t let the jandarma take me
jandarma
Is that a real english word?
it’s Turkish gendarmerie
Ok. It looked so much like the french gendarmes, I was surprise. Turns out the word is in many languages.
it would be more correct for me to say gendarmerie but it wouldn’t put the point across of it being Turkish
Maghrebian people are also using Jendarma.
Probably some international ones too.
I didn’t know Miku was a textbook definition of a terrorist /s
The problem with the latter is that it only applies to the government, not private corporations.
deleted by creator
”We are all domestic terrorists…”
-CPAC (Republicans) 2022
See, his mistake was not killing him during a Career Day at an elementary school. If he took out kids as well, he wouldn’t get a terrorism charge.
Dark humor is like food, not everyone gets it.
CEO’s: Second degree murder is the highest you can charge him with for killing a CEO in NY? But we want to torture him and make an example of him so the proles don’t get uppity!
DA: No problem sirs, we can make that happen.
It’s been curious to see the number of major media pundits doing the “Wonder how long his pretty little face will last in prison?” jokes while his fellow inmates are vocally supporting him
Really lets you know which side everyone is lining up on.
Honestly, this applies to all of us (replace pheasant and wine with whatever you can afford)
Eat your chickie nuggies, drink your honey mussy…
Profanity
Fuck your girlfriend right in the pussy
From what the manifesto found on him allegedly said, it sounds like his actions were politically motivated. And violence in pursuit of a political goal is kinda the definition of terrorism.
George Washington used violence to advance his political agenda of a sovereign USA. Was George a terrorist?
It’s not terrorism if you win.
History is written by the victors.
Then we’ll just have to win.
God damn put that exchange on a t-shirt
Yes, why would you think he wasn’t?
Because we often only phrase things as terrorism when it’s “bad”
Exactly. The baddies are called ‘terrorists’. The term the media uses to describe good terrorists is ‘rebels’ and sometimes ‘freedom fighters’.
Yes, he was a good terrorist. He wasn’t captured by the enemy.
Luigi was pretty dumb wearing that creepy outfit at a McD. He was captured. Regardless of how you feel about him, being captured was a major failure.
Yeah, Luigi fucked up so bad that he wasn’t even the shooter and he still got caught /irony
If he used violence against noncombatants.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror attacks though.
Oh, well then Muad’dib isn’t a terrorist because he only killed a mass murderer. Military brass are considered combatants, and Brian ordered thousands to their deaths.
The US generally holds that only foreign individuals and organisations can be terrorists. So if Luigi can be charged with terrorism, so can the KKK.
4th of July is a national celebration of terrorism.
Removed by mod
It’s pretty much always meant violence for an ideology or cause. And the political motivation is very much what makes the difference.
Words do have definitions.
Well then define non-combatants. The person he shot was at fault for hundreds if not thousands of deaths. Saying he didn’t personally do them would be like saying a general is not responsible for their troops actions.
Well then define non-combatants.
“a person who is not engaged in fighting during a war, especially a civilian, chaplain, or medical practitioner.”
Sure he was responsible for deaths due to denying health coverage. But he’s still a civilian.
So is the president, who orders drone strikes on civilians.
The president is not a civilian. They are Commander-in-Chief of the combined armed forces.
I would have agreed with you until the supreme Court ruled otherwise to protect trump.
So it was a civilian on civilian kill. Not a militant group/gang/mercenary.
If the “battle” was pertaining to healthcare denials, he was currently battling and his group took up battle after he was gone.
The perpetrator of an act of terrorism isn’t part of the definition. They need not be affiliated with a group or military.
I find it curious how many people on Lemmy were gleefully posting about CEOs and billionaires being scared because of this attack, and then to see push-back about the label of terrorism (where fear is part of the outcome, hence the name).
The saying is “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” right?
I get that we aren’t likely to agree. But “my version” of what terrorism is… You know because I’m an entitled person who gets to make shit up… but you’ll get what I mean… is to instill fear in the masses by performing an act. When you fly into a building, people say “they could have flown into my building”. When you launch a missile at a housing complex, people think that could have been my housing complex (gave up on quotes). When you blow up a communication device or a car… People think that could have been my car, phone, pager.
When you kill a CEO, no one is worried for their life when they say “that could have been my CEO”. They are more like shit… I wonder if Tim would get that job? Fuck I hope it’s not Pam. So unless the masses are being terrorized by an army of Pam’s… I just think it’s not terrorism
Removed by mod
using definitions is cheating
Its wildly overused though isnt it. Anyone can say almost anything and claim its political. And in the case of your definition, governments leverage terrorism on many of us on a day to day basis. Every protest met with force is terrorism, by that definition you proffered. So do we have a right of self defense against politically motivated violence?
It’s usually applied to a non state actor, not a government.
The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, for example, isn’t generally considered a terrorist attack.
He likely intended to cause terror for the victims minority.
I don’t feel terrorized. Wonder who does
Ruthless CEOs and other greedy, rich scumbags, of course.
Is there any chance that the terrorism charge is so ridiculous that it actually strengthens Luigi’s case and makes his defense better?
Yes because it specifically allows examining his motive from a political angle which allows the defense to question the character of the guy he shot, which increases the chance of nullification.
Depends on how brain rotted the jury is
Man, if the fact that Luigi, the smiling man, and the actual shooter are visibly three different people isn’t enough of a defense, nothing is. The ruling class wants to see someone punished for this crime, and rule of law bends to their will. He will be sentenced to life in prison or death by the end of this month, mark my words.
I don’t think it will be that fast but yes I think there will be no other outcome.
deleted by creator
