• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

"UnitedHealthcare CEO is fatally shot in a ‘targeted attack’ outside a New York hotel"

The effect that one persons actions can have on the general public is interesting. The whole Arab Spring was kicked off by a street vendor setting himself on fire in despair. When a large amount of average people are in despair and don't see a way out, these sort of events become a catalyst.
Like the forest fire analogy, you can toss still-lit cigarettes out the car window, and likely most won't be a problem. But it only takes one, and you can't tell which one it'll be.
 
The effect that one persons actions can have on the general public is interesting. The whole Arab Spring was kicked off by a street vendor setting himself on fire in despair. When a large amount of average people are in despair and don't see a way out, these sort of events become a catalyst.
Or the Buddhist Monk during Vietnam who immolated himself.
 
The fact that Amazon remains sold out of Luigi merchandise for the 3rd week in a row is indication enough.

Luigi Mangione’s sweater sells out at Nordstrom one day after court appearance​


“No fing way the sweater Luigi Mangione wore to court today is sold out,” one person pointed out on X/Twitter on Monday.

 

Attachments

Bumped with the latest from USA DoJ ...
Screen capture PDF also attached if link doesn't work.

Malaysiamoji Yes GIF by Maxis
 
Bumped with the latest from USA DoJ ...
Screen capture PDF also attached if link doesn't work.
IMO you can't go around killing people because of their organization's alleged malfeasance.

I'm not fussed about the death penalty being sought - its the USA and the USA is going to USA.
 
IMO you can't go around killing people because of their organization's alleged malfeasance.

I'm not fussed about the death penalty being sought - its the USA and the USA is going to USA.
Does the AG usually get involved in directing sentencing goals? If not, it seems like the sort of decision that creates martyrs.
 
IMO you can't go around killing people because of their organization's alleged malfeasance.

I'm not fussed about the death penalty being sought - its the USA and the USA is going to USA.

Good order and discipline are core tenants of a functioning society.

Good order and discipline are also tenuous social contacts that only exist so long as they are seen to work fairly and people recognize them.

Historically the imbalance of the classes will only go on so long and then it will self correct, usually violently and bloody.

Has the first shot been fired ?
 
A few things have been happening regarding the case. Talk about botched.


 
"The defense has argued the officers violated Mangione's constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure because they lacked a warrant when they searched his backpack."

I am not familiar with the search and seizure rules but would you NOT search his backpack for weapons and contraband???
 
"The defense has argued the officers violated Mangione's constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure because they lacked a warrant when they searched his backpack."

I am not familiar with the search and seizure rules but would you NOT search his backpack for weapons and contraband???
Not sure how their rules are there for search incidental to arrest. If it’s at all like ours, they’re fine, as long as the officers can articulate what they were searching for and why. Caveat, that jurisdiction may have some weird rule… But I doubt it. Still, defence basically has to try.

The loss of his custodial statement is a blow to the prosecution… But all said and done I expect they have everything they need and more.
 
My understanding is they have to have ‘exigent circumstances’ to search without a warrant. The defences argument is they lacked ‘exigent circumstances’ (no immediate risk of him getting it and no fear it contained a bomb or any such other device) and by not getting a warrant (which they had all the time in the world to do so) violated his rights.

Officers can articulate why they needed to search immediately however it sounds like their story isn’t holding water.

The officer who searched claimed she thought a bomb was in it. The defence lawyers argue thats a lie as why didn’t she call in a bomb squad, evacuate the area, etc. if she truly felt there was a risk.

Interesting case to follow, it would be wild if the case fell apart not because he didn’t or did do it, rather the police dropped the ball.
 
My understanding is they have to have ‘exigent circumstances’ to search without a warrant. The defences argument is they lacked ‘exigent circumstances’ (no immediate risk of him getting it and no fear it contained a bomb or any such other device) and by not getting a warrant (which they had all the time in the world to do so) violated his rights.

Officers can articulate why they needed to search immediately however it sounds like their story isn’t holding water.

The officer who searched claimed she thought a bomb was in it. The defence lawyers argue thats a lie as why didn’t she call in a bomb squad, evacuate the area, etc. if she truly felt there was a risk.

Interesting case to follow, it would be wild if the case fell apart not because he didn’t or did do it, rather the police dropped the ball.
Exigent circumstances is just one exception to the warrant rule. Search incidental to arrest is another one. From some quick digging, Pennsylvania seems to have similar incidental to arrest rules as elsewhere. A backpack in the immediate control of someone being arrested would generally be fair game. It would be a simple matter of articulating it as such.

Now, if you come up with some silly story and try to use that instead you may run into problems. I don’t know how their evidence exclusion rules work. There appears to be no reason the contents of the backpack shouldn’t be admissible if police did things right, took decent notes, and articulated it truthfully and consistent with the law. The body cam footage should go a long way in resolving this.

Search incidental to arrest is super routine. And then once you get to the police station in custody your effects are getting inventoried anyway.

Not to say they couldn’t have ‘frozen’ the bag and gotten a warrant for it. Sure, you can do that. For my part, on an arrest for a firearms offence, I’d want to be immediately ensuring there are no firearms in the bag that might be in an unsafe state. I’d also want to be making sure that we’re examine the contents of the bag as he had it, before it gets say jostled around, things bump around inside, maybe things are altered or damaged.

Anyway, I doubt defence will prevail on this motion, but you never know.
 
Back
Top