696
DA says 40 UnitedHealthcare execs got bodyguards, and one dyed her hair after Luigi Mangione killed CEO Brian Thompson
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
696 points (97.0% liked)
News
29949 readers
3386 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you understand that the picture with the hood up is from earlier at a hostel?
Your little collage is cropped, but isn't Luigi wearing a completely different backpack in the one on the right than the shooter is in the middle.
You can't just throw a picture of the shooter in between two pics of Luigi and claim that proves something.
Do you have any idea how many people have greenish coats in NYC any given morning?
And how many got caught with the gun and a hand-written manifesto? It's plain Luigi plugged the guy, the only question is if it's justified, that's what the court will determine.
You trust the cops. Why would you? They've been proven, just in the last five years, to have planted evidence on innocent people.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-throws-man-guilty-plea-224510985.html
Oh, I absolutely do not trust the cops, but given everything we have learned, it's self evident he shot the guy.
As I say, the only bit that needs to be determined is if he was justified or not. His fans believe he was, which is why they float things like jury nullification, not that he's innocent.
You definitely do trust the cops, your entire argument here consists of trusting the cops
No, my argument is based on trusting observable reality.
That doesn't matter if it can't be evidence...
We're just going in circles.
You believe the cops because things the cops said...
Most can't do that anymore
Again, we aren't talking about what he's found guilty of or not. We're talking about if he shot the guy or not.
Saying the evidence is inadmissable doesn't discount the fact that it was the gun used and the manifesto shows motive.
He DEFINITELY shot the guy. Whether he's CONVICTED for it is a different issue.
Because he was seen wearing a greenish coat?
Like, if you can acknowledge that the screenshot of his face and the video of the shooting are from two different videos and there's not continuous footage between the two...
Then I don't understand why you keep saying it's him.
If you can't, then I don't think there's anyway I can help you understand this.
And I definitely don't understand why you just want to keep repeating your opinion like it's somehow a fact.