World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Totally not being rude but do you actually feel this way or it’s like a joke?
i believe that based on my knowledge of the case, it's highly likely he's the culprit but the circumstances are suspicious enough that it wouldn't be 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' for me
I currently believe that reasonable doubt exists. And since “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard for a guilty sentence, I would currently vote Not Guilty if I were sitting on the jury.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is meant to be a very large barrier. It’s not “maybe”. It’s not “probably”. It’s not even “I personally think he did it, but I understand how people could think otherwise.” It’s “a reasonable person would have zero doubt that he did it.” Beyond a reasonable person’s ability to doubt. And since that doubt still exists, (due to the bungled investigation, laughably inept police work, him not looking like the shooter in the security footage, etc) he would be not guilty in my eyes. Because a reasonable person would be able to find ways to doubt his guilt.
Beyond any reasonable doubt.
Why do you doubt his admission?
People plead guilty for crimes they didn’t commit every single day. Coercing guilty pleas via lenient sentencing is literally a core feature of the US justice system.
He was facing the possibility of life in prison. I could see pleading guilty in spite of his innocence because of that (and there are many cases of people who pled guilty to avoid the possibility of a maximum sentence and were later exonerated).
As for the specific admission of stalking, shooting, and causing the death of Brian Thompson, I don’t extend the benefit of the doubt to the government anymore, to the point that the description of his flat affect makes me wonder if he was tortured. He was kept in solitary confinement for a long time (which I guess is technically already torture, but I’m sure the US government doesn’t legally consider its “correct” application such)- a couple of missed visits outside in a row can really fuck with a person's psyche.
I don’t think it’s likely that they specifically and actively tortured him to force this exact confession out of him, but I do think he has likely been both intentionally and negligently psychologically harmed during his imprisonment, beyond what is unavoidable when holding someone against their will.
I try to think of it from the perspective of a Luigi who didn’t do it. He had gone a little nuts in the months before the arrest and had been living rough for a while after having cut contact with most of his family and friends and quitting his job. Suddenly he’s arrested because of his eyebrows, and they plant a bunch of convenient for prosecutors but nonsensical for the specifics of this case evidence. They probably rough him up during the arrest, then he’s reunited with his family who have enough money from a gofundme to hire great attorneys, and he’s getting fan mail and nude Polaroids for some reason. He’s still not exactly mentally stable and then he’s kept in solitary confinement for months, interspersed with incredibly high profile court appearances and a huge demand from the general public for his commentary on all of this.
Would it astound me if someone who had been through all that reacted by confessing to the crime? No, honestly. I could see that person reacting in all sorts of ways.
Maybe during sentencing or if there is ever a state trial, enough evidence will be put forth to tip it for me, or we’ll get to see enough of him speaking and reacting to things to get a better handle on what his mental state is, but until then, I’ve got evidence based reasons to doubt that he did it (the chain of custody on the backpack, the eyebrows not being convincing for me, and the utter pointlessness of getting a ghost gun and not disposing of it), so it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. If I were on a jury deciding this, I would obviously receive more evidence, but I do need that before I can say it’s beyond a reasonable doubt.
Don't forget that he has a back problem from which he is suffering chronic pain, for which I assume that jail is not providing adequate adjustments. I wouldn't be surprised if he is living with a lot of physical agony.
probably got scared by the prospect of a jury, not ruling in his favor.
Plenty of innocent people have pleaded guilty if they thought it was the best way forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
He couldn't have done it. He was with me playing Mario kart.
The culprit in the security footage looks like a totally different person to me
Hostel desk picture? Def Luigi. The taxi/uber picture? Def Luigi also, look at those eyebrows.
Security footage of Thompson being shot? Different height, build, clothes, and hands.