this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
882 points (99.6% liked)

News

35724 readers
2514 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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
 

Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty for allegedly killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, a federal district judge ruled.

The decision is a loss for federal prosecutors, who were adamant about pursuing the death penalty in the case.

The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another “crime of violence.” Prosecutors alleged the other crimes of violence were two stalking charges, arguing Mangione stalked Thompson online and travelled across state lines to carry out the killing.

The judge disagreed, finding stalking charges are not “crimes of violence” and dismissed two counts in his federal case – murder and a related firearm offense.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 220 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Why would he? We were playing stardew valley together at the time, and he was showing me how to reel in the legendary fish.

[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 70 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Can confirm. I was working as an Uber driver at the time of the killing, and clearly remember delivering a pizza to a guy named Luigi and a surprisingly kinky fish-shaped sex toy to a guy with the username Gullible. They were both playing Stardew Valley.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I was watching a streamer and saw this all happening in the background of their livestream

[–] musubibreakfast@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I can confirm, I was the fish shaped sex toy.

[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 116 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)
[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 69 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Even in the completely off-chance that he wasn't, we don't give the death penalty to first-time murderers who committed one murder and no other crimes. No, the death penalty is for fishermen who are suspected of smuggling drugs.

[–] s1ndr0m3@lemmy.world 38 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 weeks ago

~~accused~~ randomly murdered and accused after their murder to excuse the random murdering

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago

We are luigi mangione

[–] 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

This is the way

Luigi is innocent anyway

[–] sik0fewl@piefed.ca 113 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Judge Margaret Garnett also ruled Friday to allow into Mangione’s trial evidence recovered from his backpack at the time of his arrest.

Law enforcement seized several items from Mangione’s backpack, including a handgun, a loaded magazine and a red notebook – key pieces of evidence that authorities have said tie him to the killing.

[–] _wizard@lemmy.world 90 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Probably not a good thing.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 84 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

IANAL, but that's surprising to me. He wasn't read his rights at the time, and there were chain of custory issues

Any lawyers know if it's common for evidence to be allowed in situations like with Luigi?

[–] DrFunkenstein@sh.itjust.works 42 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Some lawyers made a video explaining that if the evidence was likely to have been found in a legal search anyways, it can usually still be admitted. I also ANAL

[–] tomiant@piefed.social 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Doesn't that kind of go directly against the purpose of lawful searches?

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It would be expected that he would be read his rights and the bag searched in due course. It wasn’t like they looked in a random person’s bag then decided to arrest him.

If the purpose of lawful searches is to prevent police from harassing just anyone on the off-chance, that purpose is still intact here.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The issue is that a key piece of evidence that should have been a very obvious find at first glance wasn't found at the scene, but only later after the officer had stopped searching the bag and driven to the police station.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

It’s called “inevitable discovery” and is pretty normal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheAsianDonKnots@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Ok, but why start by saying you like it in the butt?

[–] diegantobass@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

Curious! Hmmm...

[–] Sarothazrom@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

IANAL, but, HINAL.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago

It’s pertinent information for any exchange. 

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Are you saying you don't like it in the butt?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] village604@adultswim.fan 29 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It depends. It gives the defense a chance to destroy their case in front of a jury.

They now get to show the jury the unlawful search, the turned off body cam during the search, and the broken chain of evidence.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Well that is bullshit, but gives good grounds for an appeal later

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 58 points 2 weeks ago
[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 51 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Finally, some good fucking news

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 36 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Not really since the obviously planted evidence with a broken chain of custody is allowed to be presented at trial.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Is it a jury trail where the defence can seed reasonable doubt on the obvious chain of custody issues?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 45 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Evil empire full of child killing pedofiles trying to kill the man who showed us the only way out ….im surprised people aren’t more pissed

[–] lofuw@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

A lot of his support is being censored by the corporations we keep sucking off.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 44 points 2 weeks ago

Obviously. No innocent person should get the death penalty.

[–] CH3DD4R_G0BL1N@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What a strange requirement for a murder charge

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

Yes very interesting detail.

[–] Ulvain@sh.itjust.works 30 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

But Jonathan Ross should (I'm actually against the death penalty, even for those ice murderers, just venting)

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's hard to not think this way when people like Renée Good and Alex Pretti were effectively sentenced to death, with no trial.

I agree that venting can be quite cathartic, and I respect the fact that you make it clear that you are just venting. I think drawing those kinds of boundaries for yourself can help to prevent you from slipping into genuinely believing these things.

[–] stressballs@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

But we can all agree Charlie Kirk cashed a check he himself wrote?

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 5 points 2 weeks ago

ERIKA sure did after his death.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Goretantath@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago

Shouldn't have been on the table in the first place.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

"Shit, when we wrote the laws to subtly favor us, we were too subtle"

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

"The judge disagreed, finding the stalking charges did not amount to “crimes of violence” and dismissed two counts in Mangione’s federal case – the murder charge and a related firearm offense.

“The analysis contained in the balance of this Opinion may strike the average person – and indeed many lawyers and judges – as tortured and strange, and the result may seem contrary to our intuitions about the criminal law,” Judge Margaret Garnett wrote in her ruling. “But it represents the Court’s committed effort to faithfully apply the dictates of the Supreme Court to the charges in this case.” "

Supreme Court: "Not like this..."

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

The 1984 crime control act is kind of interesting. It was written to walk a line and really limit the death penalty for federal cases. The death penalty requires murder to be stacked with something like robbery, kidnapping, mob shit, etc.

Even though a premeditated murder would be considered a violent crime, the crime control act requires premeditated murder to be sandwiched within another violent crime to unlock the death penalty as a punishment option.

This is one of those things that appears to go right up to the line, but the judge ruled on precedent.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] waterSticksToMyBalls@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Understanding the Scope of Stalking Conduct

The federal statute defines the prohibited action as a “course of conduct,” requiring a pattern of behavior made up of two or more acts over time. A single, isolated incident of unwanted contact is not sufficient to meet the elements of the federal crime

Source: https://legalclarity.org/what-is-18-u-s-c-1801-federal-interstate-stalking-laws/

Could he get off since it only happened once?

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I wonder how that applies in the digital age

If someone is using press briefs to digitally follow where someone is, does that count?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›