Nope, I’m saying it’s been prevalent on Lemmy and that everyone who created, shared or upvoted that content has absolutely no basis for going “Presumed innocent!”
If you think Luigi’s a hero, you have no basis for saying he didn’t shoot and kill thr guy.
Wrong, it’s entirely possible for a person to make memes celebrating him as a symbol of resistance while also acknowledging the very real possibility that he’s innocent
We can celebrate the ideal of a person willing to fight back while still defending the actual person who may or may not have been the person who did it.
“Luigi” is gestalt:
An ideal of a person willing to fight for all of us against an oppressive system
A Human who is charged and not yet legally proven guilty of a crime; who may or may not be a scapegoat
We hail as heroes those who fight against oppression even when, and often because, their fighting breaks ‘the rules.’
If Luigi shot this CEO, then he deserves our respect as a hero: A person who has sacrificed to remove a serial killer who was above the law.
If Luigi did not shoot this CEO, then he deserves our support as a victim of the above system.
Sharing memes and keeping him in the public zeitgeist supports both.
"Instead of carrying out a bombing, prosecutors allege, Mangione wrote in an entry in October that someone should “wack the CEO at the annual parasitic bean-counter convention.”
“It’s targeted, precise, and doesn’t risk innocents. Most importantly, the point is self-evident,” the diary entry reads, according to the filing. “The point is made in the news headline ‘Insurance CEO killed at annual investors conference.’”"
It’s absolutely clear he’s the shooter. Denying that is rejecting reality.
Now, if you want to get into if he was justified, that’s a different discussion. My expectation is they will get him on the murder charge due to the extensive proof of pre-meditation.
The terrorism charge is bullshit though and everyone knows it. The public wasn’t terrorized by what he did, if anything a large number of people were cheering him.
You misunderstand… Nobody has to have personally seen him shoot somebody to say he shot somebody. This isn’t a court of law, we aren’t “proving” anything.
If you think he’s a hero, you acknowledge he shot the guy. If he didn’t, there’s no need for the hero worship.
If you think he’s a criminal, you ALSO acknowledge he shot the guy.
Again, either way, there’s absolutely no question he shot the guy.
You’re welcome to feel differently, the results of the trial will disappoint you.
Nope, I’m saying it’s been prevalent on Lemmy and that everyone who created, shared or upvoted that content has absolutely no basis for going “Presumed innocent!”
If you think Luigi’s a hero, you have no basis for saying he didn’t shoot and kill thr guy.
You’re making speculations about random commenters to justify speculations about Luigi
I’m addressing the hive mind who simultaneously believes Luigi is a hero but also somehow did not kill a guy.
Both of those statements cannot be true at the same time.
Lemmy loves Luigi and cannot stand the idea that he’s anything but an avenging angel sent from heaven.
If you believe that, you can’t also believe he didn’t kill anyone.
This is different from the common phrase “he didn’t do anything WRONG.” Which recognizes that, yeah, he killed the guy, but it was justified.
Wrong, it’s entirely possible for a person to make memes celebrating him as a symbol of resistance while also acknowledging the very real possibility that he’s innocent
We can celebrate the ideal of a person willing to fight back while still defending the actual person who may or may not have been the person who did it.
“Luigi” is gestalt:
We hail as heroes those who fight against oppression even when, and often because, their fighting breaks ‘the rules.’
If Luigi shot this CEO, then he deserves our respect as a hero: A person who has sacrificed to remove a serial killer who was above the law. If Luigi did not shoot this CEO, then he deserves our support as a victim of the above system.
Sharing memes and keeping him in the public zeitgeist supports both.
Imagine changing your perspective based on new evidence? That really couldn’t be you.
I’m open if there is new evidence, so far I’m not seeing it.
We have photographic evidence, clearly showing his face, of Luigi in the area wearing the same clothing as did in the shooting video.
Then, on capture, they find the gun used in the shooting.
So, yeah, he plugged the guy. Criminal liability is a different question. Murder? Manslaughter? Justifiable homicide? That’s where the court comes in.
You don’t need a guilty verdict to say he killed the guy.
removed by mod
No, you have the cops word that those things are true and nothing else
No, we have video evidence and are fully capable of seeing things for ourselves.
removed by mod
My tinfoil hat isn’t tight enough for me to buy the conspiracy theory narrative. You really have to stretch to say he’s being framed.
We have video of him in the vicinity wearing the same clothing as the shooter.
He was caught with the gun and a manifesto.
He’s repeated those statements personally.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/luigi-mangiones-alleged-diary-entries-released-new-court-filing-rcna211132
"Instead of carrying out a bombing, prosecutors allege, Mangione wrote in an entry in October that someone should “wack the CEO at the annual parasitic bean-counter convention.”
“It’s targeted, precise, and doesn’t risk innocents. Most importantly, the point is self-evident,” the diary entry reads, according to the filing. “The point is made in the news headline ‘Insurance CEO killed at annual investors conference.’”"
It’s absolutely clear he’s the shooter. Denying that is rejecting reality.
Now, if you want to get into if he was justified, that’s a different discussion. My expectation is they will get him on the murder charge due to the extensive proof of pre-meditation.
The terrorism charge is bullshit though and everyone knows it. The public wasn’t terrorized by what he did, if anything a large number of people were cheering him.
removed by mod
You misunderstand… Nobody has to have personally seen him shoot somebody to say he shot somebody. This isn’t a court of law, we aren’t “proving” anything.
If you think he’s a hero, you acknowledge he shot the guy. If he didn’t, there’s no need for the hero worship.
If you think he’s a criminal, you ALSO acknowledge he shot the guy.
Again, either way, there’s absolutely no question he shot the guy.
You’re welcome to feel differently, the results of the trial will disappoint you.