Was This Personal or Professional: (UHC CEO murder)

[escaflowne9282]

What charge do you think should have been brought against Daniel Penny?

I am not an attorney or legal expert, but If I am going to be perfectly honest, I thought the manslaughter case against Daniel Penny was a stretch to begin with.

I really don’t think anything greater than negligent homicide should have even been considered and possibly a plea deal should have been offered.

 

[SkateSand]

This is why I wonder why people think in this case there should not be a charge of terrorism. I think the charge makes sense, but I'm also really upset by this whole thing and maybe not thinking it through. I'm interested in reasons why it shouldn't be used here.

Here's my thinking on why it should not be a charge of terrorism: why aren't school shooters charged with terrorism? That seems to be way more accurate in terms of school shooters putting fear into the public. It's the hypocrisy of once again, school shootings being minimized as "something we have to live with" versus the panic attack from the powers-that-be when a CEO is targeted. They didn't even charge Trump's assassination attempt as terrorism. I agree that there might be plea bargain attempts going on with Mangione. Maybe they don't want a public trial garnering coast-to-coast attention and putting UHC's claim denying practices on public display. That seems to be the real fear.

 

[Tesla]

Here's my thinking on why it should not be a charge of terrorism: why aren't school shooters charged with terrorism? That seems to be way more accurate in terms of school shooters putting fear into the public. It's the hypocrisy of once again, school shootings being minimized as "something we have to live with" versus the panic attack from the powers-that-be when a CEO is targeted. They didn't even charge Trump's assassination attempt as terrorism. I agree that there might be plea bargain attempts going on with Mangione. Maybe they don't want a public trial garnering coast-to-coast attention and putting UHC's claim denying practices on public display. That seems to be the real fear.

This. Said much better than I could.

 

[PRlady]

Here's my thinking on why it should not be a charge of terrorism: why aren't school shooters charged with terrorism? That seems to be way more accurate in terms of school shooters putting fear into the public. It's the hypocrisy of once again, school shootings being minimized as "something we have to live with" versus the panic attack from the powers-that-be when a CEO is targeted. They didn't even charge Trump's assassination attempt as terrorism. I agree that there might be plea bargain attempts going on with Mangione. Maybe they don't want a public trial garnering coast-to-coast attention and putting UHC's claim denying practices on public display. That seems to be the real fear.

If I were running Comms at UHC I surely would try to avoid a trial, because there’s no way the defense doesn’t work in the “crimes” of the victim’s company.

Terrorism is also a federal crime so wouldn’t that be tried in a federal court? I’m obviously not a lawyer.

 

[once_upon]

Terrorism is also a federal crime so wouldn’t that be tried in a federal court? I’m obviously not a lawyer.

I know many county and state charges in my area include terrorism. What's weird about those cases is they are often individual cases such as domestic violence

 

[Private Citizen]

Are school shooters shooting children with the expressed intention to make people afraid to go school? Are they trying to influence government or school policy in any way? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Mangione shot Thompson with some expressed intent to coerce healthcare companies to change their policies "or else." It seems to meet the legal definition of terrorism, although I wouldn't say conclusively.

Terrorism isn't what makes you or me afraid or terrified. There needs to be an element of coercion or intimidation in the intentions of the criminal.

 

[BlueRidge]

Here's my thinking on why it should not be a charge of terrorism: why aren't school shooters charged with terrorism? That seems to be way more accurate in terms of school shooters putting fear into the public. It's the hypocrisy of once again, school shootings being minimized as "something we have to live with" versus the panic attack from the powers-that-be when a CEO is targeted. They didn't even charge Trump's assassination attempt as terrorism. I agree that there might be plea bargain attempts going on with Mangione. Maybe they don't want a public trial garnering coast-to-coast attention and putting UHC's claim denying practices on public display. That seems to be the real fear.

I certainly agree we should not have to live with school shootings and there should be major action to stop them. I don't see how that impacts how this crime should be prosecuted though.

I also think that any actions of UHC are immaterial to the charge and prosecution in this crime. If UHC is committing crimes then they should be prosecuted for that. A murder was committed here and that should be prosecuted for what it is.

I totally don't understand how the target of the killing's profession mitigates cold-blooded murder.

 

[once_upon]

Then I don't understand your reasoning, which seems to be people were frightened and felt terror.

School shootings are often proceeded by manifesto, calls to schools with a vague reference as to who but mostly with threats and reports of carrying guns. Parents and caregivers keep their children out of schools on the days it has been premeditated to happen

 

[escaflowne9282]

Are school shooters shooting children with the expressed intention to make people afraid to go school? Are they trying to influence government or school policy in any way? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Mangione shot Thompson with some expressed intent to coerce healthcare companies to change their policies "or else." It seems to meet the legal definition of terrorism, although I wouldn't say conclusively.

Yes, but UHC and other healthcare agencies are not government agencies . NYS Penal Law is specific that the policy change through coercion and intimidation refers to a unit of government. They would need to look at whether this was done to change government policy. I don't know that Mangione ever mentioned the government.
That also isn't the argument that Alvin Bragg put forth. He specifically said that Luigi Mangione "intended to invoke terror".

 

[SkateSand]

I certainly agree we should not have to live with school shootings and there should be major action to stop them. I don't see how that impacts how this crime should be prosecuted though.

I also think that any actions of UHC are immaterial to the charge and prosecution in this crime. If UHC is committing crimes then they should be prosecuted for that. A murder was committed here and that should be prosecuted for what it is.

I totally don't understand how the target of the killing's profession mitigates cold-blooded murder.

I don't think anyone in this thread has stated or implied that cold-blooded murder is acceptable. I think it's more that people have more sympathy for innocent schoolchildren than a health insurance CEO from a company with a negative track record - and that's it. That doesn't mean murder is ever acceptable. But I think it's naive to think that UHC's claims history isn't being considered by the prosecutors, who seem rightfully concerned that Mangione might be seen as a sympathetic figure to some in a jury, or if not that, then bringing the abuses of healthcare claims to the forefront of publicity, which UHC would definitely not want. I'm a cynic - I see corporate greed as having a seat at the table with these goings-on when they should have no say whatsoever.

 

[BlueRidge]

I'm not getting how UHC's claims history would be the concern of prosecutors? They aren't prosecuting UHC, they are prosecuting Mangione for the shooting. If you mean that they are charging him with terrorism to innocculate the prosecution from sympathy on the part of the jury, I don't really get that either. The jury won't be considering UHC, they will be considering the shooting.

I'm not a lawyer but I would think that the judge would preclude any discussion of UHC's claims history from being discussed during the trial.

If UHC has committed crimes during its health insurance business it should be prosecuted. I'd guess that a lot of what they do that is objectionable is not illegal at this time. And that means it is up to elected officials to deal with the issues of the health insurance industry that allow UHC to get away with denying claims and denying care. It just is not the business of one individual to kill someone, even if they think UHC is doing bad things.

This brings us back around to the notion that while we don't condone killing we do think that the evils of the health insurance industry should be the main issue in this killing. And that to me is saying that this was an understandable political act, something I find dangerous.

 

[skategal]

I'll never understand why mass shootings are not terrorism but a targeted hit on a CEO is.

 

[BlueRidge]

I'll never understand why mass shootings are not terrorism but a targeted hit on a CEO is.

Mass shootings are terrorism if there is a political motive.

Terrorism has a political component. This shooting has a political component, pretty much everyone agrees with this.

I get the feeling people are mad that this killing got so much attention and feel like it is because of who the victim was so therefore there is something unjust about that because other killings don't get so much attention. But that's not really an argument for not prosecuting it, is it?

 

[SkateSand]

Mass shootings are terrorism if there is a political motive.

Terrorism has a political component. This shooting has a political component, pretty much everyone agrees with this.

I get the feeling people are mad that this killing got so much attention and feel like it is because of who the victim was so therefore there is something unjust about that because other killings don't get so much attention. But that's not really an argument for not prosecuting it, is it?

Who is saying Mangione shouldn't be prosecuted?

 

[barbk]

Here's my thinking on why it should not be a charge of terrorism: why aren't school shooters charged with terrorism? That seems to be way more accurate in terms of school shooters putting fear into the public. It's the hypocrisy of once again, school shootings being minimized as "something we have to live with" versus the panic attack from the powers-that-be when a CEO is targeted. They didn't even charge Trump's assassination attempt as terrorism. I agree that there might be plea bargain attempts going on with Mangione. Maybe they don't want a public trial garnering coast-to-coast attention and putting UHC's claim denying practices on public display. That seems to be the real fear.

UHC's claim-denying practices have no place in Mangione's trial.

 

[Private Citizen]

Yes, but UHC and other healthcare agencies are not government agencies . NYS Penal Law is specific that the policy change through coercion and intimidation refers to a unit of government. They would need to look at whether this was done to change government policy. I don't know that Mangione ever mentioned the government.

But there's also "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," which I think could apply to UHC workers or insurance workers more broadly? I'm not convinced that this was terror, but I think the charge is reasonable. A conviction would be a different story.

I do think we have to be careful about labelling things we don't like or that upset us as terrorism. I think the DA here has stayed on the right side of that line. We'll see (maybe) where a jury lands.

 

[BlueRidge]

Who is saying Mangione shouldn't be prosecuted?

People are saying he shouldn't be prosecuted for terrorism not that he shouldn't be prosecuted, sorry. But this article documents that there is a lot of sympathy for Mangione's act out there:

Yes, many young adults seem to sympathize with killing of health-care CEO

ETA: just thinking more about the comparison with school shootings and maybe this really is a lot closer to those than to terrorism, if one thinks about Mangione, he was a bit older so able to express a political motive, but it sure seems like from what we know now that he was an unhappy disaffected individual who wanted to do something big, quite a lot like many of the school shooters.

A lot of school shooters die in the act and others are minors, but what have some of those who didn't die and were adults at the time of the shooting been charged with?

 

[Vagabond]

I am coming to this late, but I am curious to know what "a civilian population" means. If it can include top-level executives in a particular industry, I don't see why Mangione cannot be charged with terrorism.

Maybe I will look this up in my spare time.

 

[Judy]

Maybe this will help explain. I’ve just copied and pasted. In Canada pre-mediated murder is always first degree murder but New York .. maybe other states are different too but I remember thinking how weird that was.

But under New York law, a first-degree murder chargeonly applies to a narrow list of aggravating circumstances, including when the victim is a judge, a police officer or a first responder, or when the killing involves a murder-for-hire or an intent to commit terrorism, legal experts told CNN.

 

[SkateSand]

People are saying he shouldn't be prosecuted for terrorism not that he shouldn't be prosecuted, sorry. But this article documents that there is a lot of sympathy for Mangione's act out there:

Yes, many young adults seem to sympathize with killing of health-care CEO

ETA: just thinking more about the comparison with school shootings and maybe this really is a lot closer to those than to terrorism, if one thinks about Mangione, he was a bit older so able to express a political motive, but it sure seems like from what we know now that he was an unhappy disaffected individual who wanted to do something big, quite a lot like many of the school shooters.

A lot of school shooters die in the act and others are minors, but what have some of those who didn't die and were adults at the time of the shooting been charged with?

I don't think they've been charged with terrorism, but I can't offer statistics to verify that. I agree that Mangione seems like an unhappy disaffected individual who wanted to do something big. And that's why it seems over the top to charge him with terrorism. It's murder, obviously, but I think there is disagreement here as to whether it meets the standard of what many of us think is terrorism. And if it does not, then I think it's probably a calculated ploy by the DA to encourage a plea bargain.

 

[Sparks]

This discussion got me thinking about Dylann Roof. That was also terrorism, IMO
Yet, he wasn't charged as such.
Why? https://www.justsecurity.org/25071/reason-dylann-roof-charged-terrorism/

It's quite confusing.

 

[BlueRidge]

I don't think they've been charged with terrorism, but I can't offer statistics to verify that. I agree that Mangione seems like an unhappy disaffected individual who wanted to do something big. And that's why it seems over the top to charge him with terrorism. It's murder, obviously, but I think there is disagreement here as to whether it meets the standard of what many of us think is terrorism. And if it does not, then I think it's probably a calculated ploy by the DA to encourage a plea bargain.

I don't understand why they would encourage a plea bargain. Unless there's some really unlikely misidentification of the shooter, it seems like an open and shut case. Apparently, if its not terrorism in NY State then the charge would have to be second degree murder, which seems to me ought to be plenty.

I'm not pretending about my reason for wanting it to be called terrorism. Its because I want it to be clear that politically motivated crimes are unacceptable. But if he didn't really have a political motivation (and we don't know about 6 months prior to the shooting what was going on with him) then no, it shouldn't be terrorism just second degree murder.

(I'm against the death penalty so if charging him with terrorism tips it over into being a death penalty case, then no don't charge him with that. But that's not a legal argument by any means.)

 

[BlueRidge]

This discussion got me thinking about Dylann Roof. That was also terrorism, IMO
Yet, he wasn't charged as such.
Why? https://www.justsecurity.org/25071/reason-dylann-roof-charged-terrorism/

It's quite confusing.

But he is on death row, so its not that being charged with terrorism means you get a worse punishment than you would have otherwise. Or that your crime was somehow less horrible because its not "terrorism." He was charged with hate crimes which don't pertain in the current case.

I see that there are arguments both ways about whether Mangione should be charged with terrorism, but people seem affronted at the idea as though it offended them, and that's what I'm not getting.

 

[PRlady]

This discussion got me thinking about Dylann Roof. That was also terrorism, IMO
Yet, he wasn't charged as such.
Why? https://www.justsecurity.org/25071/reason-dylann-roof-charged-terrorism/

It's quite confusing.

I don’t believe the Tree of Life or Pulse nightclub shooters, who also targeted groups of people, were charged with terrorism. They were charged under Federal hate crimes law, which makes sense because the targets were classes of people that trigger that charge. Healthcare execs are not a class of people under civil rights law….

If it can be proved that he planned to go after other healthcare execs, then perhaps he is like the Unabomber who targeted people he thought guilty of endangering the environment.

 

[allezfred]

I'll never understand why mass shootings are not terrorism but a targeted hit on a CEO is.

Or an armed and violent insurrection for that matter….

 

[BlueRidge]

Or an armed and violent insurrection for that matter….

Hundreds of people were convicted and are serving prison sentences for the January 6 insurrection. What is your argument that there should have been terrorism charges?

 

[BlueRidge]

I don’t believe the Tree of Life or Pulse nightclub shooters, who also targeted groups of people, were charged with terrorism. They were charged under Federal hate crimes law, which makes sense because the targets were classes of people that trigger that charge. Healthcare execs are not a class of people under civil rights law….

If it can be proved that he planned to go after other healthcare execs, then perhaps he is like the Unabomber who targeted people he thought guilty of endangering the environment.

What would be the negative consequences of his being convicted of terrorism?

eta: I mean would it have some kind of negative precedent or some such?

 

[PRlady]

What would be the negative consequences of his being convicted of terrorism?

eta: I mean would it have some kind of negative precedent or some such?

I think diluting the meaning of terrorism could be dangerous, if any crime that had some political content falls into that category. Especially with the stated intent of the incoming administration for revenge….

Israel throws around “terrorism” for any attack on its policies. BDS is “economic terrorism,” the ICC is “legal terrorism,” pro-Palestinian rallies are “psychological terrorism” - I realize this is now too political for this thread but it’s why I’m sensitive to misuse of the term. Of course, Israel is the target of real terrorism and has been for decades; this shooting is not that.

 

[once_upon]

Hundreds of people were convicted and are serving prison sentences for the January 6 insurrection. What is your argument that there should have been terrorism charges?

Yes

 

[BlueRidge]

I think diluting the meaning of terrorism could be dangerous, if any crime that had some political content falls into that category. Especially with the stated intent of the incoming administration for revenge….

Israel throws around “terrorism” for any attack on its policies. BDS is “economic terrorism,” the ICC is “legal terrorism,” pro-Palestinian rallies are “psychological terrorism” - I realize this is now too political for this thread but it’s why I’m sensitive to misuse of the term. Of course, Israel is the target of real terrorism and has been for decades; this shooting is not that.

I'm not convinced but I'll keep pondering.

Still wondering about Alexander Berkman back in 1892. I think he would today be considered a terrorist but whether the one act of attacking Henry Clay Frick was terrorism I suppose is different. And to note, when Alexander Berkman attacked Henry Clay Frick, Frick had recently been responsible for calling in forces who shot dead many strikers at the Homestead strike. To my mind, that didn't justify Berkman's act, but it did mean there was something very wrong with society which needed to be dealt with with laws passed by Congress. Ultimately that did happen due to progressives who engaged in political activity, elections, proposing legislation and organizing, not anarchists throwing bombs at oligarchs.

This thread has been a PI worthy thread for a long time.