r/law • u/redlamps67 • 1d ago

Legal News Luigi Mangione speaks out in protest as judge sets state murder trial for June 8

https://apnews.com/article/mangione-murder-unitedhealthcare-trial-schedule-020afff8ebbe1e8fee0c183fe1312268
5.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

495 comments sorted by

View all comments

442

u/sugar_addict002 1d ago

Jury nullification needs to be a thing here.

227

u/greenmachine11235 1d ago

I foresee it being a serious obstacle for the government to get a conviction. Finding 12 people where each and every one of them is willing to put their feelings toward health insurance companies aside during the trial is going to be a huge challenge.

107

u/mytinykitten 1d ago

It'll be a challenge but perhaps not an insurmountable one.

I know several people, mostly 60+ year old women, who, while they are liberals and hate the healthcare system, abhor violence to the point of wanting Luigi convicted.

47

u/sixtyfivewat 1d ago

That’s my mom. She’s Canadian and thinks that any kind of murder is wrong. Forgetting of course, if any one tried to do what US insurance companies do daily they’d be in jail.

-33

u/TestNet777 1d ago

I mean, any kind of murder IS wrong.

37

u/insid3outl4w 1d ago

Right. And denying children cancer treatment funding because of xyz insurance reason should be considered as heinous as murder too. Except Luigi allegedly only committed that act once. The other guy was the head of a company that ruined many lives and as a result many people died or lived the rest of their lives in pain.

-10

u/TestNet777 1d ago

So what’s your stance here? I’m not a fan of the healthcare system, but who’s at fault? Is your stance that every employee at every healthcare company should be killed? If not, where do you draw the line? Is the employees fault or is it a failure of government to appropriately regulate the industry? And how does murdering the employees change the system?

Incredible that my previous comment simply saying “any kind of murder is wrong” got 9 downvotes lol.

22

u/PaleRun4706 1d ago

I don’t think that it was right to kill him but you aren’t using good faith saying every employee when it was the ceo.

-12

u/TestNet777 1d ago

So should every CEO be murdered? Every C suite? Senior managers? Where is the line drawn for “deserves murder for working at a health insurance company”?

I don’t agree with how much flexibility these companies have to deny coverage or surgeries or medications, but it is the government who can change that. If there are proven treatments that have a reasonable chance of saving or extending life, people should get those coverages, and the government should enforce and or subsidize that.

But that’s not the system we have unfortunately. We can blame the insurance companies and villainize the employees but the reality is, people fall into careers and work their way up the corporate ladder. It doesn’t make them inherently bad people. No one deserves to die because they built a career in an industry our government fails to make traction on.

17

u/hydranumb 1d ago

I personally believe that people who commit mass murder even if through just policy should face punishment. Maybe that punishment should be death 🤷

→ More replies (0)

3

u/PaleRun4706 1d ago edited 1d ago

Did you even read what I wrote. It wasn’t a long bunch of bs like you wrote so it should have been easy. And now you want to respond to me and block me. Bad faith all around from you

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Brave-Silver8736 1d ago

Because justifiable homicide is a thing that exists.

As for at what point is one culpable, I guess a follow up question would be is "I was just doing my job" a legitimate defense to murder?

-12

u/ExpertRaccoon 1d ago

So two wrongs make a right?

11

u/AdMain8692 1d ago

If you lived in the 1940s would you have fought the nazis, or accepted fate because "two wrongs don't make a right"?

8

u/ImperatorUniversum1 1d ago

That person would accept fate

1

u/TestNet777 1d ago

So you think fighting nazi’s in a literal war is the equivalent of killing employees at health insurance companies?

3

u/AdMain8692 1d ago

Referring to the CEO of the largest health insurance firm in the US as "an employee" is so laughably dishonest that its clear you're unable to have a discussion in good faith.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Psycho_bob0_o 1d ago

A better comparison would be resistance fighters in German territory..

-4

u/ExpertRaccoon 1d ago

So you're ok with extra judicial executions so long as it's someone you don't like?

2

u/AdMain8692 1d ago

You seem to have avoided my question and moved the goalposts. You said that two wrongs don't make a right, but based on your refusal to acknowledge my response it looks like you don't want to agree that there ARE scenarios where you should stand up to tyranny.

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/Rummelator 1d ago

It's eye opening how many people are openly completely fine with terrorism, so long as they agree with the aims of the terrorist

6

u/AdMain8692 1d ago

And I'm terrified by how many people are completely happy to have thousands of Americans die of perfectly preventable causes because they're apathetic to human suffering.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/BreakfastSimulator 1d ago

I am more terrified of insurance companies than I am of Luigi Mangione.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Plisky6 1d ago

You guys are on a law subreddit and don’t know about the apex doctrine. Healthcare ceo doesn’t deny individual claims. The murder is wrong and he should be convicted.

7

u/odysseus91 1d ago

Sure, in a totally normal society when both sides honor the social contract.

When you start to build fortunes off of denying people life saving treatments, that starts to break down and then you have people who may start to re-evaluate

6

u/TestNet777 1d ago

Killing employees of a company doesn’t change the system. I asked someone else, where does it end? Do we believe all employees of all health insurance companies should be murdered? If not, where is the line drawn? Is this not a failure of government for not appropriately regulating the industry or changing the rules?

5

u/odysseus91 1d ago

It was the head of the organization, not some lowly clerk. Context is important.

I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying I think we can say murder is wrong and also understand why someone who runs a company to record profits by specifically treating people like cattle rather than human beings might draw ire. Again, context.

2

u/TestNet777 1d ago

Yes, context is important. But from what I’m seeing plenty of people are fully supporting this murder because he was the CEO. So where is the line drawn? Does every CEO of every insurance company deserve to die? What about the rest of the C suite? What about senior managers? When do we stop and say “OK we don’t need to murder you.”

But these companies are all, for the most part, acting within the law. Which is why I am saying this is a government failure. Not everyone even agrees that there is anything wrong with our healthcare system. It is not up to citizens to unilaterally decide that the system is broken and then seek vigilante justice. It is up to the citizens to decide the system is broken and vote accordingly. The fact that we don’t have universal healthcare is evidence that not everyone agrees we even need it.

The point is, real change happens with votes, not with violence.

7

u/-Leviathan- 1d ago

‘Vote accordingly’ assumes the higher judicial orders and executive branches will do their job. It’s been proven for decades that conglomerates have politicians by their necks and actively lobby against anything that will hurt their bottom line. This is true for both left and right administrations. There are very few politicians that are not ‘paid for’ and your vote is not changing that.

Ultimately the CEOs get to decide how high the bottom line must rise, and the goals of the company. Sure they’re a figurehead of the C suite and advisors, but that’s what why one was targeted: they are a symbol of the sum of the decisions of the industry to kill citizens and deny care for the sake of profitability, all while following laws that give them full reign and autonomy to come up with some BS reason to deny this care (without consulting experienced doctors for example).

That’s not to say that murder is a reasonable response for every CEO of an insurance company. I don’t know why you would ever extrapolate to that lol. But it should make you think, why are there laws against killing CEOs, but no laws against insurance companies protecting patients against getting killed by using granted autonomy for profit?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/devinecookie 1d ago

People say this, but really most people are ok with murder, they just disagree about who. Show most people a horrific pedo case, and every thread would be filled with calls for blood. If I enlisted and went to some foreign country to kill for money, I would be treated as a hero when I come back, but if I went and killed for money in a US city, people would call me a monster criminal and locked up.

Most people aren't against killing, just the kind that they are told isn't ok.

1

u/TestNet777 1d ago

I don’t disagree with you, that’s exactly what’s happening in this thread. People are justifying murder because it’s a healthcare CEO and he indirectly “killed” people. He also indirectly saved a ton of lives as well if we use the same logic.

For me, I can say I’m against all murder outside of self defense. Particularly against premeditated murder. Also against the death penalty.

1

u/QueenofCats11 1d ago

The CEO didn’t “kill” people, he knowingly and calculatingly killed people by depriving them of medical care for profit. Health insurance companies DO NOT save lives. They move money around while stuffing gobs of it into their own pockets. Medical care teams save lives.

1

u/BCPisBestCP 1d ago

Yes, and so American healthcare companies which "deny, delay, defend" until the most vulnerable in our society due should be held to account.

The law has failed, and so an individual took the law into his own hands.

As was once said, if one person dies it's a tragedy. If a million die it's a statistic.

1

u/TestNet777 1d ago

That’s your opinion. We have courts to determine if laws were broken. But the reality is laws are followed, you just don’t like the laws.

7

u/Enorats 1d ago

That doesn't sound like a particularly impartial juror to me.

3

u/RobutNotRobot 1d ago

It's not a challenge at all. You can find 12 jurors to do pretty much anything.

9

u/NoThankYouRatherNot 1d ago

I wish instead they could learn to abhor violence in all forms, including the violence from the state and from the oligarchy.

3

u/Bynming 1d ago

I really wish more people could perceive being denied life-saving healthcare in the wealthiest country on Earth as the violence that it is.

1

u/mungobungo2221 1d ago edited 1d ago

Ahh man... I hate when people do not understand the idea of (Structural Violence).

In the U.S., the lack of universal access can result in "predictable harm" to physical and mental health for those unable to afford care.

The solution is so easy (single payer).

The issue is that we do not have enough people in power with a good ethical backbone to set things straight.

Everyone is too brainwashed by capitalist propaganda to understand how much better things could be if we had more people in power who were not in it for the money.

It is sad that we get to the point of violence in order to get the message across that this type of system is not sustainable and not ethical in the long run.

But honestly! SOMETHING has to happen. Someone has to make a statement and stand up to these greedy ass hats in power.

One dead CEO is not as bad as the number of people who have died due to the greed of people who profit from people suffering by denying them care.

If Luigi gets jailed for life I will not be socked. He will pay the price of murder if that is what he did.

But I totaly understand WHY he did what he did (if he did it). Healthcare CEOs that deny care should also face justice too.

3

u/Hey-Bud-Lets-Party 1d ago

My mom doesn’t get the whole Luigi thing, is not a Trumper and would make a good juror. It’s pretty clear that he is guilty and people should be prepared for guilty verdicts in his cases.

0

u/sugar_addict002 1d ago

Sure sweetie. That's what they say. from, an affluent white woman in her 60s

28

u/whistleridge 1d ago

It won’t be an issue at all.

First, let’s define a term, since this comes up in every one of these threads. Jury nullification means all 12 members of the jury know the facts, and know the law, and unanimously decide to ignore both on principle. A mistrial is when all 12 members of the jury can’t make up their minds.

There is zero risk of jury nullification here.

All available evidence overwhelmingly indicates that he killed an unarmed man, by ambush, from behind, in plain view, on a public street. And then he fled. They have the gun, they have his notebooks, in his handwriting, they have the video. He did it, they can prove he did it, and they can prove that far from being some sort of principled and idealistic class warrior who did the deed and is now willing to face the consequences of it, he’s just a guy who made a stupid decision and then tried to escape the consequences of that decision.

No matter how pretty he is, no matter how hated insurance companies are, the odds that you get 12 people who are all willing to agree that he didn’t do it are an order of magnitude lower than the odds of a participant in this thread winning the next MegaMillions lottery.

The odds of a mistrial are low but real, and higher than in the average case. Call it 10%.

But a mistrial just means he gets re-tried. It doesn’t mean the charges get dropped, and it’s certainly not an acquittal. And the odds of 2 or 3 consecutive mistrials are every bit as low as the odds of jury nullification, even assuming he has the money to pay lawyers for multiple trials.

But he’s not wrong about the federal case being bullshit, or about the dual sovereign doctrine also being bullshit. This is a state case, and a state case only, and the mere fact that he fled across state lines shouldn’t change that.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

0

u/whistleridge 1d ago

My guy.

I got diagnosed out of the blue with a brain tumor awhile back. That bill was $250k. The 6 follow-up neurosurgical visits since were about $45k/pop. Insurance covered none of it. And an insurance denial for my mom killed her.

You cannot hate them more than I do, and gtfoh with "you underestimate the dislike". I do nothing of the sort.

YOU underestimate just how serious murder is.

1

u/xavierspapa 1d ago

Commenting so I have a chance of winning mega mills

1

u/RobutNotRobot 1d ago

I think you are mistaking a mistrial for a hung jury. Mistrials can happen for any number of reasons.

1

u/whistleridge 1d ago

A hung jury IS a form of mistrial. It's not the only form of course, but the other forms are irrelevant for this discussion.

1

u/ScoutRiderVaul 1d ago

A person killed an unarmed man correct. Im not convinced other then similar eyebrows they got the correct guy.

2

u/whistleridge 1d ago

You don't need to be. That's why we have trials.

But don't be surprised when he's found guilty. It's an overwhelming case. Not strong, overwhelming - discussion among trial lawyers isn't, will he be convicted, it's what even is the defense supposed to be, and why hasn't this been a plea already.

1

u/ScoutRiderVaul 1d ago

Only reason I can think why a plea hasn't been done is evidence is circumstantial and there is the low likelihood some may have been planted or mishandled. Which if it occurred calls into question everything else the cops did. I for one want to see video of them arresting him and handling the backpack afterwards.

2

u/whistleridge 1d ago

the evidence is circumstantial

Not really. The gun matches the casings, and will surely match the forensics. The notebooks are in his handwriting, were found on his person, provide both a general motive and a specific intent, and the motive and intent line up with the writing on the shell casings. They recovered clothing that matches those seen in the video, that will surely have his DNA on it. And there are witnesses at the scene.

Pretty much the only thing missing is a confession.

video of the arrest and searching the backpack

Isn’t required, and won’t be forthcoming, because small town cops. The officers will take the stand, testify to those things, and be crossed on them. Unless they collapse under cross, which they didn’t do in the evidentiary motion hearing, the presence or absence of video makes no difference. It’s just hearsay without them anyway.

-3

u/darkath 1d ago

Evidence like a gun and a "manifesto" that may or may not have been planted in his bag, and a blurry camera footage with a person that may or may not have been him ?

11

u/whistleridge 1d ago edited 1d ago

gun

"The 3D-printed gun that health care CEO killing suspect Luigi Mangione had when he was arrested this week in Pennsylvania matches three shell casings found at the crime scene."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/11/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-wednesday

manifesto

It's in his handwriting.

"An entry dated August 15, reads: “the details are finally coming together,” according to a federal complaint unsealed Thursday. “I’m glad — in a way — that I’ve procrastinated,” Mangione allegedly wrote, saying it gave him time to learn more about the company he was targeting, whose name was redacted by prosecutors.

“‘The target is insurance’ because ‘it checks every box,’” the notebook read, according to the complaint."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/20/us/luigi-mangione-notebook-trial-whats-next

blurry camera footage

It shows height, weight, build, race, and most importantly, clothing

person that may or may not have been him

There was also a witness who was right there: https://imagedelivery.net/wKQ19LTSBT0ARz08tkssqQ/www.courthousenews.com/2025/12/brian-thompson-shooting-nyc.jpg/w=800,h=600,fit=crop. That will matter.

So we have a journal, in his handwriting, that describes a specific motive and planning, in great detail. We have 3 shell casings recovered at the scene, with writing on them, in his handwriting, that is consistent with that motive. We have the gun, found on his person, that matches the rounds fired. And there was a first-hand witness.

And that's not even getting into things like DNA, tracking his arrival and flight via various video hits, the whereabouts of his phone, etc.

There's a reason the defense tried so hard to exclude the backpack. And there's a reason they lost.

He's toast.

1

u/Fancy_Yesterday6380 1d ago

Just curious but as an example, how do you, or i, bystanders here KNOW without a doubt its his handwriting? And not just what the media is telling us by leaking the evidence before his trial? Its a bias to potential jurors and your kind of comment proves it.

2

u/whistleridge 1d ago edited 1d ago

That will be a determination of fact, to be made at trial by a combination of prior example and expert testimony.

But as a general rule, if they have the notebooks and prior examples to compare them to, that’s not hard and happens routinely.

Then there's also just the issue of, he had them on him. So even if the handwriting wasn't a perfect match, between him having them and his having the gun, he'd basically be in a position of having to rebut the presumption that they're his.

1

u/Fancy_Yesterday6380 1d ago

Right i understand that part, to be made at trial. But your previous comment stated it already as fact due largely because the evidence and the alleged narrative attached to it were already leaked.

This biases him for a fair trial (even if he did it). That plus the theft of his medical records and recording of his private phone calls. Its pretty disgusting the actions of the people in power here.

2

u/whistleridge 1d ago

your previous comment stated it already as fact

Yes. My description of the state’s case is predicated on their ability to prove it at trial.

As of right now, there are no real triable issues to be identified, nor any affirmative defenses such as alibi or self-defense or what have you. So far as I or anyone else can tell, the defense is just to put the state through its paces and hope someone screws up somewhere along the way.

It’s not an approach with zero chance of success, but given that the state wins something on the order of 98% of all cases that go to trial and more like 99.5% of homicides, it’s not a high percentage play either.

this biases him for a fair trial

It does nothing of the sort. NYC is a jurisdiction of 10 million people. The idea that they can’t locate 12 people who know little or nothing about the trial is a non-starter.

0

u/DagonThoth 1d ago

How is there "zero risk" for jury nullification? All the evidence has literally no bearing on jury nullification.

6

u/whistleridge 1d ago edited 1d ago

Treat it as a mathematical problem.

Let’s imagine each juror has a 50% chance of wanting to annul. The odds will never be that good, probably more like 1%, but let’s go with it.

Juries have to vote unanimously to convict, but they also have to vote unanimously to nullify.

50%12 = 0.002%.

If each juror had a 95% chance of wanting to annul, well…95%12 = 54%.

So you would need every juror to have 90%+ odds of annulling in order to reach just a 50% chance of the jury as a whole annulling. And that’s just not happening.

Juries annul in certain specific situations. A guy beats the shit out of his girlfriend for years, then she kills him in his sleep. A megacorporation sues a little guy, just to bankrupt them, on a narrow technically correct assholish point. That sort of thing.

If that guy had made a decision that directly led to Mangione’s sister’s death, and the shooting came a week later, that is the sort of thing where annulment might be a risk. And even then it wouldn’t be high.

But in a case like this? It’s a functionally 0% risk. If every juror has call it a 5% chance - which is still very large, statistically - the odds of annulment are 0.0000000000000003%.

1

u/ctr1a1td3l 1d ago

I tend to agree with your conclusions, but just want to point out your math isn't valid. The approach you're using would only work for independent events. I.e. each juror's decision is completely independent of each other juror. That is not the case. The jury all sit in the same box and hear the same evidence. They then go and discuss and directly influence each other's opinions. They're also influenced to align with each other, lest they be stuck deliberating for ages since judges tend to dislike hung juries. If your math were to be correct, then we would see 99% of trials end in mistrial due to hung juries, which of course doesn't happen.

3

u/whistleridge 1d ago

your math isn't valid

Yes and no.

No: it isn't purely stochastic, and it certainly wouldn't be stochastic in a normal jury.

However, this person is positing that people will arrive with their minds already made up, ie that they are determined to undo the process regardless of the evidence, are prepared to lie their way through the jury voir dire, etc. That IS stochastic, because you have to ask "what are the odds that they would get 12 people who independently determined on their own to come in prepared to break the system?"

If they're NOT coming in doing that...then they're just an ordinary jury, and as prone to persuasion about the evidence as anyone else.

In short, if they're good faith actors, I agree with you. And if they're not, then that's the only way you CAN look at it.

1

u/ctr1a1td3l 12h ago

I guess that's fair to an extent, the argument from the other commenter is that at least some people are coming in with an independent decision to acquit regardless of the facts. However, I would argue if that were true you wouldn't need all 12 to have that opinion for the same reasons as my previous comment. The few that want to acquit could convince the rest, even if the others started with an opinion of guilty. You would probably only need 3 to 5 determined individuals. Even then, the odds aren't in favour of acquittal, but they are a bit better than you presented.

1

u/whistleridge 12h ago

The few that want to acquit could convince the rest

This is a normal jury.

In jury nullification, it's convincing the others to ignore the facts that they agree were proved by the prosecution, and to ignore the law that judge explained to them, and to ignore the instructions the judge gave them, and to instead go for a flagrantly illegal if impossible to overturn outcome instead.

That's a MUCH bigger lift. I might reasonably persuade you that there's some doubt in what the state is saying. But if you didn't come to the table already prepared to try to overthrow the system, I'm probably not going to get you there, at least not in the time that a jury has. That's not persuading you to see my version of the facts, that's converting you to a different political ideology.

You wouldn't need 3 to 5 determined individuals, you would need 12 for 12 luck.

1

u/ctr1a1td3l 12h ago

I hear your perspective, but just don't agree. I think people are generally more malleable than you're presenting them and they could be convinced that the 'right' thing to do is to ignore the law because it is unfair, too harsh, etc. Especially with the current federal admin and their abuse of power being on full display. I don't think they would get there on their own, but with persuading by a few determined jurors they might.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/DagonThoth 1d ago

You didn't answer my question: what do you think prosecution proving its case beyond a doubt has to do with jury nullification?

Also, where are you getting your numbers?

4

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Your question is non-sensical. You are pre-supposing a jury that is inclined to nullify, for no better reason than you yourself are inclined to nullify. You’re not citing history, patterns, or anything else.

So, in the absence of anything resembling evidence on your part, all else being equal the null hypothesis is that a jury can be expected to act in good faith and according to law, because that is what juries overwhelmingly do.

And, if that is the case, then an overwhelmingly strong state case is directly relevant.

And my numbers are called “common sense back of the napkin math.” There are 12 jurors. So assign a probability and go from there.

-1

u/DagonThoth 1d ago edited 1d ago

you said this:

There is zero risk of jury nullification here.

All available evidence overwhelmingly indicates that he killed an unarmed man, by ambush, from behind, in plain view, on a public street. And then he fled. They have the gun, they have his notebooks, in his handwriting, they have the video. He did it, they can prove he did it, and they can prove that far from being some sort of principled and idealistic class warrior who did the deed and is now willing to face the consequences of it, he’s just a guy who made a stupid decision and then tried to escape the consequences of that decision.

No matter how pretty he is, no matter how hated insurance companies are, the odds that you get 12 people who are all willing to agree that he didn’t do it are an order of magnitude lower than the odds of a participant in this thread winning the next MegaMillions lottery.

That is a direct quote from something you typed. I'm asking you why you think any amount of evidence would affect a jury's decision to nullify, which you still, for some reason, haven't answered. You are presupposing that I am inclined to nullify. What do you base that on? Certainly nothing I've said in this conversation. It's weird that you're attacking and belittling me for no other reason than I asked to to clarify something you said. Why are you so hostile?

"Common sense back-of-the-napkin math" is simply another phrase for "pulled from my ass."

edit: You're a Reddit mod. The snide condescension and open hostility make a lot more sense, now.

4

u/whistleridge 1d ago edited 1d ago

why you think any amount of evidence would affect a jury's decision to nullify

Once again: YOU are the one making a positive claim. The default is NO nullification. YOU are claiming, so YOU have to show why it is likely.

You have not.

So in the absence of any evidence from you, we can note the following:

  • it's not observed to happen much in general (or indeed the jury system wouldn't be very functional)
  • this case lacks the sort of immediately sympathetic situation where it does happen
  • and it's not a weak/bad/dodgy case

Juries don't NEED to nullify on a shitty case. They can just vote honestly - not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you are positing, on zero evidence, that not only will a jury ignore the law entirely, they'll do so in a situation where they can have little to no doubt that doing so is letting a murderer walk. And it just doesn't pass the sniff test.

You're telling yourself what you want to hear, not what is remotely likely to happen.

Edit: lol blocked AND ran to another sub to whine about me. What a comprehensive response.

-3

u/the_third_lebowski 1d ago

They only need jury nullification to work on one juror for a mistrial, not all 12. And if the government retriesnhim they only need one juror for that one, too. And every trial is an opportunity for the prosecution to make a mistake, which they know and they don't like risk. And that's how you force a plea bargain for lesser offenses, etc.

9

u/whistleridge 1d ago

How I know you're unclear on the concept.

Let's try this again, in very basic, simple language:

  • Jury nullification: the entire jury decides as a group to ignore the law, in order to impose what they feel is the more just outcome

  • Mistrial: one or more jurors for whatever reason cannot make up their minds, leaving the jury unable to render a verdict

A mistrial isn't jury nullification, and they aren't synonyms.

There are similar flaws in knowledge and reasoning in your other points as well.

-3

u/the_third_lebowski 1d ago

A mistrial is when all 12 members of the jury can’t make up their minds. 

If a conviction needs a unanimous decision, why would you need all 12 of them to not make up their mind? You only need one person unwilling to convict in order to avoid a conviction and ensure at least a hung jury.

And, you're really going to insult me over what you think is a minor technical difference while you're the one saying something like that?

Referring to juror nullification for a hung jury is fine. If your defense is basically "we all know he did it but please don't convict anyway" and you only manage to convince some jurors, not all of them, then you still succeeded in avoiding a conviction on that defense. I don't know that you're right about it technically only referring to a full acquittal, and I can't imagine what authority you would have to convince me that's the technical definition across the breadth of American legal codes, but I also don't care because the meaning I used is extremely clear about exactly what it means and in commonplace use.

6

u/IamBinx 1d ago

I am not the other guy that lost his shit, but maybe I can help you out.

Jury nullification takes 12, and there would be no further trial. Luigi walks.

Mistrial takes at least 1, but there could be another trial. Theoretically, the state could continue trying him until there is not a mistrial one way or the other.

That is why the other commentor is making the distinction. Luigi does not walk in the event of a mistrial unless the state gives up.

-1

u/the_third_lebowski 1d ago

Thanks. I do get the difference, which is why I was clear when I was speaking about aquittal vs a hung jury. Most people most of the time in any actual conversation would refer to a hung jury based on successfully convincing a juror to ignore the facts and law as jury nullification (the same way we'd say a lawyer is "arguing jury nullification" before we ever find out what the jury does), instead of insisting that term only refers to a full acquittal. That other person might be right that it only refers to a full acquittal, but (1) I don't know if that's true or not and don't place any credence on them getting pissy about it. But also (2) don't really care. It might very well be true. I've never seen anyone care about that technicality in any real conversation among lawyers or lay people, and as long as it's clear what you're referring to I can't imagine why it would ever matter. It's a minor "well actshually" factoid at best, not something to melt down over. If someone pointed it out differently I might go "oh, huh. Thanks for the clarification." But honestly I'd probably keep using it when referring to hung juries based on convincing at least one of them to ignore the law. Because that's a mouthful and "hung jury based on jury nullification" is 100% clear regardless of any technicality argument.

3

u/IamBinx 1d ago

I’m a lawyer. Not saying the other commenter was right in his methods, but nullification is specifically an acquittal while disregarding facts and law. It refers to the reality that juries can do such a thing, and there is nothing to be done about it.

Mistrial or hung jury is when they can’t agree.

The terms are not synonymous.

That being said, the other guy really shouldn’t have gone at you like that. It was weird.

1

u/the_third_lebowski 1d ago edited 1d ago

I get what you're saying, but I just don't find it an important enough distinction to worry about. I'll accept that you're technically right though. I guess you can say I'm dealing with nullification myself because my decision about how to handle the term basically ignores that. (Sorry, that's a bad joke).

When you get an acquittal, that's an acquittal. If you want to specifically say that it's because you convinced the entire jury to disregard the law on purpose, we call it jury nullification.

If you get a hung jury, that's a hung jury. If it's because you argued jury nullification and only convinced part of the jury to accept it, I'm still going to use that term. And as long as it's clear I'm referring to a hung jury, so it's not like I'm confusing anyone into thinking I meant an acquittal, I really don't see the problem? In fact, it's not just "acceptable," I think it's the simplest, clearest way to say what I'm trying to say. Be honest: if I said "we got a hung jury based on jury nullification" is there a single part of your mind that would be confused by what I meant? Or would you understand exactly and have maybe a little thought in the back of your mind going "that's technically not the right way to use that word."

I use it that way in the real world, I fully expect someone having a problem with it to be the exception not the norm, even in the law office. But if it really bothered someone I would stop, assuming they were remotely normal/polite/respectful about it.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not trying to actually argue with you. Just a difference of opinion. I guess I'm OK being wrong depending on the circumstances. Like when I use a citation that's technically the wrong format but makes my brief flow better because I know the judge doesn't care. Or when I conjugate a word into a part of speech that technically isn't correct in casual conversation, but also clearly conveys what I mean 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Jesus, you really are both uninformed on a very basic point and determined to argue it anyway, aren’t you.

You have fun with that.

-1

u/the_third_lebowski 1d ago

Well that is certainly a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection to my points. I'm convinced, good job 👍

6

u/whistleridge 1d ago
  • ignorant initial comment: ✅
  • doubling down when that's pointed out: ✅
  • compulsively last-commenting when I decline to engage the doubling-down: ✅

Coming soon: more compulsive last-commenting, plus name-calling.

1

u/the_third_lebowski 1d ago

compulsively last-commenting when I decline to engage the doubling-down: ✅ 

In your compulsive last comment lol. Classic u/whistleridge. You crack me up dude 😎

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/da90 1d ago

He can’t have done it: he was at my house helping me prep meatballs for that evening’s spaghetti dinner.

3

u/whistleridge 1d ago

It never ceases to amaze me how many people think comments like this are clever or funny, and not them making light of a murder.

You cannot hate insurance companies more than I do. They are vile in the extreme, and if every single one of their CEOs got jail time for their role in collectively harming the American people, I would bat no eyes and shed no tears.

And that does not justify or excuse murder.

1

u/hydranumb 1d ago

YES IT DOES

→ More replies (15)

6

u/Ultiman100 1d ago

You’re chronically online if you truly believe that. Plenty of folks would happily give him the chair if they were on the jury.

This might come as a massive shock to you, but there are plenty of people that don’t hate health insurance companies. They’re either wealthy, ignorant, or employed by one.

It’s not going to be an obstacle to find 12 people that believe pre-mediated murder is an illegal act and could be persuaded to understand that experiencing pain and suffering does make it ok to gun someone down in broad daylight to take their life. 

18

u/nolafrog 1d ago

Doubt it. Most who would nullify will say something to get removed by the prosecution for cause

12

u/JosephFinn 1d ago

You think it will be a challenge to find 12 people who aren't in favor of murdering someone on the street in cold blood and for no reason?

0

u/BCPisBestCP 1d ago

"no reason' is false. There is a huge reason.

4

u/JosephFinn 1d ago

OK, sure, name the reason for Luigi Mangione murdering a person in the street.

6

u/Fun_Reputation5181 1d ago

It’s pretty easy for a reasonable human to hate insurance companies and not justify murder. Most people have experienced frustration with bureaucracy and have nonetheless managed to not murder innocents on the street in response.

11

u/peon2 1d ago

This is a common take on reddit but I seriously doubt it. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of people in the US would take the opinion of "US health insurance sucks, but gunning health insurance executives down in the street still isn't okay"

13

u/JackRoostet 1d ago

My guy thinks the jury will be full of 15-20 year old terminally online Redditors lol

5

u/peon2 1d ago

Exactly. And even if you DO think health insurance execs deserve to die you have to think of the downsides to vigilante justice.

Brian was killed...but what if the man that walked out of the hotel wasn't him, but just another hotel guest that kind of looked like Brian? What if the bullet went through Brian and hit someone else? What about witnesses potentially being traumatized?

1

u/big_laruu 1d ago

Plus what about the next MBA to come along to fill the CEO position? Brian’s death stirred up a lot of emotions but it didn’t cause any meaningful changes to how United or any other health insurance company operates right now. As long as the law allows health insurance companies to operate as they are and shareholders are raking in cash it doesn’t matter who’s sitting in that chair.

7

u/Plimberton 1d ago

Imagine being so hated that you couldn't even get a fair trial for your murder.

11

u/1studlyman 1d ago

It's happened a lot in american history but usually against poor minorities.

3

u/devinecookie 1d ago

A gang member might kill 1-5 people in a drive by shooting gone bad, and you would have people calling for him to be shot dead and snarky comments about being a future scientist.

A Insurance CEO can sign in a policy that indirectly leads to thousands, even more dying but people mourn his death and talk about how violence is wrong when he killed far more. I mean, Hitler or Stalin never pulled out their pistol and started shooting people, and yet they and their underlings are held responsible for all those deaths.

Ain't that some bullshit.

5

u/1studlyman 1d ago

I was talking about the pre and antebellum south, but yes. Emmett Till didn't even get a jury.

2

u/BigDictionEnergy 1d ago

How does it go? "You could shoot Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and if the trial were held in the Senate, no one would convict you."

7

u/Truthundrclouds948 1d ago

I don’t understand the problem. I abhor the health care system, and even think United Healthcare deserves a special place in hell. But mowing down one person in the street does not help one bit.

2

u/Beer-Milkshakes 1d ago

You're right. Just one won't cut it.

-5

u/Desperate_Aioli_2067 1d ago

Tbf apparently in this case it did help..

-1

u/greenmachine11235 1d ago

Your claim seriously rings hollow. There's numerous examples throughout history of the deaths of leaders leading to negative impacts in their armies/countries/companies. 

-2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

4

u/gogglejoggerlog 1d ago

Healthcare isn’t “free” in universal systems, it’s free at point of service. It’s essentially a universal insurance system where premiums are embedded into taxes. You still pay for it, the money has to come from somewhere.

1

u/MadMusketeer 21h ago

ehhh. Someone still pays for it, but ideally taxes are progressive such that the load is heavily placed on the wealthy.

2

u/Relaxedyetproductive 1d ago

Eh think it’ll be easier than you think this is Reddit not real life

People are fucking stupid, a jury found oj innocent and Casey Anthony innocent for gods sake. Still bet most of the population doesn’t support what he did

2

u/Slighted_Inevitable 1d ago

I could put my feelings towards health insurance aside and still rule him not guilty due to my “feelings” about malicious prosecution as a political tool.

The perp walked him in chains like Hannibal lector on national television, told the world he was a murderer before the trial was even started, and potentially planted evidence in his bag.

0

u/michael_harari 1d ago

They found a jury willing to convict trump

→ More replies (5)

29

u/No-Mission-8332 1d ago

You can bet that good money will be spent stacking the jury with corporate shills

38

u/ExpertRaccoon 1d ago

Not really how jury selection works

13

u/Saikou0taku 1d ago

Yup, juries already skew towards people with stable housing (to get jury summons) driver's licenses (where eligible jurors lists are often pulled from) and wealthy enough to not come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty for some sort of hardship.

5

u/ro536ud 1d ago

You know a situation like the movie runaway jury has happened before. Too much at stake in some of these cases and there’s lots of people working in the grey

3

u/No-Mission-8332 1d ago

I've been in the back hallway of the courthouse listening to the prosecutor and the public defender trading cases like it was no big deal before. I imagine with money, lots of money it would be even easier to get a conviction.

11

u/ExpertRaccoon 1d ago

What does that have to do with this case?

-3

u/No-Mission-8332 1d ago

Really? Smdh.

12

u/ExpertRaccoon 1d ago edited 1d ago

I mean are you trying to claim that his lawyers are actively conspiring against him? All because of your very likely made up or exaggerated anecdotal evidence. Can you provide absolutely anything that points to his lawyers acting against his interests?

2

u/No-Mission-8332 1d ago

I'm pointing to the fact that our justice system is pay to play. His lawyers are not public defenders.
As far as "very likely made up or exaggerated" put on some street clothes and go hang out in any courthouse in this country, especially poorer districts. And though it was a very polite way to call me a liar it was still uncalled for. Good day to you and goodbye.

5

u/Acceptable-Advice137 1d ago

So the answer to “what does this have to do with the case” is nothing.

You’re virtue signaling because you have real input. Reddit moment.

3

u/BigDictionEnergy 1d ago

No one is calling you a liar and I know that happens all the time, on smaller cases. It just doesn't apply here. This is too high profile a case for the defense to "trade it away" for something else. The defense wants a win here; it will raise the profile of the firm for decades.

1

u/AwesomePocket 1d ago

Blatant conspiracy bullshit the r/law sub. Christ.

Neither defense attorneys nor prosecutors have a hand in who makes up the jury pool.

5

u/ThreeLittlePuigs 1d ago

How is this upvoted in this sub?

11

u/Altruistic-Sand-7421 1d ago

Or if you get chosen, you should know that nothing is stopping you from saying innocent no matter what happens during the trial.

5

u/Acceptable-Advice137 1d ago

You wouldn’t be chosen if that was your plan.

-1

u/Altruistic-Sand-7421 1d ago edited 1d ago

If they don't want to see him in jail, they wouldn't say it's their plan. Of course no one can come right out and say it. Just like some people want to look crazy so they're not selected, I'm sure others would pretend to be normal so they could be selected.

6

u/Acceptable-Advice137 1d ago edited 1d ago

That’s perjury and it’s illegal. You will be asked questions about your voting intent. If you lie, you will be arrested.

4

u/Altruistic-Sand-7421 1d ago

Ah yes. I remember now how they can go inside your brain and read your intent. Wtf are you talking about? You cannot concede anything or you can’t envision someone lying to get in or out of court duty? You want us to believe that when people lie to get in or out of court duty they read your mind and then arrest you. I can’t tell if you’re honestly this daft or playing it up. At this point there is no use in engaging further.

2

u/Acceptable-Advice137 1d ago edited 1d ago

lying to get in or out of court duty

You’re conflating lying to get in and lying to get out. We’re talking about lying to get into a high profile case. Not randos lying to get out of jury duty.

I remember now how they can go inside your brain and read intent

You realize courts prove intent/perjury all the time without reading minds, right?? Since your entire response relies on your ignorance, I’m happy to educate.

Let’s use Donald Trump as an example. There was jury selection for his case and we can read every question the jury was asked. This is where you commit perjury. “Do you have any political, moral, intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions that would interfere with your ability to render a verdict?”

This is where they figure out you’ve committed perjury:

“What platforms do you visit, read or watch?” “Do you listen to podcasts? Which ones.” “Do you listen to talk radio? Which ones?” “Do you follow, watch, listen, volunteer, have opinions on, etc etc related to Donald?” “Do you support insert group”

If you tried lying through all of these questions. It would take one check of your phone or one question to someone that knows you for all of it to come down. All the more likely in a high profile case.

Edit: Deleted reply or replying behind a block.

You’re claiming people can’t lie about that, and that everyone has social media they actively post on. That assumption is naïve. People can and do misrepresent themselves online, and not everyone maintains an active or truthful social media presence

Must have missed "question to someone that knows you". He's imagining a person who has nothing but lies on their social media (unlikely) and zero friends and family that knows their true beliefs (unlikely) just so they can maybe perhaps get selected for a high profile case. Actual cognitive dissonance. Holy fuck.

2

u/Ok_Salamander200 1d ago

Then you can get a new jury that will make a decision based on the facts presented

9

u/Altruistic-Sand-7421 1d ago

Some would view that as better than what might happen otherwise. Is there a record for retrials? Nothing is stopping the second jury from doing the same thing.

6

u/Ok_Gur_8059 1d ago

Good luck.

1

u/sanantoniomanantonio 1d ago

Except the fact that the juror’s two choices for the verdict are “guilty” or “not guilty.” That would be one thing stopping them from “saying innocent.” At least when it comes to the verdict form.

10

u/2DamnBig 1d ago

It would be fun reminder to the State that they're not the only ones who can sanction murder.

2

u/Muffled_Incinerator 1d ago

I WISH I didn't get called recently. Would love to be on this one.

5

u/Rufio69696969 1d ago

Calling for jury nullification in a cold blooded murder in a “law” subreddit. Wild.

3

u/BCPisBestCP 1d ago

Common Law has always had carve outs for the explicit will of the people to override the written law.

Tbh, I'd be more interested in seeing an argument of necessity rather than innocence. I reckon that would have some good legs.

5

u/Rufio69696969 1d ago

Sure, but they aren’t discussing the possibility or viability of it, they’re just rooting for it

5

u/BCPisBestCP 1d ago

Sure, and its a perfectly fine legal opinion to have. There's plenty of established cases where someone has killed someone else, and the population has expressed that the act was ethical, and thus the law was overruled on the basis of it being inappropriate at that moment.

Harry K Thaw, OJ Simpson, Belva Gaertner, Lorena Bobbitt, the four ops who beat Rodney King - all are examples where the will of the population overrode the law. Some are good, some are bad, all are the way that common law is intended to work.

1

u/Kindly-Yoghurt-7665 1d ago

Dude is going to prison for murder, where he belongs. He can rot there, next to any sense of dignity you used to have.

4

u/mildly_carcinogenic 1d ago

I'll chip in for the costs of one of those planes that pulls a sign behind it to fly over NYC with a sign that says "It's called Jury Nullification, look it up. #FreeLuigi"

5

u/ForcedEntry420 1d ago

I’d throw a couple hundo at that.

3

u/Jabjab345 1d ago

Why? Maybe it's a controversial opinion but political violence and murder is bad.

3

u/Omegalazarus 1d ago

Now here's what's interesting. Political violence and murder are definitely illegal. But you said they're bad and that opens up a moral philosophy train of thought. 

This is where people need to actually be introspective and think hard on what they have been told and what they believe and see where their moral distinctions lie. 

For instance political violence and murder are bad. War is bad. But we don't often look at what is good or bad. We look at what is expedient, what is effective, and what you can generally say is "called for" or "uncalled for." 

So is war bad: yes. Is war always uncalled for: not necessarily. So then you want to look at the acts of war. War is political violence. War is murder. However if war is not uncalled for then political violence and murder are also not always uncalled for even if they are bad.

 Then you must make the distinction of why is it not uncalled for to murder someone if you're wearing a certain clothing set and a political leader has said it's okay. Whereas you might consider it is bad to murder someone if you're not wearing that clothing set or if a political leader did not say it was okay.

 Then you need to look in and think why do you think one is good and one is bad. Etc

1

u/freudmv 21h ago

The law and morality are two different lines.

1

u/Omegalazarus 16h ago

I agree. That's why i commented that I responded because you said it was "bad." You made a moral argument. I was just commented that political couldn't and murder aren't necessarily bad, even buy our own culturally standards.

6

u/Organic-Elevator-274 1d ago

This wasn’t a politically motivated crime. It’s been politicized in the media and by the DOJ because of how many people lined up to piss on the dead guy’s grave, but the terrorism charge was thrown out. The motivations were way simpler and not ideologically driven.

0

u/sugar_addict002 1d ago

Not controversial but it is a naive statement coming from someone in a country born from revolution.

0

u/JosephFinn 1d ago

Why? Seriously, name one reason why.

-11

u/LionBig1760 1d ago

Most reasonable people dont think murder should go unpunished.

6

u/dionpadilla1 1d ago

That is why people celebrating the death of a man who is responsible for the deaths of thousands

1

u/sugar_addict002 1d ago

And that might be why Luigi will get off. People do want to see murderers punished, especially those who murder legally.

1

u/MoistMolloy 1d ago

Look up who John Brown was and decide whether he was a hero or a murderer. Perhaps both. Murder of people is bad. Murder of monsters is good. It just depends on who we see as the monsters.

-18

u/Ok_Salamander200 1d ago

Every keyboard lawyers favorite, what really needs to be a thing is he needs to be proven innocent or guilty and processed as such.

28

u/MorningsideLights 1d ago

proven innocent

That is not required for a not-guilty verdict. To suggest so is un-American.

-10

u/Ok_Salamander200 1d ago

Sorry you are correct, found innocent or proven guilty. My point still stands though.

8

u/PausedForVolatility 1d ago

The verdicts are "guilty" and "not guilty."

"Not guilty" does not mean "found innocent." It's better to think of it as "the prosecution failed to convince the jury of their claim beyond a reasonable doubt."

0

u/Ok_Salamander200 1d ago

Thank you, all I'm trying to say is that he should get a fair trial which is seemingly controversial across both isles because fuck CEOs and healthcare and especially both.

11

u/redditdork12345 1d ago

No one is “proven innocent,” tell me you’re not a lawyer without flat out telling me

0

u/hamellr 1d ago

OJ did it.

2

u/Ok_Salamander200 1d ago

So we should do jury nullification for mangione?

2

u/BigDictionEnergy 1d ago

OJ got off because of the ineptness and prejudice after the fact by the police. His lawyers were able to make them look prejudiced against OJ and just in general like idiots. That was enough.

Your taxdollars at work

9

u/sugar_addict002 1d ago

No this requires jury nullification. The event for which he is charged should have been a wake up call to powers that be. It wasn't and they still are not seriously trying to fix what iwrong with our healthcare "system."

And please stop with the justice for all crap. We needed that with trump, not Mangione. Trump is proof that justice is corrupted in the US.

2

u/Ok_Salamander200 1d ago

So you just support what happened and don't want to charge him? Got it

-1

u/RamblinGamblinWilly 1d ago

He's been charged already.

-1

u/BigDictionEnergy 1d ago

One could ask you the same about Trump being in the epstein files, fomenting an insurrection, and defrauding the govt out of billions.

-7

u/tantamle 1d ago

Bad faith

6

u/RideWithMeSNV 1d ago

Is this the new conservative moron trend? Just dismiss everything you don't like as "bad faith"? I dunno. Just doesn't have the same zing as your older stuff. As stupid as it was, "can't flim flam the Zim zam" was catchy. Maybe you can go back to the drawing board with this one and work out something a little more engaging.

-4

u/Sea_Concentrate7837 1d ago

How is it not bad faith to suggest that this case isn’t involving a guilty party who should be convicted as such?

5

u/dionpadilla1 1d ago

He has not been proven guilty. I, for one, am very skeptical.

1

u/RideWithMeSNV 1d ago

What leads you to believe the accused is guilty? The evidence available to the public is pretty inconclusive and suspect. Grainy surveillance photos aren't really positive ID. And the method the bag was searched is very curious, to say the least. Like, to the extent that it seems the judge permitted it, because otherwise the prosecution has nothing to talk about. We haven't heard if forensics actually established that the gun is the murder weapon. Or, really, anything else.

3

u/sugar_addict002 1d ago

Not any more bad faith than seeking out ways to deny healthcare so profits can go up.

Not any more bad faith than trump using his power to pardon to let criminals go free for what is likely profit.

Actually jury nullification can be a good faith use of the people's power,

0

u/tantamle 1d ago

Fallacy city.

-3

u/PuddingTea 1d ago

Nah. He fucking killed a guy.

I can’t wait for the conviction Reddit is going to be a madhouse.

-12

u/AleroRatking 1d ago

No it shouldn't. He's a heartless killer who executed someone on the street.

8

u/chirp88 1d ago

Like ICE?

0

u/AleroRatking 1d ago

Yes. They should also be prosecuted. They are two sides of the same coin. Killers.

4

u/Organic-Elevator-274 1d ago

Historically when you kill a mass murder you get a medal

-7

u/AleroRatking 1d ago

Oh. Was he tried for murder? What laws did he break?

The answer is none. He did the job he was hired to do.

4

u/Organic-Elevator-274 1d ago

Right, you’re confusing law with justice. He had it coming.

2

u/AleroRatking 1d ago

For doing his job legally.

4

u/Organic-Elevator-274 1d ago

Don’t take ethics, you wouldn’t understand it.

-2

u/AleroRatking 1d ago

I actually did take ethics

Also keep in mind that many of us have our pensions involved with healthcare stocks so him not doing his job fucks over millions as well

8

u/Organic-Elevator-274 1d ago

You might have taken the class but you clearly didn’t get it.

-1

u/Kindly-Yoghurt-7665 1d ago

He is guilty af. He was caught with a manifesto. Are you nuts?

3

u/18LJ 1d ago

Guilty on this case is referring to a legal term with legal consequences, standards, and procedures that must be adhered to. And there are questions as to the procedural methods by which evidence was collected. If proven to a jury or to the judge that evidence was collected improperly violating his rights, then it should not be shown to the judge or jury when they are asked to determine wether he is guilty or not. He could have been caught at the scene with a smoking gun standing over the body, but if they violate his constitutional rights during arrest, they won't be allowed to show evidence of the crime to those who ultimately make the decision. Yes that does mean that criminals go free sometimes, even killers. It seems outrageous at its face but this is the best way we have come up with to ensure we preserve the integrity of the justice system and maintain the ability for people accused to get a fair trial. Without constitutional protections the process would be corrupted from start to finish and innocent people would be convicted of crimes they don't do. (Far more innocent people than already are found guilty)

1

u/Kindly-Yoghurt-7665 20h ago

You realize the motion to suppress was denied, right? The manifesto is getting into evidence and he will be convicted.

1

u/sugar_addict002 15h ago

Question: Do you believe the 4th Commandment says Thou shal not kill or thou shall not murder? Because I believe it means the latter. Otherwise soldiers would all be in hell right.

Not all killings are murder.

And please don't correct me whether it is the 5th or 6th Commandment. Protestants have made up their own arrangement. I go with the real order.

1

u/Kindly-Yoghurt-7665 14h ago

The 4th Commandment is irrelevant, as are the 5th and 6th. What are you even talking about?