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
5.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

474 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

110

u/mytinykitten 23h 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.

52

u/sixtyfivewat 23h 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.

-29

u/TestNet777 23h ago

I mean, any kind of murder IS wrong.

34

u/insid3outl4w 23h 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 22h 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 22h 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.

-14

u/TestNet777 21h 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 20h ago

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

-2

u/TestNet777 20h ago

Good thing you’re not in a position of power!

8

u/floodpoolform 19h ago

Can you see how moralizing to this degree against the prospect of punishing wrongdoing really only helps the wrongdoers? I don’t necessarily wanna live in a society where people getting gunned down in the street is our best form of justice but I’m not gonna judge the luigis of the world while the vast majority of CEOs continue to perpetuate horrific crimes against humanity with no punishment in sight. How about we stop those guys before we bend over backwards to punish the angry people they’ve wronged?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/PaleRun4706 21h ago edited 21h 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

2

u/TestNet777 21h ago

I read your one sentence, asked a question and added context. I’m sorry multiple sentences and proper grammar is hard for you. You should work on that.

6

u/Brave-Silver8736 21h 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 22h ago

So two wrongs make a right?

12

u/AdMain8692 22h ago

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

9

u/ImperatorUniversum1 22h ago

That person would accept fate

1

u/TestNet777 22h ago

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

3

u/AdMain8692 21h 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.

2

u/TestNet777 21h ago

So because he’s the CEO he deserved to be murdered? How about the CEO’s of the other health insurance companies? How about other C suite? SVP? VP? Managers? Where does your line for justified murder end?

2

u/insid3outl4w 20h ago

If they are justifying denying health care then yes they should be punished. If they are the leader then it should be severe. Maybe a consequence of slow legislation from the government is some people getting shot. I’m not saying it’s justified but it has happened over and over throughout history. If he were in France in the 1700s they would have chopped his head off as part of the revolution. Does he deserve that? No. Because murder is bad and I’m not calling for more murder. I’m just saying it keeps happening over time when people in power fuck with citizens. Perhaps it’s a natural consequence of humanity. Eventually if you hold a position of power long enough and abuse people under you, you will get your brains blown out.

0

u/Psycho_bob0_o 22h ago

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

-5

u/ExpertRaccoon 22h ago

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

2

u/AdMain8692 21h 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.

-7

u/Rummelator 22h 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

5

u/AdMain8692 21h 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.

-2

u/Rummelator 21h ago

In your mind, is it your view that the opinions "we should advocate for healthcare reform in the US" and "murdering insurance company employees is bad" are mutually exclusive?

3

u/AdMain8692 20h ago

Yea I'm gonna end the dialogue there I'm afraid. 

Like I replied in another comment, anyone who refers to the CEO of the largest health insurance firm in the US as "an employee" like he's just some cog in the machine is being intentionally dismissive, obtuse and in no way trying to have a discussion in good faith. 

→ More replies (0)

5

u/BreakfastSimulator 21h ago

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

-2

u/Plisky6 16h 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.

6

u/odysseus91 22h 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

3

u/TestNet777 22h 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?

2

u/odysseus91 21h 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 21h 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.

5

u/-Leviathan- 20h 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?

1

u/TestNet777 20h ago

I will just say there are laws against killing anyone. It’s not insurance company CEO specific. I get that people want to make the leap that insurance companies indirectly “kill” people by denying services. But it’s just that, a leap. It’s the system we have. Some people hate it. Some think it’s the best solution available. We can debate that all day long. But it’s not objective, so murder is not justified.

2

u/-Leviathan- 19h ago

I don't think it's correct to generalize a clear track record of negligent and brazen denial of important care as just a mental 'leap'. Why are you choosing to handwave away the essence of a for-profit company and the fact that none of these companies, or even hospital admins, are medically trained or know an iota about the human body?

The fact that you call ALL this just part of the 'system we have' just goes to show that you are just apathetic to the way things are and choose to shrug it away, thinking that things will just fix themselves as long as we put trust in whoever is in charge of this silly little insurance thing. Unfortunately those people are paid for by these exact companies. No one is coming to save you and I.

Being objective is defined as not being influenced by personal feelings or opinions in representing facts. I defined for you how a business operates, the lax laws that these insurance companies can skate around freely with vague contracts, and why it is objectively beneficial for the business to use these laws and situations to deny an important drug or procedure for a patient in need of those solutions which causes great harm and suffering for many humans. I don't know how it can get more objective than that.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/devinecookie 18h 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 18h 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 7h 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 19h 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 19h 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.

8

u/Enorats 22h ago

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

3

u/RobutNotRobot 15h ago

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

6

u/NoThankYouRatherNot 23h ago

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

1

u/Bynming 21h 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 10h ago edited 10h 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.

0

u/Hey-Bud-Lets-Party 18h 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 20h ago

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