837
‘Hannibal Lecter’ treatment of Luigi Mangione ‘backfired’, says fundraising organizer
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
837 points (100.0% liked)
News
27571 readers
6397 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know where this keeps coming from. I've got prosopagnosia, and even i can see they look the same.
It's the most insane cope I've ever seen and I don't get it either. It's an absolutely stupid theory for multiple reasons, mainly because all the "real" killer has to do is pop another CEO and suddenly the feds look very fucking stupid. Second, if Luigi really isn't the guy, it is trivial to prove he wasn't there. The shooter was tracked basically from the moment he set foot in new York, surely there would be some footage of Luigi literally anywhere else during that time.
They'll call the actual shooter a copycat.
He was arrested in Pennsylvania, what if was never in New York that night?
Would be trivial to prove with security footage.
Pretty sure it's a joke/reminder about jury nullification. "Luigi Mangione obviously isn't guilty -- the guy they got on camera looks nothing like him."
Poes law I guess. I've seen too many people legit conspiracy posting that Luigi is a scapegoat.
What because he was walking around with a get charged with murder starter kit and a signed confession thanking the feds for their service?
Nah seems legit.
I'm not saying his arrest was clean, I'm saying it was definitely him and not someone else. Maybe they used illegal means to find him or whatever, but literally just finding a random guy to charge is braindead level thinking for reasons already mentioned.
You're not wrong that it's fairly unlikely that Luigi isn't the adjuster. However, the security stills are the only tangible evidence we have right now and that's not enough to create the condition of "without a shadow of doubt" which is necessary to convict afaik. This is why the jury needs to be unanimous to my understanding
Furthermore, it's why we need to stop talking about him.like he's already been decided to be guilty
I'm definitely not saying they have enough to convict. Hell, if half the stuff his lawyer claims is true, he's as good as free. I'm just saying the idea that he's a deliberate scapegoat picked by the police/fbi/whoever is absolutely stupid.