Image 01 Image 03

UnitedHealthcare CEO Murder Suspect Luigi Mangione Charged With First Degree Murder as Terrorism

UnitedHealthcare CEO Murder Suspect Luigi Mangione Charged With First Degree Murder as Terrorism

“This was a killing to invoke terror.”

A grand jury has indicted Luigi Mangione with first-degree murder in furtherance of terrorism in the death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

“This was a frightening, well-planned, targeted murder that was intended to cause shock and attention and intimidation,” said Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.

Mangione faces life in prison without parole.

Other charges: “two counts of second-degree murder, one of which is charged as killing as an act of terrorism; two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree; four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree; one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree; and one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.”

“This was a killing to invoke terror,” continued Bragg. “This was not an ordinary killing, not to suggest that any killing is ordinary, but this was extraordinary and the New York State Legislature has set out both the paths, both the murder one and murder two, and this, we allege, is squarely within those statutes which talk about intending to do exactly what we saw happen here.”

Mangione allegedly murdered Thompson outside of a Manhattan hotel on December 4 for an investors’ conference.

Mangione fled.

In Pennsylvania, McDonald’s employees recognized him from the wanted posters.

The police found fake IDs, “a 9 mm handgun with a 3D-printed receiver, a homemade silencer, two ammunition magazines and live cartridges.”

Mangione is still in Pennsylvania, where he should appear in court on Thursday.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

None of these charges matter if the death penalty is off the table.

We are about to witness the quickest execution of all times.
Dead men tell no tales.

So Bragg can analyze a case and bring appropriate charges. Who knew.

    henrybowman in reply to Martin. | December 18, 2024 at 4:34 am

    I’m still not down with the current fad of adding terrorism charges because they’re trendy. Everything is terrorism, everything is semiautomatic, everything is systemic, everything is fascism. Jack has a grudge and shoots John, today, suddenly he’s a terrorist because people read about the shooting in the newspaper and “felt unsafe.” I bet they felt real unsafe when John Dillinger shot up banks, but it’s strange they never made him a terrorist.

      Evil Otto in reply to henrybowman. | December 18, 2024 at 6:16 am

      Pretty sure this qualifies.

      Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | December 18, 2024 at 7:16 am

      Maybe, but in this case it was terrorism. It fits the definition exactly.

        ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | December 18, 2024 at 7:43 am

        That definition is not what “terrorism” is, or ever was. That is a BS definition that came as a result of the crap we went through after 9/11 when Bush and everyone were trying to define “terrorism” without acknowledging that the terrorism everyone was talking about and always referred to was arab/islamic terrorism which had more to do with carrying out savage, barbaric attacks on uninvolved third parties than anything else. But mostly it was just about the arab/islamic attacks on the West, with “terrorism” only having been a euphemism.

        This assassination of the United Healthcare CEO is not any sort of “terrorism”. It’s first degree murder. Period.

          Bullshit. You are full of crap. The definition of terrorism LONG predates 2001, and terrorism has NEVER been defined as related to Islam, nor has it EVER been confined to Islam. Islamic terrorism is actually a relatively recent arrival in Western countries, which had already long had to deal with terrorism, and had already defined it long before they came across their first Moslem terrorist.

          ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to ThePrimordialOrderedPair. | December 18, 2024 at 10:42 pm

          and terrorism has NEVER been defined as related to Islam,

          Oh, really?? So, you are one of the morons who thinks that the “War on Terror” was actually a war against the military tactic of “terror” and not a war against muslims who were bent on the destruction of all non-mulsims – and most specifically, against the West??

          Yes … the “War on Terror” … had nothing to do with arabs or islam or anything. It was just about … terrorism, no matter who or where it came from and no matter who or where it was directed against … because islam was, of course, the “Religion of Peace”.

          Sometimes you just crack me up.

          You seem to be one of the morons who think terrorism was invented in 2001. The 2001 war is irrelevant to the definition of terrorism, which was done many decades before Western countries first started worrying about Moslems.

          ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to ThePrimordialOrderedPair. | December 19, 2024 at 3:51 am

          The 2001 war is irrelevant to the definition of terrorism, which was done many decades before Western countries first started worrying about Moslems.

          Yeah … “many decades” before 2001 was when we were dealing with global pan-arab terrorism (as opposed to later islamic terrorism) of the mostly marxist bent that was almost entirely sponsored by the USSR.

          Before that we had the immigrant anarchist and commie terrorists of the early 20th century … but back then “terrorism” just meant insane groups of completely unhinged lunatics who were looking to sow chaos and mayhem of any and all types. It was really just a description of people or groups that were waging something just short of a war on American society.

          But, from the mid-20th century on, when Americans spoke about “terrorism” they were specifically talking about arab terrorism (and later islamic terrorism, by mostly arabs) against America and the West. American s didn’t really care about the general tactic of “terrorism”, which is just another tactic of war and were only referring to arabs and later muslims when they talked about “terrorists”.

          But then people like you wanted to pretend that there was something about “terrorism” without any connection to arabs or muslims and these crazy definitions started coming down the pike … definitions that leftists have glommed onto to try and start calling everyone they don’t like a “terrorist” … as if.

          But, from the mid-20th century on, when Americans spoke about “terrorism” they were specifically talking about arab terrorism

          No, they were not. They were talking about all terrorism, including but not at all limited to that coming from Arabs or Moslems.

          But even if your claim were true, it would be irrelevant because the definition was already set by then. Terrorism means violence for the purpose of achieving political or ideological goals. That’s been the accepted definition for longer than anyone here has been alive. And it didn’t change when Arabs or Moslems entered the picture.

          And the overwhelming majority of violent crime does not fit that definition, and is therefore not terrorism. This murder, though, does fit the definition exactly, and is therefore terrorism.

          Or were you asleep when we had the “Earth Liberation Front” terrorism about 20-30 years ago?

Am I missing something? Etching something on some bullet cases doesn’t make it terrorism, nor does having an unusual motive.

The FBI’s official definition:

Domestic terrorism:

Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

Political? Nope
Religious? Nope
Social? The only possibility in the list and it’s a damn big stretch
Racial? Nope
Environmental? Nope.

Not arguing whether this charge was appropriate, just letting you know that’s not what NY state goes by.

They’re using § 490.05 1 (b)

(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or
coercion; or

(iii) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder,
assassination or kidnapping.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/490.05

    henrybowman in reply to Johnny Cache. | December 18, 2024 at 4:37 am

    Yeah, I’m still with Hodge. An insurance company is not a unit of government, and part (i) is so vague as to be applicable to either nothing or everything.

    ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Johnny Cache. | December 18, 2024 at 8:05 am

    (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

    So … pretty much any violent crime … or even just threat of violence … or even just someone’s inference of someone else threatening violence …

    I’m sure Alvin Bragg could find a way to try and call jaywalking “terrorism” with this definition.

    As to (ii) … that would sweep up most of the actions of most politicians and government officials.

    Yeah … they’ve got some real geniuses in the NY state house.

      No, you idiot. Most violent crimes are NOT intended in any way to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population”.

      The long-standing definition of terrorism is violence that is intended to achieve a political or ideological goal.

        ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | December 18, 2024 at 9:22 pm

        No, you idiot. Most violent crimes are NOT intended in any way to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population”.

        LOL.

          I don’t know what you’re laughing about, it’s a plain and obvious fact that not even you can dispute. The overwhelming majority of violent crimes are very clearly not motivated by any intent to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population”, or indeed to harm anyone besides the immediate victim.

          ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to ThePrimordialOrderedPair. | December 19, 2024 at 3:54 am

          Puh-leease … Criminals certainly intend to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” as the bulk of their actions. Many tattoos are put on to do just that. Many dogs, especially pit bulls and rottweilers and the like, are bought by people to do just that – intimidate the general civilian population.

          Street gangs do pretty much nothing but “intimidate and coerce the civilian population”. The list of examples would be endless … because the definition is absolutely ridiculous.

          No, they do not. The overwhelming majority of violent crime is not intended to harm anyone but the direct victim. That is an established fact and you are not entitled to dispute it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | December 17, 2024 at 9:05 pm

UnitedHealthcare CEO Murder Suspect Luigi Mangione Charged With First Degree Murder as Terrorism

This is completely retarded and a mockery. It’s not unlike the joke “WMD” charges they now like to routinely bring against people with normal weapons and bombs. They – the prosecutors – are making fun of us and making fun of our society with these ridiculous charges. Especially in New York where they don’t have a death penalty, anyway, and we all know that some democrat scumbag will just pardon the lowlife in 5 or 10 years, no matter what silly charges they convict him of, now.

Plain old murder one is good enough, and the fair and just punishment of death would be appropriate.

Terrorism … give me a friggin break …

The only people truly guilty of terrorism in New York are Bragg and the attorney general and their toadies and the dem officials abusing their government powers and working to make the place an unlivable hellhole.

Without the self-understanding of his thoughts and conclusions being wrong, it’s surprising that he didn’t kill the doctor who botched his spine job first. It’s obvious that in his mind, there is no reasoning stopping him from being both judge and jury. In the past, he became accustomed to accolades for his actions.

Mangione’s ego will be deflated in prison. Reality will set in and his *cause* and in his mind *justice* will be laughing at him. Taking his life will be his answer when this comes to fruition.

    MajorWood in reply to Jmaquis. | December 18, 2024 at 3:08 am

    Explain the botched spinal fusion to me?

      Jmaquis in reply to MajorWood. | December 18, 2024 at 6:27 am

      A physician who had Mangione’s X-rays post surgery, pointed to how long the metal work was. Small wonder he had so much pain. For anyone who has had back problems, it’s incredible how that pain can rule one’s life. Also, from reports, his Mother had extensive back problems too.

        MajorWood in reply to Jmaquis. | December 18, 2024 at 11:18 am

        They appeared to be standard length pedicle screws to me. You do realize that these are placed in the bone on either side of the cord and not driven into the midline.

    Sanddog in reply to Jmaquis. | December 18, 2024 at 4:11 am

    There’s no evidence the surgery was botched. He reported being very happy with it and advocated for others to get it in similar situations.

      Jmaquis in reply to Sanddog. | December 18, 2024 at 6:37 am

      There has been extensive coverage about Mangione’s back surgery in Hawaii. Many articles included the difficulties and pain that came from his spine problems. This all came out after his photo and name was published. but the surgery came after a surfing incident that occurred. It sounds like our information came from different sources, but his trial will undoubtedly cover this subject.

        MajorWood in reply to Jmaquis. | December 18, 2024 at 8:45 pm

        For someone with debilitating back problems, he sure was getting around pretty well. John Bonica, the father of modern pain treatment, was the first to reconize that a patients report of their pain severity was only one measure of treatment success. He came to this insight with a patient who reported a pain level of 5, and after several months of treatment reported a pain level of 5. But Bonica was the one who recognized that rather than being bed-ridden as in the beginning, his patient was now out playing golf. Gotta look at the whole picture.

If he was trying to terrorize people, he did a bad job.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | December 18, 2024 at 7:50 am

“Terrorism”, like “hate crime” is only a meaningless description that is given to indicate that some act is worse because of some thoughts.

The criminal act is the criminal act. Blowing up a school full of children is just as heinous an act whether someone is doing it “to further ideological goals” or just because he’s bored or, perhaps, just “for fun”. To call the same exact act “terrorism” in one case and just plain mass murder in the two others, implying that somehow the first instance is worse than the other two, is crazy and just, plain stupid.

To call this “terrorism” is a virtue signal by people who like to let criminals run free (and will let this guy go, eventually) and it is just as silly and mocking as when they charged the Times Square bomber with having a WMD because he had a car full of gasoline and fertilizer. We all know that that is NOT what a WMD is. Even if he had killed 1,000 people, that is not anything close to a WMD and to call it that is just mocking society.

IMO trying to define this as ‘terrorism’ is a stretch. It was murder. If he had blown up the HQ for the company, was on a spree killing agents who sold the policies or was targeting the Executives of other companies who had this company as their insurer then there would be far more solid footing.

    Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | December 18, 2024 at 8:16 pm

    Killing the CEO was an attack on the company. It was striking at the head. The key point is that he shot Thompson, not for anything he had personally done, and not out of any personal animus for him, but simply because he was the company’s head. Had he been replaced that morning, Mangione would have let him alone and shot his replacement instead. (Assuming he knew of the change.)

Hopefully, a Jack Ruby will find him, given that New York no longer has the death penalty.