If it’s found that he didn’t do it, will he get less popular because then he’s not based anymore?
If doing some real heavy lifting here. Assume “if” he didn’t do it the same things would be happening right now as if he had.
It should be the default assumption, even before all of the police fuckery was brought to light. He’s innocent until proven guilty.
If he did do it is the hypothetical, since nothing has been proven and there’s more and more evidence that makes it look like a frame job. Don’t take the police account at face value ever, they routinely lie to cover for misconduct.
I’d say maybe some would think less of him, but I think he’d still deserve support for getting railroaded.
My theory from the start is that they knew it was him, but found out via illegal means so they had to frame him some other way
And risk getting the case thrown out over all the other ways they’re pushing their limits?
I doubt it.
Parallel Construction works if you can prove it by legal means. They wouldn’t have needed to risk getting the whole thing nullified if they didn’t bother with his Miranda Rights or getting caught planting evidence on him. Parallel Construction needs precision, and nothing NYPD is doing sounds precise in the slightest.
This is most likely the case. He may be able to beat that charge, but juries are notoriously stupid.
Definitely. They’re claiming that a McDonald’s worker called the cops on a nondescript (well, kinda attractive) white guy? A hundred Luigis eat there every day, and the “Bartender that remembers someone from three days ago” is an artifact of cop dramas.
When I worked in fast food, I called the customers “wallets with feet”. Jeffrey Dahmer and Tim McVeigh could have come in together and I wouldn’t have noticed.
The defense doesn’t have to prove he didn’t do it. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. He can be found not guilty by a variety of mechanisms, still have factually done it, but because the prosecution couldn’t verifiably prove it, get released. He can still be a symbol either way.
Frankly if I were on a jury this would be enough alone. I could not vote guilty if I knew this had happened. That is more than enough Reasonable Doubt. Not that this jury is going to be able to deliberate or anything. They’re going to be bribed and or threatened so heavily that they’re going to convict no matter what.
Enough people are thirsty for him that he can ride the notoriety and social cache for years, regardless. Of the people most into him, most don’t care that much for the judicial system regardless, so the court’s decision won’t matter that much.
His views are oddly right wing and I don’t think he’s the sort to lead a movement, so he’ll probably fade into obscurity in the general public.
I couldn’t find a source for all of this, specifically the lapse in bodycam footage or that the backpack was brought to the precinct prior to the search. Still, if what his lawyer alleges is true, it should be ruled as an illegal search.
Sources: https://gothamist.com/news/search-of-mcdonalds-backpack-illegal-in-unitedhealthcare-ceo-murder-case-defense-says https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/28/us/luigi-mangione-evidence-illegal-search/index.html
FINALLY they’re starting to make clear that this poor kid was picked as a patsy/fall guy because the cops were about to get French Revolution’d for their blatant favoring of the wealthy and extended incompetence. JFC.
Why would you pick such a hot guy with such a fuck you attitude though? Dude is a poster boy for how screwed the system is that even someone as wealthy as him couldn’t get coverage.
Like I never get these patsy claims - who is recruiting for this and how? Why are they so bad at it? Why would they pick such a sympathetic target? Why pick someone with such a clear and obvious motive and then let the media hum and haw about how “the motive isn’t clear”? Why not control the narrative better than this?
Sorry, I don’t buy it. The cops could easily have planted the gun on the guy even if he did it. That’s what they do. The story still adds up, it just makes a conviction harder to achieve now, which is honestly great news.
Body cam footage had they potential to save the cops from these kinds of things. But they vilified it so strongly that it won’t save her now.
So, according to the motion filed on the 1st of may, which is what I assume the tweet is referencing, I think there are two things of note.
1st: When cornered at the McDonald’s, the police questioned him about his name and requested his id, then proceeded to ask him a bunch of different questions regarding his identity, the validity of his id, wether he had lied about his name, and any travel to New York. They, at no point at the McDonald’s, ever read him his Miranda rights, even after informing him that he was under investigation and detaining him, even after one officer told the others to read him his rights.
2nd: They moved his backpack to another table before informing him he was under investigation. They did not have a warrant to search his backpack, and given that it was far beyond his reach, and he was handcuffed when they began searching it, there was no reason to suspect anything in it would have been dangerous to the officers on sight. They found a computer chip in the bag while he was still inside, and did not “find” the loaded gun until he was outside and being driven to the precinct. After “finding” the gun, the officer searching the bag stated that they were searching it to make sure there “wasn’t a bomb or anything in here”. The motion I’m referencing suggests that this statement was a hasty attempt to justify the warrantless search post facto.
-
Miranda rights don’t need to be read until the person in question is under arrest.
-
If it was on his person at the time of his arrest, then they can search it without a warrant.
You don’t have to agree with the prosecution of Mangione but critiquing procedure a faux-legalistic perspective does nobody any good.
I am referencing from the motion to dismiss or suppress evidence given by the defense on the 1st of may. If you don’t like how I have stated it, go read it your self and see what they’re saying on the matter, but they explicitly request that transcripts from the arrest at McDonalds to be dismissed on the grounds that he was not read his Miranda rights.
They, at no point at the McDonald’s, ever read him his Miranda rights, even after informing him that he was under investigation and detaining him
So he wasn’t placed under arrest when they detained him? He wasn’t under arrest at any point while they were at the McDonald’s?
When is the specific point someone is under arrest? My understanding from people asking “am I under arrest or am I free to go” is the suspect is ‘under arrest’ as soon as they are no longer free to go.
Identity, where’d he been, his ID, don’t constitute “interrogation” for the purpose of Miranda rights.
That’s more or less true, but he didn’t ask, “Am I under arrest.”
No one will ever convince me that the weapon they “found” wasn’t drenched in Central Park pond water.
Defense attorneys claim that some of the body cam footage is missing including 20 seconds of when Mangione was being questioned by a police when an officer placed his hand over his body cam and the 11 minutes during which the backpack was transferred from the McDonalds to the Altoona Police Department Precinct. The motion goes on the state that once that officer’s body cam footage resumes, it shows her immediately re-opening and closing the backpack compartments she already searched and then opening the front compartment of the backpack “as if she was specifically looking for something. Instantly, she ‘found’ a handgun in the front compartment.”
As for the 2nd, the gun was only “found” after the body cam had been off for 11 minutes, and only at the police station.
According to motion filed by the defense on the 1st of may to dismiss multiple items from evidence, including the bag search, the police reported finding the gun during the warrantless search of the bag at the McDonald’s, not just during the second search at the police station.
