I mean, it was inarguably violence, and that violence seems to have a political motive (since changing or reforming the healthcare system is considered a political issue), and there is an element of using fear to further that end (since he would obviously have known that he cannot realistically change everything by himself or even just shoot every health insurance CEO, but shooting one while featuring a catchy phrase to make it clear the motive was being fed up with the health system, potentially makes all the other such CEOs and people in similar positions afraid that the next guy to try this might go after them next, and that more might be inspired seeing the shooting). Id argue that it does technically fit the term. People are just so used to that term being used alongside causes that they have no agreement with that they think it can never apply to a good one, or consider if it can ever be justified.
I’d argue the US for-profit health insurance system is state sanctioned terrorism of the civilian population, for profit.
What greater way to terrorize a population than to deny them and their families healthcare, under the threat of bankruptcy? How about the threat of bankruptcy either way, whether they’re insured or not?
The industry kills 30x 9/11 every year, bankrupts 500k, while stealing 500-700 billion from the population (compared to the public systems of the developed world). At the very least, it’s financial terrorism and extortion.
Saying “legally” isn’t much of an argument, IMO, not to imply you meant it as one. What’s legal or illegal is arbitrarily decided on by those in power, and arbitrarily enforced. The vast majority of these laws were not voted on by us and they’re rarely if ever reviewed.
It’s a joke of a charge. Fascist Christian terrorists can shoot up LGBTQ+ people and never be called terrorists by media or charged with it. It’s bullshit and only because he took on our oligarch elite
The point is that terrorism is only applied when it’s convenient for the ruling class. Hate crime murders are similarly politically motivated but don’t get the terrorism label.
He was wealthy enough to have no problems paying for all of his surgeries without insurance, tbh. His dad is head of Mangione Enterprise which owns and operates a lot of real estate including large resorts.
He had a Bachelors in Engineering and a Masters in Computer Science.
You can certainly interpret the killing that way, but there are many other reasonable interpretations, and to get a conviction you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Do we have a quote of him saying before the murder or publishing at any time something indicating that he was killing this guy to send a message to all the evil m************ who act just like him? If we do, your conclusion is warranted. If we don’t, your conclusion is speculation.
Let me give you a parallel. Imagine someone cuts me off in traffic and I pull out a gun and I shoot them. Am I terrorizing other bad drivers? Probably not. Probably I’m a psychopath dealing with road rage in a terrible fashion. In other words, the fact that other people can draw conclusions about similar behavior does not in itself make my actions threatening to them in any way.
I mean, it was inarguably violence, and that violence seems to have a political motive (since changing or reforming the healthcare system is considered a political issue), and there is an element of using fear to further that end (since he would obviously have known that he cannot realistically change everything by himself or even just shoot every health insurance CEO, but shooting one while featuring a catchy phrase to make it clear the motive was being fed up with the health system, potentially makes all the other such CEOs and people in similar positions afraid that the next guy to try this might go after them next, and that more might be inspired seeing the shooting). Id argue that it does technically fit the term. People are just so used to that term being used alongside causes that they have no agreement with that they think it can never apply to a good one, or consider if it can ever be justified.
I’d argue the US for-profit health insurance system is state sanctioned terrorism of the civilian population, for profit.
What greater way to terrorize a population than to deny them and their families healthcare, under the threat of bankruptcy? How about the threat of bankruptcy either way, whether they’re insured or not?
The industry kills 30x 9/11 every year, bankrupts 500k, while stealing 500-700 billion from the population (compared to the public systems of the developed world). At the very least, it’s financial terrorism and extortion.
Morally, yes. Legally, no.
Saying “legally” isn’t much of an argument, IMO, not to imply you meant it as one. What’s legal or illegal is arbitrarily decided on by those in power, and arbitrarily enforced. The vast majority of these laws were not voted on by us and they’re rarely if ever reviewed.
Well no shit, state-sanctioned terrorism is always legal according to the state that sanctions the terrorism
It’s a joke of a charge. Fascist Christian terrorists can shoot up LGBTQ+ people and never be called terrorists by media or charged with it. It’s bullshit and only because he took on our oligarch elite
The point is that terrorism is only applied when it’s convenient for the ruling class. Hate crime murders are similarly politically motivated but don’t get the terrorism label.
Isn’t this a straight “eye-for-an-eye” revenge killing?
He was wealthy enough to have no problems paying for all of his surgeries without insurance, tbh. His dad is head of Mangione Enterprise which owns and operates a lot of real estate including large resorts.
He had a Bachelors in Engineering and a Masters in Computer Science.
I think Luigi might have had no intention of advocating healthcare reform, he just wanted to disincentivize people he viewed as evil.
You can certainly interpret the killing that way, but there are many other reasonable interpretations, and to get a conviction you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Do we have a quote of him saying before the murder or publishing at any time something indicating that he was killing this guy to send a message to all the evil m************ who act just like him? If we do, your conclusion is warranted. If we don’t, your conclusion is speculation.
Let me give you a parallel. Imagine someone cuts me off in traffic and I pull out a gun and I shoot them. Am I terrorizing other bad drivers? Probably not. Probably I’m a psychopath dealing with road rage in a terrible fashion. In other words, the fact that other people can draw conclusions about similar behavior does not in itself make my actions threatening to them in any way.