The timing of the murder

except that luigi didnt kill anyone and he's very obviously being framed

The Luigi Paradox: He's not Guilty, but still a Folk Hero.
- Not a paradox. He is doing two things that are absolutely worthy of respect.
  Firstly he is an innocent young man who is being dragged through hell for a crime he did not commit. He is suffering unjustly for a crime he did not commit. Many people have gone through that and he deserves to be not only acquitted but so fully exonerated that the system is forced to compensate him for his unjust treatment.
  Secondly, the cover provided by this case allows the real killer to remain hidden. I seriously doubt they would ever find the guy and the credibility of the prosecution would be so utterly smashed that even if they actually found the guy they might not make a move for fear of a public backlash. They might murder the guy, but that only proves they are far worse than any murderer.
  So not only is Luigi innocent he is a hero, and I hope the real killer lives a long and quiet life.
Dude was with me the whole day.
I see this sentiment expressed, but is there any evidence to support it? If he were really being framed, I'd expect his family, friends, lawyers, etc to be trying to spread that message as much as possible and publicly show that he couldn't have done it. Like publicly present his alibi or something?
I have no problem with killing the CEO. Even if there were 100% irrefutable evidence Luigi did it, I'd still think Luigi was a good guy.
Why do people think he's being framed?
- There's been a blatant push by media to forward the idea that Luigi did it. All they have to do is ... not report evidence to the contrary. What there IS, however, is a lack of evidence that he did it, if you take into consideration the fact that NYPD - who have a history of faking evidence - probably used a gun and fake manifesto to pin the crime on him. Innocent until proven guilty has gone out the window; even news outlets aren't bothering to hedge their language with 'alleged' any more.
- You actually have it backwards, it's innocent until proven guilty and so far the prosecutors weren't able to produce any usable evidence. So no one has to prove that Luigi didn't do it just like no one has to prove you or I didn't do it
- The cop was rifling through his bag for a couple of minutues, closed the bag and took it away for 10m, came back, started searching the same bag again and this time managed to find a gun.
Still can't fathom why they would go with a dude that's the reincarnation of Ridiculously Photogenic Guy tho
Based on what's leaked on how the bag, presumptuive murder weapon and evidence was handled this is completely true.
He didn't do it, but if he'd done it: how could you tell him that he was wrong?

Often, the argument against murder as a means of defending oneself against the bourgeois rule is the inability to pinpoint its direct beneficial effects. Well, here they fucking are : murdering fascists is good for your health -in fact, it can save your life !

I love the animated version where he points his right hand like a gun and smiles.
- Agreed fully - does anyone have a link to it?
- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vxLTg1_m719WJStHcK8TeoW0Cq2TF7Mt/view
Looks like a ck3 character

This is a fun story, but Luigi didn't kill anyone. It was the Adjuster

Correct, Innocent until proven guilty.
Got to keep reminding people of that while things play out. I do hope his defense is able to prove that the chain of custody of the evidence is suspect and that luigi isnt their guy, but we're seeing the trial play out through the media anyway, and they seem to have made up their mind...
- Luigi is unfortunately more than just a person at this point, theres 'Luigi' the flesh and blood human and then theres 'Luigi' the symbolic martyr robinhood saint of the modern oppressed empoverished.
  The actual court case and the real human being have become secondary to the abstract symbol giving a face to peoples frustrations and vengeance fantasies. Many people want him to be the one who did it to make the cultural icon legend a for sure reality. If Luigi were proven innocent many people would believe anyway and go wink wink nudge nudge. If he's proven guilty, it only furthers the martyrdom and fuels the fire which is what protestors ad anarchist really want more. Is a win win from a bystander pov.
  People will believe whatever they want until proven otherwise and spout bullshit on the internet anyways but throw a dash of emotional bias into the mix and it really starts to cook.
- Innocent does not mean he didn't do it. You're mixing up different terms.
  Besides, unless the police retroactively managed to forge a bunch of stuff online, there's a lot pointing towards him having done it.
  The police have done a lot of shady shit that will hopefully free him, but the entire conspiracy that they just picked up some random guy is a bit much.
Luigi has the wrong eyebrows and not enough people are talking about that
- That point is why I think he absolutely didn't do it.
I would still love to see this person go on the stand to give a victim impact statement.

well that's great for this one person but this is just an anecdote, and not reliable data. we need more data points to create a large enough sample size so we can refer to more reliable statistics. i wonder how we could get that.

Trading one horrible motherfucker for even one of his potential victims is absolutely enough for me. I don't need further statistics.
Edit: in light of my brain recently being reactivated and understanding what the comment was saying, please disregard my low IQ comment and let the science commence!
- No dude, they’re saying that we need to repeat the experiment
That’s just responsible statistical analysis, any good scientist will tell you there should be several tests for a proper experiment.
We also haven't seen any data compiled for health insurance claim denial rates after the killing.
- not hard data but there were definitely news reports of denial rates tanking in the days following the killing.
Gotta start somewhere on fixing the replication crisis.

GLORY AND HONOUR TO MANGIONE!

So if you have a brain tumour they won’t pay for it? Forgive my outsider ignorance, but isn’t the entire point of medical insurance to cover situations like that?

Seems to me like the entire point of insurance companies is to collect your money monthly in case some future event happens, then try their hardest to not actually hold up their end of the bargain if you actually need it, then raise the prices afterwards if you do get a successful claim. So you pay for them to act like they're doing you a huge fkn favour at their personal expense and not like it's their fkn job that you've been giving them money monthly for.
- that's why insurance is a scam. You pay them unfathomable amounts of money for YEARS, then you want to use it, and you have to pay more, only for them to try their fucking hardest to deny you. Usually if they do accept you, it's already too late and you're terminal. Insurance is a fucking scam.
You think insurance exists to serve customers? Lmao no, they exist to make their shareholders wealthy beyond imagination.
- Psst … this is just an american thing. In other parts of the world, yes there are insurances that only exist to serve their customers the best way possible.
The entire point of insurance is to take your money and there is no step 2.
No, the entire point of health insurance is to create profits.
That's why our nation's health care should be managed by an entity that does not have a profit motive, and the only entity like that is the government, which is why EVERY other country does it that way.
Well yes but actually no. The point of insurance is to pool risk so that catastrophic and unusual events don't financially destroy people. The point of insurance companies is to make a profit and make the line go up for their shareholders. When those two goals are in conflict, the latter wins.
Speaking as a US citizen who's dealt with insurance his whole life, it's a giant fucking scam. It's probably the single biggest scam in the world, and I'm honestly not sure if I'd prefer to deal with them or the IRS scammers again. At least I got the IRS scam people to break script and talk to me human to human once.
if the point of insurance was the public welfare, however, their interest is exclusively about profits.
they make a lot of money by denying claims and forcing costumers to fight tooth and nail to get the service they pay for.
they know lots of people will die because of denial of care, and therefore longer need healthcare. it's so incredibly profitable to be cartoonishly evil.

Yeah, I was getting jerked around about precisely how the prescriptions got filled around the time that it happened, and there was going to be some bullshit about Blue Cross not covering the medication because it wasn't bottled while Venus was in retrograde or what the fuck ever, and then it was magically covered. The coincidence wasn't lost on me.

Would this mean that even if insurance companies were not corrupt, killing their CEOs would still save lives on net? Exercise for the reader.

Trolly problem IRL
If the reason given was clearly their denial of life-saving claims, it would be very likely to save at least 2 lives, yes.

murdering CEO's is self defense

More accurately, Defense of Others, which is as valid as Self-Defense.

Free Luigi.

WE are Luigi. We are one.

"we need Robin hood"

"For what?"

"Financial stuff, you wouldn't understand but you should buy it"

Robin Hood shows up.

"Oh fuck. Do you think he knows we were lying? He wasn't supposed to actually show up. Do you think he'll shoot us?"

"He's kind of famous for it. Like legendary famous. You probably should have referenced King Midas if you were going to misinterpret a myth"

That's a life for a life. Why shouldn't we do more? I guess at some point they will retaliate, but still...

I actually think it's time for the people to retaliate.
Every one of us knows someone against whom the insurance companies have pre-retaliated.

They approved a friends expensive drug therapy around that same time. It didn't save his life but it definitely prolongs and improved it. The thing is these Cluster B nightmares that make statements like that can only see it if its them who needs the saving. Otherwise they are cold blooded death mongers.

luigi hasn't been found guilty so anything that refers to a shooting is supposition at best

But just look at that smile! Luigi clearly looks innocent.

Guess your lot didn’t read the Beveridge Report: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report

I’d say you’d be better off putting away money in a savings account for medical bills, but I’ve heard stuff that makes me suspect the insurance companies already shut off that avenue (e.g. prescription meds cost way more off prescription).

Broken image?

I can see it
- I can now as well. My connection's been wonky all morning.

@ByteOnBikes Alt :

A post bluesky sharing another post :
Niaouro (Nia) Psaka @niapsaka.bsky.social

"Can you name a person saved by Luigi Mangione?" Apparently, Yes.

The other post :
My fiancee: The tumor in her brain would be virtually impossible for us to pay for but the timing of the murder caused so many insurance companies to panic and briefly accept claims they normally would have fought. She was in blinding and immeasurable pain, and today she's fine.

Good human

oh that is too simple to understand in my pov... do we really need a real persons exposing themselves?!

Ah yes, the end all argument: annecdotal evidence.

User asked for a "single" anecdote, user got a single anecdote. So what's the problem?
- Even the lowest claim acceptance rates were passing people at 67% according to data. Average was more like 84%. The vast majority of denied claims are never appealed. This post is about a successful appeal, or perhaps even a claim which was never denied at all, by username "24 Hour Luigi Mangione", and user B asserts that this is proof that Luigi has saved lives answering imaginary hypothetical user A, but in fact it doesn't prove that even a single person was saved unless it can show more people were approved than otherwise would have been.
  From where I'm sitting it just looks like 2 dudes furiously masturbating each other, AKA circlejerking.
If your default assumption is that this event:
Did not cause an immediate "panic" reduction in insurance denials, even briefly.
Even if it did, that this happening did not save anyone's life.
You are just coping because the idea of killing someone ending up saving lives makes you feel icky.
Even if this is just an anecdote, I find the contrary claim harder to believe.
- IDK if the people actually denying claims were scared enough to change their behavior, well plausible enough ya
  Wonder if any updated guidance went out to them at any point, written or not
- My default assumption is that this is a shit argument and the people who push it are dishonest fools. There is no (2). There is no second part to this stance, you haven't presented any evidence yet and you're posturing as if it's 100% true.