to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination

Let's start with defintion:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation uses a definition of terrorism that tracks with the Patriot Act. “Terrorism” encompasses “acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law” and “appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” It distinguishes between international terrorism (acts occurring abroad) and domestic terrorism, which occurs primarily within the U.S.

I'm going to focus on (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. This is because terrorism requires an intent. Just killing people to kill people doesn't cut it no matter how many people get killed.

On the other hand, we are given a handwritten confession which states an intent:

"Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.”

Let's toss in that he shouted  "It's completely out of touch! It's an insult to the intelligence of the American people!" as he was being escorted into court. Which in my opinion caused him to waive any recourse to Miranda.

I know that he has shown an interest in the Unabomber. There are some other things I have heard mentioned about his possible intent, but I'm not going to bother with that stuff. First off, it's pretty much superfluous given the basic evidence out there (e.g., handwritten confession, possession of the murder weapon, possession of the ID, DNA and fingerprint evidence, etc.).  He's put enough out there to at least put him away for life.

 Mangione's actions and intent place definitely, show that he wanted to influence, or effect, the conduct of government through at least one act of violence. 

I would add that Mangione's supporters are his own worst enemies. Its too bad that insurance will not pay for a procedure to remove their heads from the assess.

As someone who has wanted to see healthcare reform in the US for a long time, I am disgusted by the actions of the people who are willing to lionise a person with a serious personality disorder.

The far better course of action would be to use the system to get healthcare reform.

While I would love to see Manione executed, that is the wrong course of action. It would be far better for him to be exposed for what he is (not someone to be idolised). And then stick him away where he may live out his life.

Or another inmate may terminate his life.

Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law

 Let's start with a definition:

The rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are:

• Publicly promulgated
• Equally enforced (i.e., no person is above the law)
  
• Independently adjudicated
• And consistent with international human rights principles.

I was going to start this by asking what the Cato Institute and the Climate Defence Project have in common? Why Jury Nullification, of course. But the fact that these two groups that are fundamentally opposed, or should be, agree on this should bring someone to pause on this topic.

The proponents will say that it's not illegal, which isn't really true. It is hard to enforce in the US system because of the US Constitution and its guarantees of right to trial by jury, no double jeopardy, and probably a few other things that demonstrate what a piece of shit blotter it is compared to France's Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789, but the latter is much more of a bill of rights than a constitution. The Déclaration defines the relationship between the citizen and the state, which is why France has gone through five republics, a couple of Empires, and a Monarchy or two with it still around.

I don't have much hope for the US Constitution lasting much longer the way things are going.

But I digress to return to a concept which is well suited for the lynch mob than a society which claims to be based upon laws. The strongest argument against nullification points to the core principle of our judicial system: We are a nation of laws, not individuals. Elected officials create the law. They can be replaced with ones who legislate more in lines with popular opinion if they don't. Allowing juries to bypass this system has resulted in more miscarriages of justice than triumphs. In addition, we ask jurors to take an oath to judge based upon the facts; how is embracing nullification consistent with this promise?

Or as Mark Pulliam asks:

What do nineteenth-century anarchist Lysander Spooner,^[1] the O. J. legal defense team, some elements of the militia movement,^[2] the Los Angeles juries that failed to convict the Menendez brothers of murdering their parents and that acquitted the brutal assailants of Reginald Denny, and the activists who promote the idea of “fully informed juries”^[3] have in common?

I would toss in lynch mobs for good measure. Emmett Till is an excellent example of jury nullification in action: two guilty men get away with murder and confess to it afterward.

Jurors are supposed to play an important but limited function: to sift through the evidence (especially conflicting testimony) and apply their factual findings to the relevant legal rules, which are determined elsewhere. Jurors are not lawmakers.

Jury nullification in practise:
The Jury in the Emmett Till Case

Bad things happen when juries step out of that limited role and decide to act as a “conscience of the community”, or some other bizarre concept of "Justice". In the Jim Crow South, all-white juries frequently acquitted defendants accused of lynching blacks and other heinous crimes, not because the evidence was weak, but out of sympathy for, or in solidarity with, the defendant. Conversely, in the O.J. Simpson case, the predominately African American jury arguably engaged in nullification in 1995 when it acquitted Simpson of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend, Ron Goldman, despite what most observers felt was overwhelming evidence of Simpson’s guilt. More recently, many Americans were outraged when a San Francisco jury—possibly motivated by nullification—acquitted Kate Steinle’s killer. There are many other examples, such as George Zimmerman, that come to mind.

After all, what is a jury acting outside of the law but a 12-person mob, modern-day vigilantes?  The supporters of Luigi Mangione claim they want him to have a fair trial, yet they ignore that someone was killed without due process. They look up jury nullification in the hope that Mangione will be like Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam. They ignore the handwritten confession, which is more innocently called a "manifesto".

Civil disobedience is a grave misconception in the context of a seated juror refusing to follow the law. Civil disobedience is resistance to unjust government action as a last resort. That is when disobedience is the only alternative to becoming a participant in an objectionable act. This will never be the case with a seated juror. A potential juror who objected to service could refuse to report to court or serve on a jury. A person with a moral objection to enforcing a particular law (say, punishing a defendant charged with private drug use or blockading abortion clinics) should disclose that objection during voir dire and be excused from serving in the case.

But, after a juror has reported for service, been screened through voir dire, been seated and sworn to follow the law according to the instructions of the court, there is no room for “civil disobedience.” A juror reneging on his oath is acting outside the legal rules. A renegade juror cheats the parties to the case out of their right to have the matter decided according to the law, on the basis of which the evidence and arguments have been presented.

Although the "jury-power " activists point to historical events where juries refused to enforce laws that they considered unconscionable, there is no assurance that a jury operating outside the law would only acquit in a criminal case; it could just as easily “nullify” the instructions by convicting a person who was technically innocent. Jury nullification strips the individuals who comprise society of their right to have the laws enforced. Nothing could be more tyrannical or despotic than the arbitrary decision of a juror, or jury that has refused to follow their legal obligation.

 The rule of law is essential to the preservation of liberty. Friedrich Hayek, perhaps this century’s pre-eminent theorist of libertarianism, the political philosophy of freedom, believed that the defining characteristic of a free society is the rule of law, meaning legal rules stated in advance, uniformly applied, without excessive discretion. In Hayek’s words: “[W]hen we obey laws, in the sense of general abstract rules laid down irrespective of their application to us, we are not subject to another man’s will and are therefore free.” Thus, it is the universal, non-selective nature of law that allows us to be free. In Hayek’s view, it is precisely because judges and juries cannot pick and choose what laws to enforce in a particular case “that it can be said that laws and not men rule.”

A lawless juror is no more heroic than a rogue policeman violating the law or a politician accepting a bribe. If a juror (or any other member of the political community) feels that a particular law is unjust—and in a society as large and diverse as ours, we can assume that someone, somewhere, feels that every law on the books is unjust—the remedy is to petition the legislature for reform, not to infiltrate the jury and then ignore the law.

Luigi Mangione and his supporters are dangerous to society, and counterproductive to the issue of health care reform. I wonder how much further we would be toward healthcare reform is they had used the system, rather than act as vigilantes.  They should be working to change the law, not capriciously applying it.

Luigi Mangione will be tried based upon the evidence. I hope the jurors are willing to properly apply the facts to the law.

Otherwise, the US system of justice is best exemplified by the trial of Emmett Till's assassins.

See also:
Mark Pulliam, Nullifying the Rule of Law

__ ___, Jury Nullification, good or bad? 

English text of the Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789

Luigi Mangione's defence fund.

I was listening to an interview with one of the people from his "defence fund". She said that they wanted him to have the best defence possible,

That got me thinking because his best defence right now is to hope for a really good deal from the prosecution. Which isn't a very likely possibility from the Feds.

For those who don't know it, the feds have a 93% conviction rating. Mostly because they don't try cases they can lose. Federal practise can best be described as "Let's make a deal". In other words, you had better have something juicy you can offer the AUSA handling the case. They might knock down the charges so that Mangione gets life (which is indeed life since there is no time off for good behvaiour in the Federal system).

We used to get people to become cooperative when I worked for the US Attorney in DC by threatening to make the charges federal, since that would mean a "solid" sentence anywhere in the US Prison system.

But that's an aside since I was thinking that maybe some of those big, anonymous donors were health care companies who want to see Mangione have the best defence possible, since he is probably going to go down hard.

And the reality is that he's not as good of a defendant as people want him to be. As I have pointed out, even his mother thinks he could have done it!

To be honest if all of his supporters would shut the fuck up and work on this issue, I'm pretty sure that there would be change. But what have they done about this?  Have they supported serious health care reform?

Obviously not.

Why Luigi Mangione Says His "Manifesto" Should Be Tossed.

This is the best explanation I have seen on this subject. Too many people on the internet are ignoring the law.

Searching Mangione with suspicion makes it constitutional.

 I'm with Jim Giza who is a former marine and a 23-year police veteran with the Baltimore Police Department. He was one of the first officers to qualify as a both a member of his Agency’s SWAT unit and Hostage Negotiation Team. He later served as Program Coordinator for the Johns Hopkins University Police Executive Leadership Program, where he planned and coordinated a unique educational program for the United States Secret Service.

I hope that the stop-and-frisk of Luigi Magione, which apparently is what it was, meets the U.S. Supreme Court’s criteria of reasonable suspicion and articulable justification for confronting an American citizen, searching same for possible weapons, and arresting that individual for illegally carrying a firearm (“Luigi Mangione faces tough legal challenges, says Baltimore lawyer with ties to family,” Dec. 11). In Magione’s case, he was charged not only with illegal carrying but also possession of an illegal gun — what is known as a “ghost gun.”

I also hope the police report documenting the stop-and-frisk is based on more than a tip or that it “looks like him.” It will be up to a judge to entertain a possible argument by a defense lawyer that Magione’s arrest was illegal by not meeting the stop-and-frisk criteria promulgated in Terry v. Ohio. If not, any so-called evidence seized or charges filed will be null and void.

Whether a challenge to the arrest will be made, time will tell. The extradition question may not be even be the offing. It goes without saying (but I will say it anyway) that it is tough being a cop in a free society and high-profile cases like this one can prove it.

As I said in a previous post, police officers are given latitude to search a suspect for weapons, which they found in this case.

The only reason the defence wants to try and challenge this is that Mangione was caught with the murder weapon, a substantial amount of cash, and his "manifesto", which is basically a confession. Not that there isn't other evidence tying Mangione to the crime scene, but this significantly hinders the case,

Luigi Mangione "the biggest staged perp walk"?

I kinda had to wonder if his lawyer ever heard about a guy called Jack Ruby when she made that comment. I mean she's supposedly a really well qualified criminal defence lawyer.

Anyway,  I wake up to this headline:

EXCLUSIVE:  Diddy and Luigi Mangione are TARGETS after brutal stabbing at Brooklyn prison as insiders claim gangs plan to 'make an example of them'

Seriously, any criminal defence lawyer worth their money SHOULD know that a high profile client like Mangione will be a target: despite the adulation he's getting from the masses. I was wondering how long it would take before this became an issue.

The prison consultant went on to say that from his experience, high-profile inmates are advised to be "careful about who they are associating with" because anyone in MDC will have an "agenda". He added that Diddy's and Luigi's teams would warn them to keep to themselves and avoid problems, such as minding their business and not taking any bait if called out.

"Some will admire them [Diddy and Luigi], but you will just need one person to make an example out of them." Justin stated.

Well, I hope she's gotten her hands on all that money the little scumbag has raised, then she can laugh all the way to the bank if the law of Karma rules here.

Hey, what kind of trial did Brian Thompson get when Mangione popped him?

The REAL ISSUES in the Luigi Mangione Case as I see it.

 OK, despite the amount of people who want to deny the mountain of evidence that this kid did it, the media is pretending he has a chance of being found not guilty. But I'm going to agree with another lawyer who said he's seen juries do crazy things.

Anyway...

He was caught with more than enough evidence that links him to the crime, which is why his lawyers keep harping on his arrest and search being unconstitutional.  He had the murder weapon, the ID used in NYC, and his manifesto, which is pretty much a confession. I'm not going to go into the law of confessions, but it would be nice if all these talking heads would start mentioning that.

Mistrials and Jury nullification. OK, a mistrial doesn't result in an acquittal--it does result in a new trial. Also, as long as there is one juror who is willing to find the defendant guilty, there will be a hung jury. So, 11 jurors can ignore the law and evidence, while one wants to convict. And a hung jury results in a new trial.

Of course, the judge and prosecution should be weeding out the people who would engage in jury nullification. While not toally illegal, it is contrary to the judicial process where the juror is supposed to apply the law according to the facts. Here is a sample jury instruction that addresses that matter:

6.1 Duties of Jury to Find Facts and Follow Law 

            Members of the jury, now that you have heard all the evidence, it is my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case.  A copy of these instructions will be available in the jury room for you to consult.

            It is your duty to weigh and to evaluate all the evidence received in the case and, in that process, to decide the facts.  It is also your duty to apply the law as I give it to you to the facts as you find them, whether you agree with the law or not. {my emphasis} You must decide the case solely on the evidence and the law.  You will recall that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginning of the case.  You should also not be influenced by any person’s race, color, religious beliefs, national ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, or economic circumstances.  Also, do not allow yourself to be influenced by personal likes or dislikes, sympathy, prejudice, fear, public opinion, or biases[.] [, including unconscious biases.  Unconscious biases are stereotypes, attitudes, or preferences that people may consciously reject but may be expressed without conscious awareness, control, or intention.] 

            You must follow all these instructions and not single out some and ignore others; they are all important.  Please do not read into these instructions or into anything I may have said or done as any suggestion as to what verdict you should return—that is a matter entirely up to you.

The federal case is a good point for getting a conviction since the feds win most of the cases they take to trial. I call US Federal practise "Let's make a deal", because unless you can come up with something that interests the Feds, they will hammer your ass.

And in this case, it's the death penalty.

I don't have a lot of time for this kid or his supporters, which should be pretty apparent by now.

Luigi Mangione--I'm going to say it again

 OK, if all the people who are denying the mountain of evidence against this spoiled, rich kid who probably has a personality disorder would shut the fuck up and work toward something positive, like health care reform, it would make sense.

But they aren't.

Instead they are supporting a murderer for some fucked up reason.

Supporting this scumbag is getting fuck all done for health care reform.

Got it????

Innocent until proven guilty?

 OK, I get it. According to the US Constitution there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, or at least a judge makes a conviction if the defendent pleads guilty.

BUT

In this case, we have video evidence tracking him that day. He's ID'd and caught with the murder weapon and the ID he used to check into that NYC hostel. I think there's some DNA evidence linking him to the crime in there as well.

And his manifesto is basically a confession, which pretty much takes it out of any exception out there.

It's pretty hard to deny the kid is guilty. And he's not really a very sympathetic defendant.

Hell, even his mother said she could she him doing it!

Unless you have a thing for rich, spoiled brats who might have a personality disorder and wish that he isn't guilty despite the rather overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So, I'm guessing that his supporters are upset that their insurance is denying the procedure to get their heads surgically removed from their asses.

Oh, and for people talking about Luigi's search being illegal--there's something called "search incident to arrest".

Which is something I'm suprised all those "experts" out there aren't mentioning, but US legal education is crap.

Anyway,

Search Incident to Arrest.—The common-law rule permitting searches of the person of an arrestee as an incident to the arrest has occasioned little controversy in the Court.²⁴⁰ The Court has even upheld a search incident to an illegal (albeit not unconstitutional) arrest.²⁴¹ The dispute has centered around the scope of the search. Because it was the stated general rule that the scope of a warrantless search must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances that rendered its justification permissible, and because it was the rule that the justification of a search of the arrestee was to prevent destruction of evidence and to prevent access to a weapon,²

Let's see, the cops are interrogating a suspected murderer who might be armed...

Of course, the defence wants this evidence suppressed. I mean he's caught red handed with the murder weapon and a confession.

As I said, the people who support him need their heads surgically removed from their anuses.

Why facial recognition alone may not be able to identify health care CEO suspe...

OK, this goes on the possibility of the image not being in the database, which isn't that much of a stumbling block.

It ignores that DNA phenotyping. That'e the technology where they can create images of what a person could look like. Combine that with facial recognition. You get the picture.

But the real point is that generating an image isn't the sum total of the evidence. It only provides possible suspects. Or why you shouldn't worry about this technology: unless you are the criminal.

He wasn't a pro since he did it in public. There is a witness standing between the shooter and the victim. And definitely not if its true the gun was something used by veterinarians.