UnitedHealth CEO Assassinated

I think he did. I remember the TV camera going to him in the crowd a few times, and one of my friends sat near him at a game.

I've worked for politicians. But your list is more impressive than mine. Once I helped organize a speech for Hillary Clinton to give when I was in college. We (the College Democrats involved) were supposed to then get to meet her. She simply left us hanging, no apology or explanation or anything. In retrospect it was a good lesson. All these people do is make promises to everyone then keep the ones made to those who fund them.

I think the only famous celebrity celebrity I've ever conversed with in a casual type way was Danny Aiello. I want to say he was cool as **** but that's what everyone says when celebrities lower themselves to talk to them. I think it's like a halo effect.

Despite many millions of opportunities, Americans don't kill bad Americans. Even when you hear like some bosses son is moving the factory to China and hundreds or thousands of people are going to be cast into economic peril, no one ever kills the guy. They go to a library and shoot up the children's story time. We have a long tradition of blaming those with the least power for the failures of the elites and I don't see that stopping. My money is on Mangione being batshit, but even if he wasn't he is only one.

I would have loved to see how the defense defends the position, they will obv go after the sentencing, the way it was handled, mishandled, alla oj simspon type of defense if that makes sense.

i thought at first theri defense was "yeah he did it, so what?" which the intrernet would cheeer and applaud

but I do wish we could see how they plan on attackin the sentences and police work here

^^ Wtf does this even mean? What sentencing are they going after and how did that strategy align with the OJ defense?

Who in the world goes to an arraignment with counsel and say “I did it, so what?”

besides nit picking police procedure ( which not sure what police did wrong) what is your argument if youre his defense?

he pleaded not gulty

So you're saying that a guilty suspect will have a better chance of getting off is he says, "I did it; so what?" rather than pleading not guilty?

I am , yet again, asking, what is the defense going to use as a defense?

or are they gonna say "he didnt do it" when afaik it seems the only suspect is him and it seems obvious he in fact did do it.

so again, if you were his defense, what are you going to use as your defense? in most cases, its :my suspect didn't do it" but in this case, they cant say that

In America, they need to prove you did it.

So what you're saying is that any suspect that has a bunch of circumstantial evidence against him should just plead guilty?

Don't ask me what my defense would be because:

1 - I am not an attorney
2 - I am not privy to any information his attorney has

But I do know it's more nuanced than, "Come on, bro, they found a bunch of shiit on you."

As far as I know, the legal standard for his defense is to just show reasonable doubt to the jurors and let them agree or disagree. The 14th Amendment affords him that luxury as a US citizen.

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where is the reasonable doubt going to come from? that it could have been the x million other of white male with the same height that could have done it? or that he was framed and set up by y or z?

as I said, I would like to know what his defense actually is going to plan out because seems like all evidence really really points at him. as of right nwo they arent aiming or a lesser sentence, they are saying straight up its not him that did it no?

You're just going to have to wait until it goes to trial, breh.

I doubt if the standard of bard will be difficult to meet at his trial in evidence terms. Unless the jury acquits purely out of sympathy for his actions, I reckon he's going down

lawyers my chime in on the specifics here but pleading 'not guilty' is different to 'didn't do it'. I'd guess he is going for not guilty of murder and will offer some defense as to why it doesn't meat the burden for murder (or terrorism or whatever he is charged with)

'not guilty' also makes it easier for jury nullification in a lol justice system. It can manifest as reasonable doubt.

Unless he's pleading insanity, jury nullification is his only hope, as in evidence terms, there's enough to convict imo and I'll be surprised if jury nullification happens here.

If i understand the rules correctly, jury nullification here is almost impossible, as it would require unanimity in agreement toward not guilty verdict.

It's one thing to suggest that at least one juror might be enamored with the guy enough to vote "not guilty" no matter what evidence is presented (i actually think this is quite a probable outcome), but thinking all of them would... not without a insanity of mind defense (or whatever the legal name for that is in the USA)

If it's a hung jury they can retry him. Some defendants have been retried several times in the US. Art Gonzalez was tried, then retried twice more, for example. Ray Buckey was retried in the McMartin case. Some army guy up for murdering his wife, got retried four or five times in total.

It's not the job of his lawers to offer a good defense, it's their job to offer the best defense possible.

but because of the nonsense against jury nullifaction, the best hope of aquital may be that he didn't do it. Even if he did do it beyond any reasonable doubt (in the mind of the jurors) they can still aquit on that basis rather than nullify. e.g it's quite posssible that some who acquited OJ didn't hve reasonable doubt that he did it but just wanted to acquit so utilsied the option of reasonable doubt.

I very much doubt he gets off but if some jurors think that a) the balance of his mind was disturbed and b) that he will face the death penalty then just maybe a few will be like me and consider nullifying by seizing on a non reasonable chance that it wasn't him who did it.

and perhaps more importantly in the lol usa justice system, any chance of this improves the plea/charges situation. Dropping any death penalty routes would be a good start if they want decent people to find others guilty..

The eyebrows will be the new gloves. Except if he’s acquitted he wont ask for his eyebrows back.

Correct. If you were charged with murder but you believe you obviously acted in self defense, you would plead not guilty, even if you were conceding that you had killed someone.

Hey, worked for Robert Durst.

I know and I'd imagine it would depend on the strength/circumstances of individual cases. I'm simply saying it would be possible to retry him again in the event of a hung jury.

If I remember correctly if a "decent person" is unwilling to ever give the death penalty to anyone then he is discarded as a juror on that basis if the crime contested carries the death penalty.

So the "decent person" would need to lie in court (perjury), as afaik the question of being willing to give the death penalty is asked to all prospective jurors in a death penalty case, to be there to acquit because of the death penalty.

Btw NYS doesn't have the death penalty

Not sure if the prosecution will go that route but he can possibly face the death penalty on Federal murder charges.
https://apnews.com/article/unitedhealthc...