Exactly. Looks a lot like they found the gun near the scene of the crime, and then planted it in his backpack. That makes a lot more sense than him hauling it and an incriminating manifesto with him for several days. If he wanted to do the manifesto thing he’d have left it at the scene of the crime. None of that evidence makes sense.
I mean, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is…
It’s very hard to believe this guy just had all the evidence a prosecutor could want, literally in a nice little bag and he was just fucking taking it a long on a bus journey.
It might have happened, but cops fucking lie.
If cops didn’t plant evidence, we wouldn’t have to have laws about chain of custody. Rich people get off on tiny loopholes all the time, this is a foundational principle of our legal system.
The handgun police say Luigi Mangione used to fatally shoot UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson is nearly as recognizable as the now-famous alleged shooter himself—and shows just how common and lethal these weapons have become.
So…
A common 3d printed gun…
And you sure as shit can’t ID it in the video, that’s just the ones the cops say was in a backpack that they say Luigi had…
And like I’ve said before, the backpack isn’t admissible evidence.
Like. You’re operating under the assumption that whatever the police do is ok, and I struggle to understand how an American can have that much faith in the American criminal justice system.
People get off on way less all the time man, he’s got money and it doesn’t take much to beat reasonable doubt. Especially when the cops fuck up this bad.
And how many got caught with the gun and a hand-written manifesto? It’s plain Luigi plugged the guy, the only question is if it’s justified, that’s what the court will determine.
Oh, I absolutely do not trust the cops, but given everything we have learned, it’s self evident he shot the guy.
As I say, the only bit that needs to be determined is if he was justified or not. His fans believe he was, which is why they float things like jury nullification, not that he’s innocent.
Like, if you can acknowledge that the screenshot of his face and the video of the shooting are from two different videos and there’s not continuous footage between the two…
Then I don’t understand why you keep saying it’s him.
If you can’t, then I don’t think there’s anyway I can help you understand this.
And I definitely don’t understand why you just want to keep repeating your opinion like it’s somehow a fact.
What?
Wasn’t it all 3d printed?
I never heard the brand but I’d bet it was an 80% like the vast majority are. There are millions of those guns.
No, nothing was found on Luigi.
He had a backpack and hours after his arrest it was searched after chain of custody was violated, nothing in there is admissable evidence.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/28/us/luigi-mangione-evidence-illegal-search
Even if it was a rare gun, it can’t legally be linked to Luigi, that’s just how our legal system works.
Bonus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXsG6BO292w
Exactly. Looks a lot like they found the gun near the scene of the crime, and then planted it in his backpack. That makes a lot more sense than him hauling it and an incriminating manifesto with him for several days. If he wanted to do the manifesto thing he’d have left it at the scene of the crime. None of that evidence makes sense.
I mean, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is…
It’s very hard to believe this guy just had all the evidence a prosecutor could want, literally in a nice little bag and he was just fucking taking it a long on a bus journey.
It might have happened, but cops fucking lie.
If cops didn’t plant evidence, we wouldn’t have to have laws about chain of custody. Rich people get off on tiny loopholes all the time, this is a foundational principle of our legal system.
3D printed lower and silencer:
https://coloradoceasefire.org/2025/01/14/luigi-mangiones-ghost-gun-was-only-partially-3d-printed-experts-say/
So…
A common 3d printed gun…
And you sure as shit can’t ID it in the video, that’s just the ones the cops say was in a backpack that they say Luigi had…
And like I’ve said before, the backpack isn’t admissible evidence.
Like. You’re operating under the assumption that whatever the police do is ok, and I struggle to understand how an American can have that much faith in the American criminal justice system.
People get off on way less all the time man, he’s got money and it doesn’t take much to beat reasonable doubt. Especially when the cops fuck up this bad.
Again, admissable doesn’t enter into it. That’s something for the court to determine.
It’s plain everyone believes Luigi killed the guy.
This is Luigi:
There is no question he killed the guy, the only question is justification.
Do you understand that the picture with the hood up is from earlier at a hostel?
Your little collage is cropped, but isn’t Luigi wearing a completely different backpack in the one on the right than the shooter is in the middle.
You can’t just throw a picture of the shooter in between two pics of Luigi and claim that proves something.
Do you have any idea how many people have greenish coats in NYC any given morning?
And how many got caught with the gun and a hand-written manifesto? It’s plain Luigi plugged the guy, the only question is if it’s justified, that’s what the court will determine.
You trust the cops. Why would you? They’ve been proven, just in the last five years, to have planted evidence on innocent people.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-throws-man-guilty-plea-224510985.html
Oh, I absolutely do not trust the cops, but given everything we have learned, it’s self evident he shot the guy.
As I say, the only bit that needs to be determined is if he was justified or not. His fans believe he was, which is why they float things like jury nullification, not that he’s innocent.
That doesn’t matter if it can’t be evidence…
We’re just going in circles.
You believe the cops because things the cops said…
Most can’t do that anymore
Again, we aren’t talking about what he’s found guilty of or not. We’re talking about if he shot the guy or not.
Saying the evidence is inadmissable doesn’t discount the fact that it was the gun used and the manifesto shows motive.
He DEFINITELY shot the guy. Whether he’s CONVICTED for it is a different issue.
Because he was seen wearing a greenish coat?
Like, if you can acknowledge that the screenshot of his face and the video of the shooting are from two different videos and there’s not continuous footage between the two…
Then I don’t understand why you keep saying it’s him.
If you can’t, then I don’t think there’s anyway I can help you understand this.
And I definitely don’t understand why you just want to keep repeating your opinion like it’s somehow a fact.