you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 175 points 2 years ago (8 children)

I mean, it's not just that. it's legal liability. part of the reason they charged him with terrorism is to tie any show of support to a crime as well. supporting him is like supporting al-qaeda now. so I ask you, DO YOU CONDEMN HUMMUS? DO YOU CONDOM MORDOR OF CEOS?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 103 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    All it did was show a lot of people what bullshit a charge of "terrorism" is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    For the longest time, people thought "terrorism" meant "very evil," so now that someone who isn't evil is being labeled a terrorist, they are upset.

    In reality, if you try to change politics with violence against a civilian, you are a terrorist.

    "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That's not what the law in NY actually says. It's not merely that you're trying to change government policy through violence. It's that you're trying to do it through intimidating government employees. The prosecutor screwed the pooch on this one. Luigi didn't actually meet the terrorism modifier requirements in NY. At least that's what I got from Legal Eagle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hopefully it's hard to prove that his intent was change and not revenge

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You don't engrave a message on casings unless you're sending a message to the living.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's an incredibly flimsy argument. People have been writing messages on ammo since ammo existed. There's not even an established pattern of terrorists writing on ammo - they're more likely to claim credit for an attack after the fact and include their message there.

    Those were words for him. Deny and defend this, mother fucker.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You assert my argument is flimsy, yet your argument is that someone is going to be able to read the casings popping out of a guy's gun shooting at him from behind?

    Lol. Lmao, even.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Please tell me you're trolling so I don't think I'm talking to someone THIS obtuse.

    Do you think this writing was to make a political message in the wreckage? Do you think really I think the soldiers who wrote it expected the victims to read it on the way down?

    No, you moron, it's a message to the victim that the killer knows they'll never read. It's a personal touch on the ammo that empowers the shooter. A more poetic version of "a bullet with your name on it"

    Added bonus for you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I love that you called me a moron while double commenting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The company's other employees are, at time of writing, still living, so sending a message to the living doesn't mean it's not solely revenge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm still like 100% sure that this isn't the same guy in the pictures taken on the crime scene, given that literally ALL THEY HAVE TO GO BY is that his form of dress was the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think it's entirely plausible that it's the same guy, but he was tracked down through illegal means and the tip-off was faked. If so, it's reasonable to think that some or all of the physical evidence was planted in order to have something that would be admissible. If evidence was potentially planted, though, it can't be used as the basis for a guilty verdict, so even if Mangione did do it, there might not be enough evidence for a conviction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    You know. I’ve been having a hard time with both the official story and the that’s not the real shooter theory.

    Your theory is a third one I haven’t thought of before. He is the shooter but they faked how they found him to protect their secret surveillance capabilities from being reported on. Maybe illegal maybe not, but probably tech they don’t want the public knowing about.

    This actually sounds most plausible to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah, this country was founded by terrorists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think they'd technically be classified as insurgents/rebels because they mostly/exclusively fired upon the military as far as I know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    as far as I know.

    Well, it's time to brush up a bit before commenting, then, huh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Do you thoroughly recheck every topic before you make a comment? Must be exhausting.

    That or you're a hypocrite. Up to you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    When you step in to correct someone, but are this obviously wrong, don't go trying the call the other person out for it .. you're the one who's wrong. Sit down. Be quiet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    No one gives a shit, tough guy. Continue being belligerently ignorant if you want. This is where you're going to resolve your attention seeking issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Also, lets not forget who will be president soon.. Trump and his fellows have hinted at going after fake news media before. Going after terrorism supporting fake news media is even easier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Also GOP: "We are all domestic terrorists"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    For those who have forgotten, this is an actual quote from the republican party.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cpac-banner-domestic-terrorists/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Holy shit America is becoming united under the banner bof domestic terrorism. I wholeheartedly approve. If the ruling class isn't pissing themselves we haven't gone far enough yet. They should fear We the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It is perfectly legal to advocate for illegal activity. The first amendment has broad protections for this. SCOTUS has ruled on this even recently. You need to be able to advocate for illegal activity if you want people to have any chance to change the law.

    It is perfectly legal to come right out on national television and say, "Luigi did nothing wrong. The president and governor should pardon him, and the mayor of NYC should throw him a parade."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    lol... those who remember the 2000s know that's all out the window if the government says anything is terrorism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago

    The right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble hasn't been respected at any point during US history.

    Not immediately after the country was formed when they signed the sedition act into law.

    Not while people were protesting for abolitionism.

    Not while people were protesting for women's suffrage.

    Not while people held demonstrations while on strike.

    Not during the cold war and red scare.

    Not during the civil rights movement.

    Not during the George Floyd protests.

    They're not going to start now.

  • source
  • parent