Two 26-Year-Olds: One Killed a Homeless Man, Another is Suspected of Killing a Healthcare CEO
Daniel Penny is free after killing a man victim to the system. What of Luigi Mangione, who is suspected of killing a man symbolic of it?
On Monday, 26-year-old Daniel Penny was acquitted after killing Jordan Neely, a desperate Black homeless man on the subway...
Tale as old as time.
“…on the grounds that he was trying to protect others.”
I think that’s a pretty fucking important line right there.
I think the point is, the system pushed one man to his breaking point simply for being poor, black, and mentally ill; resulting in his eventual strangulation on a subway. Not saying the the situation didn't require intervention but acting as if the whole thing was "unavoidable" or even "justified" gladiator giving all the context is Pretty Fucking Important
Imagine if the defense pulls that line in court. My client gun down this man to save lives your honor!
The whole thing seems to have been about if the guy went too far in subduing the homeless dude who was by all accounts acting crazy and aggressive towards other passengers, including a woman with a child with her.
It's so crazy reading different characterizations of the situation. Some are saying how the guy heroically saved other passengers by strangling an aggressive homeless dude for six minutes, even after other passengers had apparently left, others are saying how a vicious white attacker decided to murder a desperate BLACK victim of the system without any reason.
Wild shit.
I've seen people comparing the DOJ response to Luigi Mangioni and Kyle Shittenhouse. The fact that Rittenhouse is free should tell you everything you need to know.
Well the difference is that while both actively premeditated their murders whoever committed the crimes Mangioni has been accused of is far more of a menace because they had a specific target in mind and even worse it was someone rich instead of just anyone protesting the police tendency to murder.
A stark reminder of who the justice system works for. They are there to protect the rich elites.
Yup. The irony wasn't lost on us either.
Our society ties worth to wealth.
To a capitalist, If you're homeless, you have less moral value than someone who exploited millions of people's need for healthcare for his own gain.
And there are a lot of capitalists.
No there aren't. There are a lot of people who fawn over the capitalists, but there's only a very few that can actually practice Capitalism. The rest of us are just a product and an expendable resource at the same time.
I don't think these are comparable.
I think that's the point of the article.
You both make good points so I up voted.
"Sen. John Fetterman is one of those who has loudly insisted that the “public execution of an innocent man and father of two is indefensible.” We are expected to ignore the fact that for 14 months straight before Thompson’s killing, Israeli forces have publicly executed thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza with the enthusiastic support of US politicians like Fetterman."
Normally I'm not one to dig into these things, but I seriously think fetterman died and the dude we hear from now is a stand in. Just such a 180... I remember when he was first gaining national prominence, had some interview in front of a Wawa off the freeway - when I saw THAT guy, I donated to his campaign and called my wife in to say, "listen to this for a second, I think this guy could be the president one day". That guy has ZERO DNA in common with the "Fetterman" we see and hear from today. It wasn't a stroke, or if it was, it was fatal.
I'm think it's from the stroke. They can cause a huge personality shift
Nah if you dig into his past Fetterman has always been a conman
I think there are two primary reasons for the difference in treatment of these two killings
Matt Stone killed a homeless man?
This is not a juxtaposition at all. Terrible ethics aside, the CEO operated more or less totally in compliance with USA law. Being a fucking scumbag is not illegal -- indeed, our country sadly runs on this principle.
The fellow in the subway was acting to a DIRECT threat, and it's pretty easy to draw a line from that guy flipping out to someone being threatened/hurt/killed in the subway. He was already culpable of disorderly conduct or worse, and it's pretty clear that it wasn't Penny's intent to fatally injure him.
The juxtaposition some people feel is because the CEO is acting against their moral framework, but he's operating in a legal framework. This is why our country is fucking sick, but it is is what it is at this point.
but he's operating in a legal framework.
That defence is flimsy AF .
The US did a whole thing in Germany saying following the law was a bullshit excuse , they've literally set the precedent for assholes following the law being killed when they're guilty of mass murder.
Since our courts care about case law and not about moral frameworks, I think you'll see that defense being used quite successfully.
To be fair, our government then hired any Nazi they thought was smart enough to be useful.
Oh wow, disorderly conduct huh? Famously straight to the execution chamber that? We have a criminal charge for "oops I didn't mean to kill him". You don't get to attack someone and then just say oopsie daisy.
You don’t get to attack someone and then just say oopsie daisy.
... and he didn't. He had to go to court to defend his actions.
How was being upset in public a direct threat?
About six years later, he boarded a subway under Manhattan on May 1, 2023, hurled his jacket onto the floor, and declared that he was hungry and thirsty and didn’t care if he died or went to jail, witnesses said. Some told 911 operators that he tried to attack people or indicated he’d harm riders, and several testified that they were nervous or outright feared for their lives.
He wasn't just upset... he was threatening people.
You're right. But it does not force someone to be a scumbag that takes advantage of less privileged people.
It is a choice.
100% and it's a sad fact this country (and others) contain people for which that is a very easy choice.
Don't forget that one case has already reached its conclusion while the second hasn't even begun trial.
There's still a lot than can happen that might prevent a guilty verdict.
Hoo boy. There was plenty of video footage of the accused. He had the motive. When he was caught, he still had evidence on him. He had the means, the motive and the opportunity. By all means, he should be afforded a full and fair trial. However, if his lawyer is able to get the case thrown out or dismissed somehow, it'll be a legal miracle. I honestly have no clue what his defense will be. So far it seems to be "the cops planted the evidence" which I do not think will buy him the sympathy of a jury.
I believe that CEO was a fucking scumbag, but I'd also be inclined to pass a guilty verdict (assuming his defense attorney fails to change my mind). As much as I hate what that health insurance company did, I also would hate to live in a country where vigilante justice is meted out. I would have preferred the shooter pursue health care reform in a more democratic way, as I believe that is the civilized way to enact change. I can simultaneously sympathize with the shooter and condemn him.
but killing rich people is illegal!
It's illegal to keep a sleeping donkey in a bathtub after 7 pm. in Arizona.
It's illegal to fall asleep in a cheese factory in South Dakota.
It's illegal to bring a kangaroo inside barber shops in Alaska.
The bad one looks a fair bit older than 26. Weird hair, too.
It’s uh pretty normal hair?
We can attack the guys shit character, without having to insult how people look.
I hate my race so fucking much. Orcs with privileges
