To play Devil’s advocate, the bottom one was offered a plea deal.
That’s kinda the point. Why wasn’t Mangione offered a plea deal?
Also, why did the DOJ intervene and add the federal qualifier of “murder in furtherance of an act of terrorism” to Mangione’s charges in order to put the death penalty on the table (NY state doesn’t have the death penalty), but didn’t add it to the charges of the guy who murdered 23 Hispanic people specifically to terrorize the Hispanic community?
A valid answer to my question could be “you’re wrong, he was.” I’m fully open to being wrong. The fact that nobody mentioned that he was is a strong indicator that he wasn’t.
Your question hangs upon, it requires, a condition which has not been proven true therefor you’re claiming the condition is true by asserting the question is valid.
Suggested changes in how you present the statement:
Plea Deals don’t go to people pleading innocent. You don’t get leniency for dragging the judicial process out and costing the state and federal lots of time and money.
Plea deals are not unusual. It speeds up the process. Plus, not everyone approves of the death penalty, so a DA securing a plea deal by taking death off the table can even be favourable to some people.
I am against the death penalty. I am not in favor of the state executing someone accused of killing a rich person while pretending that keeping the White Supremacist alive is a nod to my ideology.
I’m pro-killing-shitty-people, but I don’t trust our justice system to consistently and accurately determine guilt, and thus I must be against the death penalty as currently implemented.
I am against the death penalty full stop. There is no way for humans, let alone groups of humans, to implement kill people justly.
I’m just saying that executing people the government doesn’t like while not doing so for right wing terrorists is neither a compromise nor a step in the right direction.
That comparison would be more valid if the Federal Government hadn’t stepped in to add terrorism charges to Mangione’s case in a state that doesn’t have the death penalty.
They literally could be tried by the same people, except the federal government does not see killing 23 minorities as bad a crime as killing one rich white guy.
To play Devil’s advocate, the bottom one was offered a plea deal. That’s different than not pursuing the death penalty.
That’s kinda the point. Why wasn’t Mangione offered a plea deal?
Also, why did the DOJ intervene and add the federal qualifier of “murder in furtherance of an act of terrorism” to Mangione’s charges in order to put the death penalty on the table (NY state doesn’t have the death penalty), but didn’t add it to the charges of the guy who murdered 23 Hispanic people specifically to terrorize the Hispanic community?
And why was that not offered to Luigi?
They think they have a solid frame-up
Do we know that one wasn’t offered? I was under the impression that Luigi has been pretty set on fighting the charges from the get go.
That could certainly be part of an answer to my question, were I to receive one.
“Why was Luigi not offered a plea deal?” implies that you know that he was not offered a plea deal. I asked, do we know that? It would be news to me.
A valid answer to my question could be “you’re wrong, he was.” I’m fully open to being wrong. The fact that nobody mentioned that he was is a strong indicator that he wasn’t.
The burden of proof of your own statements does not fall upon others.
No, I’m asking a question.
Your question hangs upon, it requires, a condition which has not been proven true therefor you’re claiming the condition is true by asserting the question is valid.
Suggested changes in how you present the statement:
“Was Luigi offered a plea deal? If not, why?”
Plea Deals don’t go to people pleading innocent. You don’t get leniency for dragging the judicial process out and costing the state and federal lots of time and money.
Yes they do. You agree to change your plea to guilty in exchange for some guarantees regarding sentencing.
Yes, precisely, by taking a plea deal you change your plea to guilty. Not innocent.
Why is a plea deal even necessary for a mass murderer?
Get a guilty plea, eliminates a lot of appeals, dude spends life in prison.
Plea deals are not unusual. It speeds up the process. Plus, not everyone approves of the death penalty, so a DA securing a plea deal by taking death off the table can even be favourable to some people.
I am against the death penalty. I am not in favor of the state executing someone accused of killing a rich person while pretending that keeping the White Supremacist alive is a nod to my ideology.
I’m pro-killing-shitty-people, but I don’t trust our justice system to consistently and accurately determine guilt, and thus I must be against the death penalty as currently implemented.
I am against the death penalty full stop. There is no way for humans, let alone groups of humans, to implement kill people justly.
I’m just saying that executing people the government doesn’t like while not doing so for right wing terrorists is neither a compromise nor a step in the right direction.
I am also against the death penalty, and I’m just not sure what this comparison brings. They’re not even being prosecuted by the same people.
That comparison would be more valid if the Federal Government hadn’t stepped in to add terrorism charges to Mangione’s case in a state that doesn’t have the death penalty.
They literally could be tried by the same people, except the federal government does not see killing 23 minorities as bad a crime as killing one rich white guy.
Don’t know the story, but it’s common for snitching on others in your private chat group who drove you toward such things.
it is but the problem with playing devil’s advocate is that sometimes you actually advocate for the devil.
Hardly the case here, they’re just pointing out facts, for those of us who prefer our righteous outrage guided by truth rather than carelessness.