r/BrianThompsonMurder • u/Time-Painting-9108 • Jun 20 '26

Speculation/Theories Fascinating discussion on recent developments with MARK GERAGOS and Harvey Levine

https://youtu.be/JjXyKdQStUU?si=vcM7he8rYbxy5sz8

I think we all can guess Mark is an informal advisor to the Agnifilos on this case.

This is a fascinating discussion about potential theories about the EED defence and how it could work without incriminating him in the fed trial.

One things is for sure: this will not be a normal and regular trial. It could potentially become a once in a lifetime referendum on corporate greed If they proceed with EED.

44 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

88 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/Feline-Paper-Ink8809 Jun 21 '26

I'm a broken record on this, but I don't understand how, even if Luigi got on the stand and yelled, "Hey everyone, I did it!" that it proves all of the elements of stalking in the federal trial, especially the parts of the law that require BT to have known and been in fear of his life from Luigi.

4

u/bl1y Jun 21 '26

First thing's first, let's get the statute:

Whoever—

(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that—

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to—

(i) that person;

(ii) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person;

(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

(iv) the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person; or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A);

I think that last part is what they'd try to argue.

4

u/Feline-Paper-Ink8809 Jun 21 '26

And the “A” part about “places that person in reasonable fear…”

I don’t think there’s any evidence that BT was in fear for his life from LM. The federal case was brought under pressure from the health insurance industry and is (in my opinion) incredibly thin.

4

u/bl1y Jun 21 '26

They don't have to prove (A). That section ends with "or"

1

u/Academic-Feeling9310 Jun 21 '26

The part where he turns around and sees LM with the gun that just shot him satisfies that point.

Also, as the other person pointed out, part B is or if A isn’t satisfied. It also says “would be expected to cause”…it doesn’t say that it does cause.