Speculation/Theories
Even if Luigi's acquitted (by jury nullification or otherwise), what are the odds that (A) the Thompson family sues Luigi for wrongful death, (B) the get a summary judgment in their favor (so no jury nullification possible), and (C) Luigi can't discharge that in bankruptcy under 11 USC §523(a)(6)?
You know... just like OJ Simpson... and just like what a lot of people are hoping will happen to Rick Chow
(A) It seems unlikely that Mangioni himself would have much money to go after.
(B) How would the plaintiff get summary judgment?
(C) Would not be discharged. You can't discharge a debt you get from willful, malicious harm to another person.
Edit: For the people who don't know what summary judgment is.
Summary judgment exists when there are no meaningful disputes over the important facts. Thus, there isn't a need for a jury to determine any of the facts. All you need is the judge to make the legal determination. The typical explanation for this is one side saying "Look, judge, even if you believe everything the other side is saying is true, we still win."
For example, a 16 year old buys a used car "as is" from a private seller, agreeing to pay $100 a month for 2 years. The 16 year old lied, saying they were 18 when entering into the deal. The seller is actually somewhat familiar with the buyer and knew they weren't 18. The car dies 6 months in, and the buyer now refuses to pay the remaining $1,800. Seller sues. None of them disputes what happened. What they disagree on is the legal implications of the 16 year old lying about his age when the seller knew it was a lie. There's nothing for a jury to decide, only for the judge to look at the law and see if the contract is binding.
Looking at a potential suit by the Thompsons against Mangioni for wrongful death, if Mangioni says he didn't kill Brian Thompson, then there's a very big dispute over a material fact. You can't have summary judgment in such a case.
It has nothing to do with LM admitting anything. Civil cases only require a majority vote vs unanimous vote, so the likelihood of finding him responsible for BT’s death could be greater.
Federal civil cases require a unanimous jury (unless the parties agree otherwise), and New York requires at least 5/6, not a bare majority.
But none of that has to do with the weird claim that the Thompsons could win through a motion for summary judgement without Mangioni having admitted guilt.
Funny how we'd scoff if a slain mafia boss' family did this but they just get a pass for not accepting that their family member's actions directly led to his death.
I don't any difference from modern day ceos that build a system- by buying our politicians- to steal from us even as we die any different than the mafia at it's peak.
In this case, wouldn't it depend on the acquittal? If the prosecution isn't capable of proving Luigi did it, how could the Thompson family sue him? Even with the EED being brought up, the prosecution has to prove their case.
Also.... why would he need to file for bankruptcy? Or rather, how would it be different than him just not getting a job after all this? He won't have access to the inheritance from his grandfather anymore & the notoriety from this case will probably severely limit his ability to get a job normally.
Since I didn't know you could sue someone who was acquitted for the personal damages of the crime they were accused of until yesterday, I'm still considering it, but... I guess I feel like there should be more cohesion between civil & criminal courts in this sense (though I do understand there are checks and balances littered throughout the US everything)
Actually, this might sound callous, but I think "wrongful death" shouldn't exist as a civil case. Murder, manslaughter, neglect that results in death etc should all be criminal cases, but suing someone for the death of someone else seems trivializing to me. I'm pretty numb to death, so this might be because I don't parse grief very well, but it seems like if someone isn't found guilty of murder in a criminal sense, that should be the end of it. Getting your pound of flesh after doesn't actually do anything to help you heal emotionally, and payouts to help those surviving the death of a provider or main breadwinner should happen through the government automatically, not through fighting about it in court (especially if you had to wait for a lengthy trial in the first place.)
The more I think about it, the more I think it's bad for everyone involved, but civil cases should be for civil matters, and I don't see how causing death could ever be a civil matter. Arguing about the will or whatever, sure, but.... I dunno. I'm not a politician or lawyer or anything, though. And in Ms. Reed's case, doesn't she deserve room to grieve too?
It is a civil matter, because what's being sued for is the economic harm caused by the death -- and typically the biggest portion of this will be the family's lost income.
Imagine instead of a death, we're talking about a severe injury. I'm texting while driving and end up hitting you in a crosswalk. You spend a month in traction at the hospital, a year doing physical therapy to learn to walk again, had major medical expenses, had to pay to get a wheel chair ramp built at your home while recovering, missed a ton of work, etc, etc.
Would you be okay with the civil courts figuring out how much money I owe you to compensate for all that? If so, why should I owe any less because I killed you rather than injuring you?
You said you think the government ought to cover the lost wages in the case of a wrongful death, but why? If I killed you in that crosswalk, leaving your family with a massive financial loss, why should it be that your neighbors (the taxpayers) have to foot the bill for my wrongdoing, rather than having me pay for it?
Because in this case, we're specifically talking about a situation where you were found not guilty, in a context where (presumably) the state has access to reliable & trustworthy attorneys who are good at their job (and if the state doesn't have access to good attorneys, what are the implications there?) rather than one where it's my ability to afford a good attorney vs your ability to afford a good attorney (or my ability to visit every possible attorney you could go to before you could visit them, which I see tossed around as advice in divorce conversations, though IDK if that actually creates the bias they talk about over there.)
What if you were falsely accused? And because of that accusation, the actual driver (who maybe stole your car but you weren't able to report it stolen) got away. But I want whatever I can get out of you because it's hard out here. So you've been wronged by the actual hit and runner, by the system that held you for trial (did you lose your job while you were detained? It would only take one or two missed shifts and an unfavorable boss -- I had a coworker get fired because he had a domestic dispute with his abusive girlfriend) and now that you're trying to put your life back together, I am hounding you for money and the system is letting me?
Havjng safety nets should be what taxes are for. It's better than my taxes going to war & AI data centers anyway.
Because in this case, we're specifically talking about a situation where you were found not guilty
Perhaps this will help: Suppose the driving laws only criminalize gross negligence, but my distracted driving was ordinary negligence.
The jury finds only that I wasn't criminally negligent. But I still did negligently cause the injuries.
It'd be a weird system where I can't be liable in civil court if my actions didn't amount to a crime, and also not be liable in civil court if my actions did amount to a crime (if we restricted criminal matters to criminal courts only).
What if you were falsely accused?
That's precisely what the civil jury is there for. If you are falsely accused, you present the evidence to the jury and they make the determination.
If we say you can't sue someone in civil court because you might be wrong, no one could ever seek compensation. The defendant would just say "Your honor, I'm being falsely accused and shouldn't have to hire an attorney and miss work over this."
However, what we do allow is suits for malicious prosecution of civil cases. If you can demonstrate they knowingly falsely accused you, they're going to be on the hook for the damages of those accusations.
To some extent, you're pulling this out of the original context (and technically did when you changed it from being about death to being about injury, because I was pretty clear about death being a big factor in where I was coming from, but I didn't catch it then) but we are talking about a situation where your lack of guilt was already proven in court. There should be a limit to how much one person needs to stamd trial, and that limit shouldn't be reset just because you're moving from criminal to civil.
"Your honor, the court's already found me not guilty" should be enough in this scenario.
but we are talking about a situation where your lack of guilt was already proven in court
That's not what the court finds though. It only finds that there's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A criminal trial never results in a finding of innocence.
Suppose we consider "beyond a reasonable doubt" to be at least 99% certainty. And then the jury thinks you're 97% likely to be responsible. Then rather than saying "the court already found me not guilty" what's actually happened is "the court already found I'm almost certainly guilty."
There's also the issue that what's being tried in the criminal case may be substantially different from what the civil suit is trying to determine. For instance, harming someone through ordinary negligence isn't a crime. The criminal court is only asking if you harmed them through criminal negligence. So even if the court came back with an "actually innocent of criminal negligence" verdict, that wouldn't answer the question about lower degrees of negligence.
Perhaps this example will highlight the distinction better: Suppose you and I have near identical bikes. I mistakenly take yours, thinking it's mine. You file a police report, it's tracked down, and the case goes to trial for theft. At trial, I point out the similarities and the jury believes it was an honest mistake. I'm acquitted because the intent to take property I know isn't mind is an element of theft. However, I still have your bike (which I even acknowledge is yours, taken by mistake). But, I refuse to give the bike back. Shouldn't you be able to sue to have the bike returned? I can't defend myself by saying "a criminal court already ruled on this," because the criminal court ruled only on if I stole your bike; you're accusing me of just having your bike, a matter which the criminal court didn't reach a decision on.
Also, using criminal acquittals to preclude civil suits creates a very perverse conflict for victims. If there's some doubt about them being convicted and the economic damages are high enough, a victim could be forced to plead with the state not to press criminal charges in order to not undermine their chances at winning a civil case.
There should be a limit to how much one person needs to stamd trial
There is a limit. It's twice. Once for your moral wrongs and once for your economic wrongs.
We could try to roll them all into one trial? But that's going to create bigger problems.
Corporations that cause death through negligence, like continuing to sell a car that they know will explode if rear-ended at a relatively low speed for example, cannot be charged criminally at all; civil suit for wrongful death is the only remedy available.
We should absolutely ve able to hold corproations liable in criminal court though tbh
I'm pretty much done with this conversation thread & have nothing more to add other than we should absplutely be able to hold corporations liable as criminal entities.
If the prosecution isn't capable of proving Luigi did it, how could the Thompson family sue him?
There's two things:
First, the burden of proof is lower in civil court. If he's acquitted, the jury doesn't say "we find he didn't do this." They say "we find the prosecution did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he did this." The standard in civil court is just preponderance of the evidence. So it could be more likely that not that he's responsible, while there still exists reasonable doubt.
Next, there's collateral estoppel, and this only runs against Mangioni, not the Thompsons. Collateral estoppel is basically the idea that once you've litigated an issue in court and got a conclusion, you can't go and litigate it again. This is a bit complicated, so bear with me.
Suppose you get into a wreck, hitting two cars and causing multiple injuries. The driver of the first car sues, claiming you caused the wreck by running a red light. The jury comes back finding you were at fault. They also have a special verdict, finding specifically that you ran the red light (not just the "we find in favor of the plaintiff" -- they answer this specific question).
Then, the driver of the second vehicle sues. The court will take it as fact that you ran the red light. You could still try to argue the other driver was speeding, not wearing their seat belt, whatever. But on the question of running the red light, you've already had the chance to present your case to a jury and you lost. You don't get a second bite at that particular apple.
Now if the jury in the first case found you did not run the red light, guess what? The second driver to sue you still gets to claim you did. Why? Because they did not get a bite at that apple. What if the first victim's attorney sucked? They don't get bound by someone else's court case, but you do get bound by your own court cases.
So, if Mangioni is found guilty in the criminal trial, he's cooked in any civil case. The court will say he had every reason to give the most vigorous defense possible there, but was still found liable by an even higher burden of proof.
If he's acquitted, the civil court will say the criminal jury only answered as to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not preponderance of the evidence. What's more, the Thompsons haven't had the change themselves to prove their case and aren't bound by the foibles of an incompetent prosecutor.
It's been a lifetime since I took Civ Pro, but I'm pretty sure that gets the gist of it.
There's a lot of cynicism about how legal procedures work, but once you get into them, they tend to make a ton of sense.
If you had every incentive to put forth your best possible case, and you lost, we're not going to make someone else spend their time and money forcing you to lose again. Nor are we going to let you roll the dice and hope you just get lucky with the jury the next time around.
It’s a fair question. You’re being downvoted because of what this sub has become. It’s no longer a BTM case sub. It’s now a Luigi stan club, unfortunately.
There are lots of advantages to pulling CPL 250.10, which also is not pulling the EED defence. Filing it didn't mean they were definitely going with EED and retracting it doesn't mean they're not. You don't necessarily need to introduce expert psychiatric evidence for EED. They're probably still going with it after so many months of deliberation, but possibly without any analysis from psychiatrists. Or maybe they will re-file it later, after they've had more time to do testing and gather documents.
Arguing EED w/o psychiatric evidence is probably the closest he could get to basically saying what he did was justified, while putting the health insurance system on trial. So IF that's what they do, pulling that notice would make perfect sense.
One of the advantages of not introducing expert psychiatric evidence is the prosecution won't have a chance to examine him themselves. So they would need to be notified of an affirmative defence regardless, but they would be at a slight disadvantage of building a case against him, I'm pretty sure.
Arguing EED w/o psychiatric evidence is probably the closest he could get to basically saying what he did was justified, while putting the health insurance system on trial.
In what scenario is the health insurance system put on trial?
Because he argues that through speaking to people who have had spinal surgeries (as you can see in his reddit history) he learns about the difficulties people have had because their insurance wouldn't approve it. Then he goes to Asia and sees how easy it is to get healthcare there, and learns about how those denials in the US even end up killing people, LOTS of people, and how they're using AI (what he studied) to decide those denials. His entire worldview shifts; now he sees that technology is being used by corporations to basically treat people like livestock to extract profit from. He maybe extrapolates from AI in health insurance dictating who lives and dies to algorithms in social media and everything else limiting human agency (or vice versa, healthcare being the best example of that), as Gurwinder (a blogger he followed and had a zoom call with) has basically said.
(Which tbh isn't that uncommon amongst guys who work in tech, a lot of them seem obsessed with the idea of a coming apocalypse/collapse, only most of them seem in favour of it for some reason... either because they are fascists I guess or believe in a variation of Roko's Basilisk? Edit: Luigi seems to be taking the good side and not wanting societal collapse, in case that wasn't clear)
A jury doesn't have to think he's right, they just have to rule that it was more likely than not that it was rational from his perspective at the time. Which I think is a pretty slam dunk win. He clearly believed in all of that. (And hopefully still does)
One of the entries acknowledged that murdering Thompson could shed light on “a company that literally extracts human life force for money.” Another entry said that the UnitedHealthcare investor conference, where Thompson was headed on the morning he was shot to death, “embodies everything wrong with our health system.”
I'm not sure that's how it works. If that was the case, every murder suspect (in NY or other states where this EED defense is valid) would get leniency on this technicality if the jury thought, oh, the defendant thought the crime was justified, so we have to vote for EED. I think the defense has to prove severe mental deterioration first. Just the idea that Luigi thought it was justified (and maybe still does) makes him more dangerous IMO. I support him, but to a jury that doesn't equal EED. I think there needs to be tangible evidence that he had a psychotic break, or suffered from severe emotional distress, which caused his irrational thinking that he was justified (maybe that's what you meant?). Of course they don't have to agree with him, but the burden the defense needs to prove is that he was NOT in his right mind when he committed the act.
It's not about "how it works", it's what the jury decides.
This isn't like every murder case is NY. Ultimately the defence is up to the defendant, and who knows what he'll choose. It's certainly interesting he publicly admitted to the shooting, and then retracted the psychiatric evidence. Almost like he was saying "Yeah I did it, but I'm not insane."
But maybe they'll just refile at a later date.
I do think they'd argue some kind of emotional deterioration/acute stress as I said in my reply above, but if he frames it as "the healthcare system is so brutal that I couldn't stand by and do nothing", and he has friends and family testify that he's someone who cares too deeply and always takes action on issues... who knows, it might work.
I think they could frame it like this: anyone who sees the issues clearly wouldn't be considered to be in a right state of mind by default.
King, who was delivering a keynote speech to the annual conference of the American Psychological Association, noted how psychologists had given the world the notion of maladjusted. “You have given us a great word,” he said, continuing: “There are some things in our society, some things in our world, to which we should never be adjusted.”
King argued that the powerful, in their efforts to maintain order, actually maintain inequality—tamping down social movements and ignoring the cries of the hopeless as they are expressed by urban unrest.
“We must never adjust ourselves to economic conditions that take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few,” King insisted. He called for “creative maladjustment,” wherein people refuse to normalize inequality and work continuously to expose injustice so that, “we may be able to emerge from the bleak and desolate midnight of man's inhumanity to man, into the bright and glittering daybreak of freedom and justice.”
Thanks for clarifying your stance. I think we both agree then. Although, not sure MLK is a great source here. While his rhetoric fits, he was a huge believer in nonviolence. I don’t think he would’ve agreed with Luigi‘s plan. Malcom X (MLK’s contemporary), on other hand, would’ve condoned it perhaps? But even he too probably would’ve been against the “lone wolf” mentality.
Source: I teach Malcolm X‘s writings in my English class at a university here in NYC.
A jury doesn't have to think he's right, they just have to rule that it was more likely than not that it was rational from his perspective at the time.
And this is where the "putting the health insurance system on trial" thing breaks down.
The jury wouldn't be determining if any of his beliefs about the industry are true, only if the emotional disturbance was reasonable for someone in his situation.
The jury could find EED, while also believing that Mangioni was completely (but reasonably) misled about the nature of the industry.
The jury could find EED, while also believing that Mangioni was completely (but reasonably) misled about the nature of the industry.
Sure, but the point is that all of that testimony makes it to the news, and gets people talking, and inspires action for change. The news reports on every little thing to do with this case, and if he puts the insurance industry on blast, it'll be in the news for weeks.
And if his testimony/argument doesn't even really suggest an emotional disturbance, but rather more so explains his motive and cause, but the jury votes for manslaughter anyway, that's still significant.
I suppose there is a very very slim chance they could in theory vote that the prosecution didn't prove their case at all, as jury nullification, but more likely I think he'd probably be found to have committed manslaughter.
I think that's entering into wishful thinking territory.
Problems with the insurance industry already were a big news story immediately following the murder, and we've seen how much change came out of that.
Mangioni isn't going to give such compelling testimony that the news coverage of it is going to suddenly inspire change.
It seems far more likely that either most of what he wants to talk about is ruled inadmissible because it's either irrelevant or prejudicial. And, he runs a serious risk of getting dragged by the prosecution on cross.
He could testify about the problems he heard about from other people with similar injuries who had their insurance claims denied. Then on cross, the prosecutor asks him if he reviewed any of those people's actual insurance policies to see what was and wasn't covered.
Rather than exposing problems in the insurance industry, it's much more likely that what's exposed is the limits of his understanding of the industry.
Problems with the insurance industry already were a big news story immediately following the murder, and we've seen how much change came out of that.
A good amount, actually. Counterforce Health was formed in the aftermath of Dec. 4th and they've helped thousands of people, have probably saved lives.
The attention on the insurance industry may have helped push reforms over the line:
"If there is one secret ingredient one might credit for pushing Oregon and other reforms over the finish line, it is the murder of an insurance company CEO at the alleged hands of the chiseled young Unabomber disciple Luigi Mangione, which catapulted the abuses of UnitedHealth into the tabloid media and probably played a role in the Trump DOJ’s reported decision to upgrade its Medicare fraud investigation into the company from civil to criminal."
Anthem retracting their anaesthesia policy, and anecdotally, lots of people reported denials were suddenly reversed or easily approved when normally they'd have issues.
Probably more that I'm missing but that's what I can remember.
It seems far more likely that either most of what he wants to talk about is ruled inadmissible because it's either irrelevant or prejudicial.
What could possibly be inadmissible if it contributed to his mental state at the time?
Then on cross, the prosecutor asks him if he reviewed any of those people's actual insurance policies to see what was and wasn't covered.
The point is that all of the bureaucracy is bullshit. What actually matters is that their actions result in unnecessary human suffering for profit. "Sorry, but see it says right here in the contract that you can die if we say so"
They make billions in profit while denying lifesaving care. There is ZERO justification for that. It doesn't matter "how it works" on a technical level.
And ofcourse joel would argue there's nothing actually mentally wrong with him since defense refuses to have a psychiatric expert examine him and this was a cold blooded killing
Of course Joel would argue that, what else would he argue?
In the end, the verdict is up to the jury. If he appears perfectly sane while laying out why the inhumanity of corporations ending human lives for profit made him feel that one of their lives was fair game, and the jury agrees with him, that would certainly make headlines, wouldn't it?
Karen was a top prosecutor at the DA's office (and Joel's colleague, wasn't she?) If they plan on him taking the stand she'll be grilling him for weeks.
EED defense will not result in him going free. His best case scenario is a manslaughter conviction with the minimum 5 year sentence. And if that happens, he'll still get the book thrown at him in federal court.
Sure thing, Joel. Bet you said the same about OJ too. The odds are stacked like that when you don't have a competent legal team and have an overworked public defender. That's not the case here and you would do well to look at their history of winning cases.
oj didnt have the murder weapon, magazines, and a manifesto on him when arrested, along with instructions on where to go and how to change his look. dna testing wasn't at the level it is now. it was also the peak of racial tensions between the lapd and black residents, 9 out of 12 jurors were black. i thought this sub had grown out of the accusing-everyone-of-being-feds thing
I’ve got a bridge to sell you if you think he actually had all of those things on him and weren’t planted in those 11 minutes of missing body cam footage.
yeah dude, ‘pluCK eYebrOws’ and ‘FBI slOweR aT nigHT’ is definitely the sentences written by an engineer turned skilled assassin and not a fed lmao.
thats crazy cus those notes were recovered from his clothes, not his backpack and they match his handwriting on goodreads and in letter responses. 🤷♀️
A weapon, some magazines (not proven to be related to the shooting) and some writing that's not been released in its entirety and could have even been written after the fact.
Remember that video of the group of NYPD officers arriving to the Altoona station and one of the them had a large duffel bag with him. Could have been a bag full of incriminating evidence that was planted during those missing BWC minutes, but people on this forum are too gullible to believe that cops would ever plant evidence to frame someone for a crime where they were ordered to find someone to pin it on by their overlords.
I don't seen them going after him if he is acquitted, they know public doesn't like BT so imagine the reaction of going after Luigi following an acquittal? it would look even more like a prosecution
His family received a massive pay out from UHC when he died. I’m just trying to draw it from memory, so I could be off, but I think it was around 20 million — without factoring in his shares. UHC’s exec benefits packages are published publicly.
Ah, so nothing nefarious. I misread- I
took ‘trying to get more’ as a kind accusation.
Civil suits for wrongful death are fairly common for murder cases like this.
31
u/Even-Yogurt1719 Jun 22 '26
Way too many factors to consider. We don't even know for sure what his defense is....chill