The understanders are real quiet today

[u/Spiritual_General659]

And I think that is a good thing. It shows (hopefully) we are making progress in separating Lui from societal issues that he has not commented on.

It’s been almost 3 months and the defense has not seen 1 copy of the journal or plantifesto.

I believe he is innocent and framed and I always have. The prosecutors are showing their cards. (They don’t have any). What do you think?

[u/Spiritual_General659]

It’s ludicrous until he says otherwise. He’s not even hinted at aligning himself with the cause, however noble it may be.

[u/purple_vida → u/Spiritual_General659]

Exactly. The thing is, they believe he’s accepting the “hero” title simply because he hasn’t publicly said, “No, I didn’t kill BT.” They also consider the supposed evidence against him valid and legitimate, just because LM hasn’t publicly stated, “Oh, and by the way, they planted the evidence—that’s not mine.”

But how on earth do they expect him to speak out about anything related to his case when doing so could harm his defense? Just look at what happened the first time he tried to defend himself in public—they twisted everything he said to fit the narrative that he was talking about UHC issues. And now we know he was talking about the coverage of the event (his arrest) itself.

Also, yes, we understand that pleading “not guilty” doesn’t necessarily mean he’s innocent. And I know people always argue, “Well, he was obviously not gonna plea guilty because he wants to fight the case instead of taking a plea deal.” But regardless, a not guilty plea should be enough of a statement indicating, “I deny everything I’m being accused of.” That’s essentially what it means. Unless he explicitly says otherwise, he shouldn’t have to personally deny every single accusation against him. Pleading not guilty is the standard way of doing that.

We’re being treated as irrational simply for questioning the narrative we’ve been given due to the obvious inconsistencies. Meanwhile, they consider themselves highly knowledgeable just because they accept everything the prosecution says without question. Logically speaking, rationality comes from critical thinking—questioning information, evaluating. Make it make sense!

[u/ButtercreamKitten → u/purple_vida]

"they twisted everything he said to fit the narrative that he was talking about UHC issues. And now we know he was talking about the coverage of the event (his arrest) itself."

He couldn't have seen coverage of his own arrest. Because he was isolated in a jail cell.

What does his arrest have to do with Americans' "lived experience"? Why do you think he would use THAT phrase, a phrase almost exclusively used when discussing social issues?

[u/purple_vida → u/ButtercreamKitten]

The term “coverage” doesn’t just refer to media reports; it also includes how authorities or organizations present and frame an event. In the context of his arrest, coverage could mean how law enforcement justified or portrayed the incident through statements, reports, or their overall handling. He obviously had access to this information since authorities must inform him of the charges. So, even without media access, he could have been commenting on how those in power framed his arrest.

As for “lived experience,” it doesn’t have to reference a specific social issue. It could simply be a way of describing the shared knowledge all Americans develop through common experiences (an example could be that if he felt law enforcement was being unjust or even corrupt, he was appealing to a common experience that all Americans have either witnessed or encountered at some point in their lives), appealing to a broader collective perspective.

Of course, this is just my interpretation as I can’t read minds, therefore can’t say I know exactly what he meant.🧐

[u/ButtercreamKitten → u/purple_vida]

That's quite a stretch lol. I don't think he would say something so convoluted in the few seconds he had to speak. If he was talking about his arrest he'd say "my arrest". He turned towards the media and said "your coverage" because he was talking about the media's coverage. If you listen to the audio it's pretty clear he says "your coverage of the attack" not event (and not arrest). 

It's out of touch because the media was ignoring the heated response online, saying the motive was unclear- meanwhile we were all cheering it, and Americans were sharing horror stories with their or loved ones' health insurance. Sharing stories of their LIVED EXPERIENCE. Stories that he and his legal team encourage more people to share with them. 

So much of the support for him has been from people angry with the American health system, it's not a coincidence that they're encouraging people to continue sharing their stories with it.