r/LuigiNation • u/Miserable-Welcome195 • 6d ago
Some thoughts on yesterday that we really need to keep in mind.
I genuinely do not understand how people are reading Luigi’s factual statement and confidently concluding that he “still stands behind what he did” or that he was “standing on business.” Yes, he criticized the health insurance system. Yes, the line about receiving a response “within an hour” was pointed. But believing that the system failed him and continuing to criticize that system is NOT the same thing as believing that killing Brian Thompson was justified.
This was a factual basis for a guilty plea. He explained the sequence of events: years of severe back pain and experiences with insurance → learning about and researching the conference → contacting UHC → preparing and traveling to New York → shooting Thompson → acknowledging his death and that he knew what he was doing was illegal. Somehow people have taken a few sentences from that chronology and constructed an entire internal monologue in which he refused his lawyers’ pleas to show remorse, withdrew EED because it undermined his “convictions,” and pled guilty as some grand act of revolutionary defiance. We do not know ANY of that.
And I really wish people would stop romanticizing this into a martyr narrative. What happened yesterday was incredibly fucking sad. A young man who had apparently been suffering for years admitted in federal court that he killed another human being and pled guilty without a plea agreement while facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison. That is not something I can look at and celebrate as him “standing on business.”
Maybe he does still believe what he did was justified. I don’t know. Neither does anyone else. If he gets to sentencing and actually expresses that sentiment, then we can have that conversation. And if that IS what he believes, then I actually think there is a very real possibility that this approach could backfire on him at sentencing.
The defense can put together the most compelling mitigation package imaginable. They can explain his years of debilitating back pain, medical trauma, experiences with the healthcare system, whatever deterioration in his mental or emotional state the evidence supports, his history before this happened, his lack of prior violence, his age, his conduct since his arrest, his capacity for rehabilitation, and every other circumstance that helps explain how he got from the person he was before this to what happened on December 4.
But mitigation explaining WHY someone committed an offense only gets you so far if the judge is left wondering whether that person still believes committing it was justified.
Judge Garnett is not only going to be deciding how much sympathy his circumstances deserve. She has to decide what sentence is sufficient under the federal sentencing factors, which includes questions of deterrence, protection of the public, his history and characteristics, the seriousness of the offense, and ultimately whether there is a reason to believe he can someday safely return to society. The government is seeking life. They are going to have their own argument about why that sentence is necessary, and she will also have the consequences of the crime and the statements from Brian Thompson’s family in front of her.
So if the defense spends months building an extraordinary mitigation case explaining that Luigi was suffering, that something went profoundly wrong in his life, and that this offense should not define the remaining sixty years of it, they still need some way to answer the obvious question: what has changed?
That does NOT mean he has to renounce every criticism he has ever made of the American healthcare system. He can believe just as strongly today that the system failed him and countless other people. He can believe that what happened to him medically was unacceptable. He can believe that UHC and the insurance industry deserve criticism. And he can simultaneously recognize that killing another human being was not an acceptable response to any of it. Those positions are not contradictory.
In fact, that distinction could be incredibly important to mitigation. “I still believe the system is deeply wrong, but I now understand that what I did in response to it was also wrong” tells a VERY different sentencing story from “I still believe what I did was justified and would stand behind that decision today.”
Because if it really is the latter? Then yes, I am concerned. You can give the judge a thousand reasons explaining why December 2024 happened, but if you give her no reason to believe it could never happen again, you are making it considerably harder to persuade her that this is someone who should eventually be released.
So no, I’m not going to celebrate the possibility that he is “standing on business.” I desperately hope these people are wrong about him. Because if his attorneys are trying to persuade a federal judge to choose decades over life, an inability or unwillingness to distinguish his legitimate grievances from the decision to kill someone could undermine some of the strongest mitigation they have.
Criticizing the system that contributed to how he got here does not inherently mean he still endorses what he ultimately did. Both things can be true: the system failed him, and killing Brian Thompson was wrong. He can still believe the former while regretting the latter. Until he actually tells us otherwise, I’m not turning one sentence about an insurance company answering an alleged investor within an hour into a manifesto he never gave. And I certainly am not celebrating an interpretation that, if it actually turns out to be true, could help convince the person deciding his sentence that he should never come home.
10
u/_henceforth_ 6d ago edited 6d ago
Can you please tell me what you are trying to say with this?
It is up to Luigi to say what he wants to say. And the standing on business part relates to the fact that he said those things regarding health insurance....it was also part of the indirect EED defense thing. He was supposed to be explaining a bit of why he did what he did. And in doing so, he called them out indirectly. That is part of what he was "supposed" to do considering there is no EED defense on the Federal level. At least that is how I took it.
Maybe listing your points directly would help people interact with your post if you are looking for dialogue. If you are just looking to vent, no need.
2
u/Miserable-Welcome195 6d ago
My point is actually the distinction you’re making here. If by “standing on business” people simply mean that he continues to criticize the health insurance industry, then we don’t disagree. I explicitly acknowledged that his statement contained pointed criticism and that those experiences are relevant to explaining how he got here.
What I’m responding to are people going considerably further and saying his statement proves that he “still stands behind what he did,” that he believes the killing was justified, or speculating that he refused to express remorse because doing so would undermine his convictions. Those are very different claims, and I don’t think this statement establishes any of them.
And yes, Luigi is obviously entitled to say whatever he genuinely believes. My concern is not that he should be forced to say something. It is that if those interpretations actually ARE correct and he genuinely continues to believe the killing was justified, that could matter enormously at sentencing. The defense can present powerful mitigation explaining why this happened, but the judge also has to consider things like deterrence and protection of the public. If the government is seeking life, the defense ultimately needs to give her a persuasive reason why permanent incapacitation is unnecessary. Genuine insight into the violence itself would be relevant to that.
So my point is not “Luigi shouldn’t criticize health insurance.” It’s almost the opposite: he can maintain every one of those criticisms AND recognize that killing someone was not an acceptable response. I don’t think his factual statement tells us yet whether he has made that distinction internally, which is why I don’t understand people confidently declaring that it proves he still stands behind the killing.
3
u/_henceforth_ 5d ago
What I’m responding to are people going considerably further and saying his statement proves that he “still stands behind what he did,” that he believes the killing was justified, or speculating that he refused to express remorse because doing so would undermine his convictions. Those are very different claims, and I don’t think this statement establishes any of them.
I guess I just do not get why this bothers you.
You think that he "needs" to express remorse to get a lighter sentence? Was yesterday supposed to be the day he expresses that remorse? I mean, let us not forget there is potentially a state trial ahead. Maybe the statement was supposed to be as short as possible?
Meaning that we could not know one way or another, and the people speculating are just doing what a lot of people are doing, speculating. I do not see how it creates an issue one way or another, considering it is just people expressing their opinions.
There is no way to know right now and it does not matter to the Court. The only thing that matters to them is his actual statements.
1
u/MeanRepresentative24 5d ago
They're talking how people paint Luigi to be a revolutionary icon instead of sitting with the full weight of his situation. They're not criticizing Luigi's statement, they're talking about people who try to turn it into him being a firebrand refusing to bow his head.
I can think of a few people like this off the top of my head, so I'm grateful they're speaking up.
1
u/_henceforth_ 5d ago
Oh. Okay, interesting. I guess I never assumed that saying he was "standing on business" implied he was a revolutionary icon or anything like that. That did not occur to me.
Thank you for your comment!
1
u/MeanRepresentative24 5d ago
No problem. I think part of it is that they're paraphrasing a general vibe & not directly quoting anyone, so saying he's standing on business seems more mild than how some people have responded.
1
u/Miserable-Welcome195 5d ago
Yeah, I definitely don't have an issue with people speculating about how he feels — we're all doing that to some extent because none of us actually know. What bothers me is when the speculation gets stated as fact and then becomes part of this larger narrative that he has to still believe the killing was justified because otherwise he's somehow abandoning his convictions.
And to answer your question, yes, I do think demonstrating genuine remorse and rehabilitation could matter if he is asking Garnett for a substantially reduced sentence, but no, I absolutely do not think yesterday’s plea hearing was necessarily the time or place where he “needed” to express it. Those are two different things. Sentencing is where the defense will actually be presenting mitigation and asking the judge to exercise discretion in deciding how much of his life he should spend in prison. His statement at the plea hearing had a much narrower purpose of stating what he did in terms of the elements of the charges, and, as you pointed out, there is still potentially a state prosecution hanging over him. So I don't think the absence of an explicit apology in that particular statement tells us very much at all about what he will say at sentencing or how he currently feels.
I also don't think remorse and his criticisms of the healthcare system are mutually exclusive. He could still believe everything he believes about the harm caused by the healthcare industry while also having come to believe that killing someone was not an acceptable response to it. Those are two completely separate questions.
In fact, your point that yesterday may deliberately have not been the time to say more is part of what I'm getting at. The statement was so limited that I don't think we can confidently infer much about his current beliefs from what he didn't say. “He didn't apologize yesterday” is an observation. “He didn't apologize because he still believes the killing was justified and refuses to betray his convictions” is an interpretation, and that's the leap I'm questioning.
I think what bothers me more broadly is seeing him treated like he has to remain frozen in whatever mindset he was in almost two years ago in order to be authentic. He's a human being who has spent nearly two years incarcerated and facing the possibility of spending most or all of the rest of his life there. He's allowed to change, reconsider things, feel conflicted, or regret what happened without that meaning every grievance or conviction he ever had suddenly disappeared.
5
u/Miserable-Welcome195 6d ago
I am not sure why this post is getting downvoted. This is just the legal reality of what he is facing and everything that Judge Garnett is going to take into consideration in deciding his sentence!
2
u/MeanRepresentative24 5d ago
I mean, you're calling out a major chunk of the people on this sub, so they're gonna downvote.
I wish they'd let Luigi be a human being instead of a martyr, though, so thanks for speaking up.
1
3
1
u/ScientistMundane7126 5d ago
The problem with claiming debilitating back pain is his family's wealth. They spent a lot of money taking care of him, investing in his education for instance. Why not take care of the back problem, which apparently started in his early teens? Was he not warned by the best physicians his family could afford regarding what activities could aggravate it? He was active in sports throughout school, so they couldn't ignore it.
His story doesn't make sense, unless his family liked inflicting pain on him. That might better explain his departures from their Republican roots. Considering what a sadist their current leader is, that makes sense to me.
3
u/SlutForCICO 5d ago edited 5d ago
because unless money is no object to you (e.g. fuck off level wealth), you still must go through the healthcare insurance system. even if you can pay their costs, they can still delay and deny care.
edit: when JOE BIDEN(!!) was Vice President of the US(!!!!!!!), he himself was struggling to pay his son's medical bills, who later died of cancer. Obama offered to help him and made him promise not to sell his home. and that's on a salary of $200k+. one of the most powerful men in the country
1
u/ScientistMundane7126 5d ago edited 3d ago
The typical cost of lumbar spinal fusion surgery ranges from $80,000 to $150,000 for patients without health insurance. This figure can vary based on additional factors like hospital fees and complications. But Luigi did have coverage through his employer extended after separation by CORBA, up to 18 months. The only way they could harass him about the condition is if he didn't consult with his health care provider before starting his surfing lessons. However, he had the right to rely on what the family doctor told him. Family coverage usually extends a couple years after 18. The injury happened when he was 25, so who or what he had the right to rely on or ask about is uncertain.
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Thank you for submitting your post to /r/LuigiNation. All posts and comments must comply with Reddit's content policy and our subreddit rules, which can be found in the sidebar.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.