I don't have an opinion on if he was the shooter. I do have the opinion that the shooter is an American hero though.

No I don't believe he is the shooter, even if he is the shooter he should be found not guilty. Those CEOs caused millions of deaths with their denial claims, that man got what he had coming "unfortunately. "

He may have pulled the trigger but Brian Thompson loaded the gun

I believe he deserves a presumption of innocence as is his constitutional and human right.

Probably, judging from his responses, but the courts can figure it out.

No

Can't be. I was with him at the time of the murder.

I believe he was the shooter, and that he should be found not guilty.

Call me jaded but I am not predisposed to take the NYPD at their word.

People seem to forget about the innocent until proven guilty part, the raw amount of perjury with the theater surrounding this person is mind-numbing. If he makes it out of this he will be come a billionaire out of defamation alone, almost all mainstream news sources treated his guilt as a foregone conclusion with barely an "allegedly" in sight.

No, but it doesn't really matter. The government has selected its scapegoat. I just hope that the jurors understand what jury nullification is before they go in. Gawd knows the courts don't want anyone funding out.

Not guilty regardless.

Anything is possible

Likely him IMO. Very unlikely that they'll be able to go through a highly-publicized trial with broad support for him and pin the wrong guy, so my general attitude is "let's see what happens"

Doesn't matter. He did nothing worth punishing in any regard.

Whoever it was is a hero

It’s really funny how people started off saying as a joke it wasn’t him/eyebrows look different, as a sort of protest against his arrest.

And then people started to take the jokes seriously, and now we have a massive conspiracy theory that like a third of people on lemmy believe it isn’t him, lol.

Wellllll, if I was on the jury, I would be able to be convinced by evidence that he did it. Still wouldn't go along with conviction, but that's a different thing.

That being said, assuming all information publicly available is true, then he probably did it, or did it alongside someone with the plan of him taking the blame.

But that is the assumption that would have to be made, and I don't assume that. I assume that the prosecution has to make a jury believe it. I'm damn near absolutist about not making a final judgement on my end until the person has had their day in court. Since it's a fact that police can, will, and have manipulated evidence, have gained false convictions because of it, and sometimes prosecutors will go along with that, there has to be something a lot more definitive than what's been shown in this case for me to state that he did it.

Since this was a high profile murder, the stakes are high enough that it is entirely possible for there to have been collusion between law enforcement agencies to rush a suspect into custody and fake a case around them. That's as the extreme end of possibility to the extent that I seriously doubt it, but it's possible.

So, the real answer is that I don't believe much of anything about the case. If I believe something about it, that's a matter of faith, not fact, and I simply don't have enough facts that are proven to my satisfaction. I can still admit that he's probably the guy, but that's beside the point.

Thing is, in full transparency, the only thing the killer (be it Mr Mangione or someone else) did wrong was taking out just one target, or the wrong target, depending on how you look at it. A CEO is just a sock puppet for a board of directors and majority shareholders most of the time. Killing a CEO is like killing the sergeant of a unit; it'll disrupt things, but it isn't crippling. There's still generals giving the same orders, and then have a new flunky in place in no time. A CEO is just the easier target because there's only one of them.

You want to disrupt a major company like United, you have to go after more than one piece of the apparatus.

Fuck no! Clearly just a scapegoat

Meh. A bad dude died. The bad dude's actions resulted on the order of at least >1 death/ day. If not for their death, we couldn't be having this broader conversation on what we can do to "solve" the billionaire problem. Even if it involves the sacrifice of one innocent person, its probably all been worth it, and will continue to be if the pattern continues.

losing two peoples < losing many people + starting a broader movement

Its a net gain regardless.

I don't have any reason not to?