"If Turley is right, a man who executed a father of two on a Manhattan sidewalk in broad daylight could walk away from the murder charge entirely on a technicality, having already secured the lighter of his two possible sentencing outcomes.
| The generation that blames Israel for Oct 7 considers Mangione innocent? |
Luigi Mangione, the man whose assassination of a health insurance executive turned him into a folk hero to many on the left, shocked the country on Friday when he finally admitted to the killing and changed his plea to guilty.
"I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan. I understood that my actions would place him in fear of death of bodily injury. I knew what I was doing was illegal," Mangione told the judge. He admitted to stalking his victim, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, in the weeks before he gunned him down. The guilty plea locks in a consequence few outside the courtroom seemed to notice at first: a state court can no longer try Mangione for murder.
Mangione had spent more than a year cultivating an image as a martyr willing to fight the system to the end. So why did he suddenly fold and admit everything?
According to Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley, the answer has nothing to do with a guilty conscience. Turley discussed the plea with host Charlie Hurt on Fox & Friends Weekend on Saturday, and argued the move was a calculated legal gamble aimed at avoiding a life sentence rather than any sign of remorse.
Mangione pleaded guilty to federal stalking charges connected to Thompson's murder. He still faces a separate state trial in New York scheduled for September. That's where things get interesting, because the two cases carry sharply different stakes. The federal charge carries a possible sentence of life without parole. New York's state system has no such option available.
"The New York case is the case that involves the murder charges, but it is also the case and is the case that has a lower potential ceiling for the sentencing," Turley said." . . .
