The case surrounding Brian Thompson’s high-profile killing and the subsequent escalation of charges against the accused, Luigi Mangione, has stirred up intense debate, particularly due to the inclusion of a first-degree murder charge framed as an act of terrorism. While some view this as appropriate for the severity of the crime, others, like civil defense lawyer Lauren, have voiced strong objections.
Lauren, who shared her thoughts on TikTok, argues that the “terrorism” label seems overblown, especially given the specific legal definitions of terrorism in New York. According to her, a terrorism charge typically involves either the killing of a law enforcement officer, the commission of a felony like armed robbery, or a politically motivated act designed to instill fear or change policy. Lauren points out that Mangione’s actions, though tragic, did not evoke the widespread terror one would expect from a terrorist act. In fact, she claims that on the day of the shooting, New Yorkers were not visibly frightened, and many continued with their daily activities as if nothing had happened. She further suggests that Mangione’s alleged intent to promote universal healthcare through violence is not the kind of political change that a terrorism charge should address.
Her perspective has resonated with others online, where many commenters find the terrorism charge laughable. One person humorously remarked that they weren’t intimidated by Mangione, while another sarcastically noted that they had no fear even as they spent Christmas in New York City, attending shows and walking around.
Lauren also criticizes the public spectacle of Mangione’s extradition, where law enforcement went to great lengths to make a dramatic display of his capture. This, she argues, only serves to elevate his status in the eyes of some as a martyr or a symbol of resistance, further fueling the public’s perception of him as a victim of overreach. The spectacle has even led some online to make comparisons to Jesus Christ, seeing Mangione as a figure who has been unfairly vilified.
Overall, while the case is a serious one, it has sparked a wider conversation about the use of terrorism charges and the ways in which legal actions can sometimes backfire, potentially creating a narrative that fuels the very ideology they aim to suppress.