Edit: just googled. NY requires an aggravating factor for murder 1 and premeditation doesn't count.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49274519)

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/125.27

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49274523)

but the laws are pretty stupid if a planned political assassination isn’t included

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49274535)

https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-490-05/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49274539)

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/490.05

(b) for purposes of subparagraph (xiii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section 125.27 of this chapter means activities that involve a violent act or acts dangerous to human life that are in violation of the criminal laws of this state and are intended to:

(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49274542)

-- attempted to affect conduct of DHHS as represented by Medicare reimbursement and the outsized influence they have on health insurers

-- affected the conduct of the police since they had to secure the area and investigate

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49275930)

this applies to literally every killer on the loose

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49276040)

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/490.05

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49274538)

i'm saying an intentional murder should be LWOP regardless of premed & delib. the prosecution is free to introduce evidence of premed & delib to show intent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49274642)

and premed & delib basically means whatever the jury wants it to mean. there's no minimum time for premed & delib. you can premeditate for 1 minute, like you get into a fight and then decide youre gonna shoot someone. it's meaningless

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49276389)

we already have manslaughter for situations w/extenuating circumstances.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49275759)

cr although i can see the utility in breaking them up into gradations for mandatory minimum sentencing purposes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49276062)

Date: September 16th, 2025 7:30 PM

Author: nazi Lawyer

non-lawyer here,

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49276457)

*blank stare*

*blood runs from eyes*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49275953)

No one here lives on BlueSky care to break it down for us?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49275956)

influence the policy of a unit of government

affect the conduct of a unit of government

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49276605)

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/press/pdfs/PeoplevLuigiMangione-omnidecision-091625.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49276627)

sought any particular governmental policy change, let alone that he did so by intimidation or

coercion

...

Indeed, as the federal

authorities noted, the defendant's goal appeared to be to draw the public's attention to what he

perceived to be problems with the healthcare industry.5 The People place great emphasis on one

snatched phrase ("revolutionary anarchism") in defendant's writings to suggest that this satisfies

the statutory element of an intent to "influence the policy of a unit of govemment by intimidation

or coercion, or affect the conduct ofa unit ofgovernment by murder, assassination or

kidnapping."6 Not only does this stretch the import of a two-word phrase beyond what it can

carry, but it ignores other, more explicit excerpts from defendant's writings in which he states

that his goal is to spread a "message" and "win public support" about "every4hing wrong with our

health system." Therefore, the court finds that the People failed to establish an intent to

"influence" or "affect" government. This court will tbcus on the intent element that both sides

appear to emphasize - the intimidation or coercion of a civilian population

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49276635)

as stated in his writings, was not to threaten, intimidate, or coerce, but rather, to draw attention to

what he perceived as the greed ofthe insurance industry ("members ofthe public can focus on

greed"), and, as an additional possible consequence, to negatively affect the financials ofthe

company. The defendant emphasized that he wished to spread a "message" and "win public

support" about "every.thing wrong with our health system." The def'endant explicitly

contrasted himself with Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber," because he "indiscriminately mail

bomb[ed] innocents," and "cross[ed] the line ... to terrorist, the worst thing a person can be."

Exhibit A to People's Affirmation in Response to Defendant's Omnibus Motion. While

defendant's own characterization olhis conduct is olcourse not dispositive, where there is no

other evidence ofterroristic intent, the writings fail to supply that evidence, contrary to the

People's characterization. The People presented sufficient evidence that the defendant murdered

Brian Thompson in a premeditated and calculated execution. That does not mean, however, that

the delendant did so with terroristic intent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49276636)

some UHC employees felt fearful after the murder, and some UHC employees received threats.

But putting aside that some employees received threats even before the murder (one so serious

that investigators traveled to another state to investigate), and every murder has the potential to

induce some degree of fear - for example, a random murder in the subway will cause riders to

feel fearful about riding the subway - that I'ails to establish that this was the deflendant's intent, or

that the conduct fits within the statutory definition of terrorism

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49276638)

not follow that all non-street crimes were meant to be included within the reach ofthe tenorism

statute. While the People place great emphasis on defendant's "ideological" motive, there is no

indication in the statute that a murder committed for ideological reasons (in this case, the

defendant's apparent desire to draw attention to what he perceived as inequities or greed within

the American health care system), fits within the definition of terrorism. without establishing the

necessary element ofan intent to intimidate or coerce. The court agrees with the defendant that

the People appear to conflate an ideological belief with the intent to intimidate or coerce a

civilian population. While the defendant was clearly expressing an animus toward UHC, and the

health care industry generally, it does not lollow that his goal was to "intimidate and coerce a

civilian population," and indeed, there was no evidence presented ofsuch a goal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5775882&forum_id=2/en-en/#49276639)