Cheering+funding felony crime.

[temporal1]

Cheering+funding felony crime.

The U.S. legal system wants/demands/provides for legal defense for all crimes. Not in debate.
Crowd funding? Individuals voluntarily donating? Cheering on murder, felony vandalism?

Brian Thompson Murder
viewtopic.php?t=7399
P.7:

Mangione gets 300K toward defense fund.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/lui ... arly-300k/

- - - - - - -

Texas high school football star Austin Metcalf stabbed in the heart, left to die in twin brother’s arms at track meet: dad
https://nypost.com/2025/04/03/us-news/t ... rack-meet/

Karmelo Anthony’s Family Raises $160K For Defense Fund After Teen Allegedly Stabbed Fellow Track Athlete, Says It Was Self Defense
https://blavity.com/karmelo-anthony-fam ... fense-fund

- - - - - - -

i’m not aware of crowd-funding for Tesla vandalism, but, crowd support seems rampant.
The many videos of volunteer citizen vandals of all ages and descriptions are jarring.

2025 Tesla vandalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Tesla_vandalism

- - - - - - -

In the past, at will, crowd funding sites would close down pages, return funds to donors.
Remembering small business bakers unwilling to go against their religious beliefs - not murder or felony vandalism.
There are other examples of subjective decisions to shut down fund raising attempts - not murder or felony vandalism.

It doesn’t seem possible.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

A fundamental working part of the United States legal system is what is called "due process". A significant part of due process can be stated to be "innocent until proven guilty." That is, a person has a right to go through the process of a trial in order for the system to demonstrate with innocence or guilt in their crime. This includes the right to an attorney (if you don't retain an attorney, one will be provided for you by the state).

Since you are not technically guilty of any crimes before your trial, it doesn't really make any difference whether you've been charged with vandalism or murder. You still have the right to an attorney to defend you in the due process court of law.

Imagine it was otherwise? Imagine if someone accused of vandalism had the right to an attorney, but someone accused of murder did not. All you would have to do is charge someone with something they didn't do in order to deny them access to an attorney and more easily convict them.

[JohnH]

A fundamental working part of the United States legal system is what is called "due process". A significant part of due process can be stated to be "innocent until proven guilty." That is, a person has a right to go through the process of a trial in order for the system to demonstrate with innocence or guilt in their crime. This includes the right to an attorney (if you don't retain an attorney, one will be provided for you by the state).

Since you are not technically guilty of any crimes before your trial, it doesn't really make any difference whether you've been charged with vandalism or murder. You still have the right to an attorney to defend you in the due process court of law.

Imagine it was otherwise? Imagine if someone accused of vandalism had the right to an attorney, but someone accused of murder did not. All you would have to do is charge someone with something they didn't do in order to deny them access to an attorney and more easily convict them.

Nobody has denied anyone of an attorney; if the defendant can’t afford one, the state will provide one. However, multiple funding drives of $150,000 to go to someone who stabbed someone else to death does seem a bit morally dubious.

Kids should be able to go to a track meet without being stabbed to death.

[Szdfan]

Kids should be able to go to a track meet without being stabbed to death.

I’m not catching this reference. What does a kid going to a track meet have to do with the United Healthcare executive murder?

[JohnH]

Kids should be able to go to a track meet without being stabbed to death.

I’m not catching this reference. What does a kid going to a track meet have to do with the United Healthcare executive murder?

A kid was recently stabbed to death at a track meet. The assailant has raised $150k or so on various crowdfunding platforms.

[temporal1]

OP:

The U.S. legal system wants/demands/provides for legal defense for all crimes. Not in debate.

The Texas track meet incident is linked in the OP. Twice.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

So are we saying it's wrong to hire your own attorney when the state will provide you with one? Are we saying that crowdfunding is wrong? Are we saying g the confluence (crowdfunding to hire a defence attorney) is wrong?

Forgive me, I often get confused at your posts temporal. They often seem like they are winking and nudging and suggesting things and I feel like I'm don't have the inside information to reach the conclusions you're trying to imply.

Could someone state a little more on-the-nose what is happening in this thread?

[JohnH]

I think it's possible to point out the fundamental immorality of crowdfunding $200,000 to defend someone who is obviously guilty. He still has a right to a fair trial, but I don't think there's any reasonable person who can look at the facts (which are well established by now) and not conclude that Mangione premeditated to kill Thompson, planned it out, and then took steps to murder him. That's first degree murder. Does anyone really dispute that?

The state has an obligation to give him a fair trial. What is disturbing is anyone else that thinks they should contribute money to his defense. It is, in effect, an endorsement of what he did.

[JoyE]

A fundamental working part of the United States legal system is what is called "due process". A significant part of due process can be stated to be "innocent until proven guilty." That is, a person has a right to go through the process of a trial in order for the system to demonstrate with innocence or guilt in their crime. This includes the right to an attorney (if you don't retain an attorney, one will be provided for you by the state).

Since you are not technically guilty of any crimes before your trial, it doesn't really make any difference whether you've been charged with vandalism or murder. You still have the right to an attorney to defend you in the due process court of law.

Imagine it was otherwise? Imagine if someone accused of vandalism had the right to an attorney, but someone accused of murder did not. All you would have to do is charge someone with something they didn't do in order to deny them access to an attorney and more easily convict them.

Isn't it "presumed innocent" until proven guilty" and not being innocent?

[temporal1]

So are we saying it's wrong to hire your own attorney when the state will provide you with one? Are we saying that crowdfunding is wrong? Are we saying g the confluence (crowdfunding to hire a defence attorney) is wrong?

Forgive me, I often get confused at your posts temporal. They often seem like they are winking and nudging and suggesting things and I feel like I'm don't have the inside information to reach the conclusions you're trying to imply.

Could someone state a little more on-the-nose what is happening in this thread?

JohnH is doing a good job of understanding the confusion+distress i tried to describe in the OP.
This topic is VERY confusing to me, so, your confusion seems like a normal response.

i’m just getting to “know” you on forum, too. i’m not sure i always understand what you write. i try.

In the OP, i added links to 2 murders and numbers of felony vandalism, all recorded and made public, each perpetrator is receiving cheering+funding that goes well beyond basic support for legal defense to assure a fair trial.

There is no dispute wrt fair trials and defense. Non-issue in this topic.
Except for the unborn. The unborn, always innocent, have no legal defense against the death penalty.

In the case of Luigi Mangione, he’s described as having a wealthy family, i presume funds are not charitable, or needs-based (in addition to public defense he could access). Murderers are treated very well in the U.S. legal system, from what i’ve read.
Esp if they happen to receive the death penalty.

1) i do NOT believe photos or videos are always the whole story.
imho, legal defense is warranted, even when it appears to be a slam dunk for guilt.
2) i also believe clever defense attorneys can enable criminals to literally get away with murder.
two things can be true at once.

“innocent” and “not guilty” are not the same thing. in courts of human law.

1) My first question is about the morality of public cheering of heinous crimes, which goes well beyond funding for legal defense.

2) My second question is why generous crowd funding for accused violent felonies is perfectly acceptable ..
when, not long ago, funding was abruptly shut down for those kindly declining to bake a specific cake, photograph a specific wedding, or denying a hotel room for a specific reason? Based on religious convictions.

i don’t believe anyone could be more confused about all this than me.