Judge: Luigi Mangione Wasn't a Terrorist — He Was Just Drawing Attention to Greed

Brett T. | 6:30 PM on September 16, 2025

As Twitchy reported earlier, leftists cheered and hugged on Tuesday at the news that the terrorism charges had been dropped against Luigi Mangioni, the man who shot UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in the back on a New York City street and became a folk hero to liberals.

Now, we've seen part of the judge's reasoning why he tossed out the most severe charge, first-degree murder, and it puts him in league with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

This is the judge’s reasoning for dropping Luigi Mangione’s charge down to only 2nd degree murder.

Absolute insanity. Our judicial system is completely cooked. pic.twitter.com/hqSl8iJbKJ
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) September 16, 2025

Oh, Mangioni wasn't trying to terrorize health insurance companies and their employees … he was just trying to "draw attention" to what he saw as the greed of the insurance industry. So, he was just raising awareness by killing Thompson in cold blood.

That is a very disturbing passage from the judge. Separately, how is this not first degree murder, regardless of the terrorism angle? He stalked and hunted down his victim, then shot him in the back, then went to great lengths to avoid capture. Textbook premeditation. https://t.co/quNpc9thS1
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 16, 2025

Absolutely insane!!

So, in America, a left-wing judge can decide that you were justified in murdering an innocent person because you didn’t like that person’s business model and just like that, your murder charge is dismissed!!

Holy sh!t!!
— Obi_1_D_AllKnowing (@obiopiah) September 16, 2025

That quote by the judge is a justification for terrorism. Murdering someone for a political reason. Mangione murdered the CEO for two connected reasons: (a) send his message, and (b) use murder to emphasize the importance of complying with his message. This is terrorism.
— George Sanders (@GeorgeM10912400) September 16, 2025

Exactly — it wasn't to "raise awareness," it was to send a message. Comply or be shot.

I would say that this should have been a question for the jury to decide, but apparently this judge would rather indulge his personal beliefs rather than the law.
— TexFlyer (@FlyerTex) September 16, 2025

I thought first degree and second degree was defined by premeditation, not by terrorism. I am now confused.
— Parrhesia (@NoHarmD0n3) September 16, 2025

How does that change the fact that it was premeditated? Only certain premeditations are 1st degree?
— Larry Fuqua (@WizZifnab) September 16, 2025

Bringing attention to your cause by carrying out a planned assassination is terrorism.

What the judge used to lower the charge actually justifies the original charge.

Madness.
— Equality 7-2521 (@Equality7d2521) September 16, 2025