When people don't get justice through their legal or political system, they'll try and get it in other ways. Across the Atlantic there was shock over it when it happened but to be blunt, I'm...
When people don't get justice through their legal or political system, they'll try and get it in other ways. Across the Atlantic there was shock over it when it happened but to be blunt, I'm amazed something like this hasn't happened earlier in the USA even when you take anti-communism propaganda into account.
It's up to the legal and political institutions to make sure it doesn't spiral out of control - but I'm not holding my breath. Their struggle to get a proper neutral jury alone is an indication of how bad it is.
In stable times people tend to forget, systems of governance can't stop human impulses, they can only redirect them down a peaceful path by making it worth their while to engage with the system....
In stable times people tend to forget, systems of governance can't stop human impulses, they can only redirect them down a peaceful path by making it worth their while to engage with the system. Impulses like a desire for justice, fairness, safety etc.. Every person has a range of options, and if the illegal ones for too many peole are more effective or less costly than the legal ones, that system will fail. And then there's no bounds on what people might do. You cannot disallow things, you can only make it preferable to get those things in the form the system is offering. So it better start offering some justice and fair dealing to people, before things get any uglier.
Neutrality is supposed to exist in the context of peers, which is why it's called a jury of peers. If the average peer believes this man should not be punished in the way the judge or the...
Their struggle to get a proper neutral jury
Neutrality is supposed to exist in the context of peers, which is why it's called a jury of peers. If the average peer believes this man should not be punished in the way the judge or the prosecutor believes he should be punished, then the prosecutor and the judge are biased (frankly the reach for terrorism is out of pocket). The reality is that the "neutral" position on this matter is a sympathetic one to this individual and our justice system should reflect this.
You're not wrong, but when is the jury neutral to their sense of justice, and when to their sense of vengeance? This is one of the lines that get blurred when the legal system don't provide...
You're not wrong, but when is the jury neutral to their sense of justice, and when to their sense of vengeance?
This is one of the lines that get blurred when the legal system don't provide justice. And it's not easy to navigate.
It is certainly important to think about that! But this isn't a widespread problem with all crime that is happening - it's specific to this case, meaning that the context of this case is...
It is certainly important to think about that! But this isn't a widespread problem with all crime that is happening - it's specific to this case, meaning that the context of this case is important. On a broader scale we should be paying attention to justice vs. vengeance as it plays out in the entire system and we should and do have some protections to try and minimize vengeance seeking behavior. But the way this is being painted as an issue in the article seems to ignore broader issues with the justice system in general (you could just as easily talk about failures of justice when it comes to rich folks gaming the system, another way the justice/vengeance paradigm can be exploited) and the author seems to be picking a biased side and calling it "neutral". It feels dishonest to me to fail to discuss or address issues with the justice system as a whole when picking a side like this (siding with justice over vengeance, for example) without simultaneously highlighting how pulling to one side too hard also leads to different problems.
Oh yeah, and its important to realize that things in history often slowly escalate. The French Revolution didn't happen overnight. 9/11 didn't came out of nowhere, nor did the industrial...
Oh yeah, and its important to realize that things in history often slowly escalate.
The French Revolution didn't happen overnight. 9/11 didn't came out of nowhere, nor did the industrial revolution or other things which arguably improved lives.
If things don't change for the better after this the situation will continue to climb the escalation ladder.
A retrospective opinion about Occupy that I remember being popular once “How could Donald Trump ever actually had won?” stopped being the only political discourse was that, much like how the...
A retrospective opinion about Occupy that I remember being popular once “How could Donald Trump ever actually had won?” stopped being the only political discourse was that, much like how the Kaiser closed the Eastern Front by sending a boxcar of Bolsheviks for the Tzar to deal with, Occupy was co-opted by identarian—some would say “woke”—grifters who sandbagged the movement by distracting it from its core economic message.
I find that analysis to be too conspiratorial when taken literally. First, I don’t think the protests by themselves ever would have amounted to much without lasting long enough to change behavior in the voting booth. Second, the grifters did not need to sneak in—or even be cynical grifters in the first place. A crowd that passively agrees with the idea that the less privileged should speak first combined with people who have an unexpected opportunity to spread the causes they truly believe in to a crowd is a recipe for leftist dysfunction in a leaderless movement that requires zero bad actors.
However, trying to make it into an everything movement means that its successors can’t capture the broad appeal due to infighting (or the lack of message discipline scaring away the normies). No one suppressed the peaceful reforms, yet the adage “those who prevent peaceful reformation promote violent revolution” still applies.
It doesn't take much to cause a hung jury. I doubt a full panel will exonerate him, but they would have to exclude a lot of context to get twelve to agree to convict him IMHO. Judges are creative...
It doesn't take much to cause a hung jury.
I doubt a full panel will exonerate him, but they would have to exclude a lot of context to get twelve to agree to convict him IMHO. Judges are creative though.
Reddit has been publicizing instances of Luigi themed graffiti along with tags of deny defend depose. The man succeeded in publicizing his political/social/economic issue and making it go viral.
Yeah when they arrested him I predicted this would be a problem. They may still manage to convict but it'll be an uphill battle to get a jury that won't at least hang. I remember seeing people...
Yeah when they arrested him I predicted this would be a problem. They may still manage to convict but it'll be an uphill battle to get a jury that won't at least hang. I remember seeing people online talking about scattering fliers talking about jury nullification when he was arrested lol
The article mentioned they're asking where they get news and all sorts of things Sounds pretty hand picked to me. Who else is left, the CEO's peers? People who have never had a bad day with paying...
The article mentioned they're asking where they get news and all sorts of things
"Friedman Agnifilo would ask potential jurors where they reside in Manhattan and where they get their news sources from to determine their political leanings," Kerwick said.
"She would also ask whether they were involved in particular protests or campaigns, to determine whether they would empathize with activism, and whether they have an invisible disability, or work in healthcare, to determine if they would be sympathetic to the cause or buy an insanity defense or extreme emotional disturbance affirmative defense."
Sounds pretty hand picked to me. Who else is left, the CEO's peers? People who have never had a bad day with paying for medical care? Folks who haven't ever thought about wealth disparity?
I don't work in criminal law but I have been to law school. It's an adversarial system. The prosecutor and the defense both get to disqualify people if they meet criteria for not being unbiased....
I don't work in criminal law but I have been to law school.
It's an adversarial system. The prosecutor and the defense both get to disqualify people if they meet criteria for not being unbiased. The judge has to approve those criteria.
In a case like this, finding a jury is going to be difficult and take significant time. They might choose to move it out of the city where the shooting happened if they have too much of a problem finding jurors.
This is a common outcome of jury selection. Both the defense and the prosecution want people who aren't biased in favor of the opposition, so the end result is that juries tend to end up being...
Wouldn't this mean the only jurors you can pick are those who don't read the news, even from time to time (i.e. the least informed people)?
This is a common outcome of jury selection. Both the defense and the prosecution want people who aren't biased in favor of the opposition, so the end result is that juries tend to end up being composed of people who don't have strong opinions, which often just means they haven't bothered to think things through.
Being a lawyer is a de facto lifetime exclusion from jury duty. Even being a fireman whose sister is an attorney is close enough to knowing too much to be admitted into the jury box.
Being a lawyer is a de facto lifetime exclusion from jury duty. Even being a fireman whose sister is an attorney is close enough to knowing too much to be admitted into the jury box.
There are a few exceptions if you are a lawyer near a court where they try highly technical cases that are difficult to understand. In criminal cases you are nearly a hundred percent correct.
There are a few exceptions if you are a lawyer near a court where they try highly technical cases that are difficult to understand.
In criminal cases you are nearly a hundred percent correct.
I've had that thought too with Trump's fraud trial in NYC last year. Somehow the judicial system there worked things out. There were articles in the news reporting about many potential jurors...
I've had that thought too with Trump's fraud trial in NYC last year.
Somehow the judicial system there worked things out.
There were articles in the news reporting about many potential jurors having to be dismissed because they hated Trump and rubbished him ( while Trump watched ) during jury selection.
I saw a claim that the terrorism charge would mean no jury trial? Is that accurate for New York or is someone misunderstanding federal/state laws? The internet is full of hot takes and I'm not...
I saw a claim that the terrorism charge would mean no jury trial? Is that accurate for New York or is someone misunderstanding federal/state laws? The internet is full of hot takes and I'm not sure I can parse them correctly.
I'm asking here because I'm not confident in it, and I don't link to misinformation if I can help it. There were several conversations on social media in this case and that's why I'm asking. So,...
I'm asking here because I'm not confident in it, and I don't link to misinformation if I can help it. There were several conversations on social media in this case and that's why I'm asking. So, no, no link.
Ok look the constitution is a little flexible in some places so while I know the sixth amendment, case law is different lol But thanks, looks like the terrorism charge is more of a hate crime like...
Ok look the constitution is a little flexible in some places so while I know the sixth amendment, case law is different lol
But thanks, looks like the terrorism charge is more of a hate crime like enhancement (and tbh not sure it's proveable) and he would be required to have a jury trial due to the 1st degree murder charge.
I wonder if some folks a) misunderstood the NY laws, b) got confused about which charges were federal (Do we even have a federal domestic terrorism crime? I thought we explicitly didn't but that was a while ago), or c) conflated military rules in there with confusion about federal charges.
Or most likely, spread some shit they heard someone else say. (Including possibly Gemini which is at least as of now not running on searches about Luigi at all. )
I am not a lawyer. Just logically I don't see why the prosecution team would make the complaint about it being hard to find impartial jurors if there isn't going to be a jury. Terrorism, I think,...
I am not a lawyer. Just logically I don't see why the prosecution team would make the complaint about it being hard to find impartial jurors if there isn't going to be a jury. Terrorism, I think, is defined by the behaviors having a political goal. If I was the defense I would try to argue that his actions had nothing to do with "politics", only in getting even with a lousy private business.
At the time the impartial jury issue hadn't been raised by prosecutors at the time I'd seen this mentioned, but it does seem to be bad info. Terrorism in NYC has some specific requirements...
At the time the impartial jury issue hadn't been raised by prosecutors at the time I'd seen this mentioned, but it does seem to be bad info.
Terrorism in NYC has some specific requirements including intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
Definitions will matter here as well as whatever he wrote down, but he didn't make government demands and the every day civilian certainly wasn't particularly terrified, but CEOs might count as "a" population depending on the definitions.
If it happened, I'm trying to imagine what a Mangione acquittal would look like for Mangione and the country. Courted by political parties? A run for public office, more likely as GOP? Possible...
If it happened, I'm trying to imagine what a Mangione acquittal would look like for Mangione and the country.
Courted by political parties?
A run for public office, more likely as GOP?
Possible assassination attempts against him?
Biopic(s)? This seems almost guaranteed regardless of trial outcome.
Increased violence against public figures, particularly corporate CEOs? The beginning of an American version of a French Revolution?
Why would you say he would run as GOP? That seems like the group least likely to support killing CEOs. I'm certain in general though, that he would be treated as radioactive by every establishment...
Why would you say he would run as GOP? That seems like the group least likely to support killing CEOs. I'm certain in general though, that he would be treated as radioactive by every establishment party.
It would certainly send rage and fear through the 1% and CEO communities. I don't see him as being open to the republicans. FBI, CIA, or a very well paid high end hitman hired discretely by a...
It would certainly send rage and fear through the 1% and CEO communities.
A run for public office, more likely as GOP?
I don't see him as being open to the republicans.
Possible assassination attempts against him?
FBI, CIA, or a very well paid high end hitman hired discretely by a group of CEOs. Make it look like an ordinary killing, gang member, etc.
Biopic(s)? This seems almost guaranteed regardless of trial outcome.
Agreed.
Increased violence against public figures, particularly corporate CEOs? The beginning of an American version of a French Revolution?
Already happening. There is a story about a guy stabbing his CEO.
Even without a Mangione acquittal a new President Shitstain term will increase frustration with the system and inspire more murders, IMHO.
Can you imagine the logistics of the secret service if they had an elected representative whose hobby is murdering establishment elites that the court has given free reign to?
Can you imagine the logistics of the secret service if they had an elected representative whose hobby is murdering establishment elites that the court has given free reign to?
I'm not sure if this is the right post to bring this up, but it has been a recurring thought in my mind. I recall a case in which a man murdered his son's abuser on live TV, some of you may also...
I'm not sure if this is the right post to bring this up, but it has been a recurring thought in my mind.
I recall a case in which a man murdered his son's abuser on live TV, some of you may also remember this, Gary Plauché. There are many interesting components to this case, but the most marked one is that he received no prison time. I fail to see how we allow something like this to happen, with various justifications, including:
'if somebody did it to your kid, you'd do it too'
but we are mostly saying, there is no way in hell that Mangione is going to "get off" without some sort of huge punishment. To be clear, I agree with this sentiment, there is no way that a rich person is going to be murdered without some sort of visible repercussion, if for nothing more than to send a statement to keep the underlings in check.
However, it is a sad reminder that, in fact, certain deaths are more valuable/justified/whatever you want to call it. People may be created equally, but they certainly are not treated equally.
You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line. - Hopper, A Bug's Life, 1998.
Unrelated rant/question about quality of Wikipedia these days
Has anyone noticed a decrease in the accuracy, but also the quality of writing in Wikipedia entries recently? I'd say, (probably through my own bias), it coincides with the rise of LLM and I wonder if that attributes to it.
As an example of what I'm talking about, the entry about Gary Plauche completely ignores the perspective his son had that he felt his father's actions actually ruined his life, iirc, because it was all anyone could ever talk about and how his father was a hero. He talked at length about how this traumatized him and he could not move on from it. Even now, it is hard for me to find articles that talk about this, and the best I can find is from New Zealand, which includes lines such as:
"He does not agree with those who think of his dad as a hero for his act of vigilante justice."
"The killing of Doucet damaged the relationship between Jody and his dad, Gary, for a while."
Which I feel is quite the different story from how Wikipedia currently ends his story, with:
" he stated that he was happy with his life and regarded his father as 'the greatest dad of all time'"
To be fair, in 2024 he may have felt different, especially looking back on his dad 10 years after his death. But I wonder if it's more about the articles disappearing - without the sources the...
To be fair, in 2024 he may have felt different, especially looking back on his dad 10 years after his death. But I wonder if it's more about the articles disappearing - without the sources the editors aren't able to document that past well.
It'd be interesting to dig backwards in that edit history and see if it was changed
We new that with the FBI and NYPD offering rewards. People are murdered everyday, and that doesn't happen for those people. I've been busy, so have forgotten to do it, but I have been thinking...
However, it is a sad reminder that, in fact, certain deaths are more valuable/justified/whatever you want to call it
We new that with the FBI and NYPD offering rewards.
People are murdered everyday, and that doesn't happen for those people.
I've been busy, so have forgotten to do it, but I have been thinking about contacting the FBI to point out to them they wouldn't be offering a reward for an ordinary person's murder.
When people don't get justice through their legal or political system, they'll try and get it in other ways. Across the Atlantic there was shock over it when it happened but to be blunt, I'm amazed something like this hasn't happened earlier in the USA even when you take anti-communism propaganda into account.
It's up to the legal and political institutions to make sure it doesn't spiral out of control - but I'm not holding my breath. Their struggle to get a proper neutral jury alone is an indication of how bad it is.
In stable times people tend to forget, systems of governance can't stop human impulses, they can only redirect them down a peaceful path by making it worth their while to engage with the system. Impulses like a desire for justice, fairness, safety etc.. Every person has a range of options, and if the illegal ones for too many peole are more effective or less costly than the legal ones, that system will fail. And then there's no bounds on what people might do. You cannot disallow things, you can only make it preferable to get those things in the form the system is offering. So it better start offering some justice and fair dealing to people, before things get any uglier.
That reminds me of OJ. A case in which a larger issue caused someone most people considered to be guilty to be deemed as non-guilty by a jury.
Neutrality is supposed to exist in the context of peers, which is why it's called a jury of peers. If the average peer believes this man should not be punished in the way the judge or the prosecutor believes he should be punished, then the prosecutor and the judge are biased (frankly the reach for terrorism is out of pocket). The reality is that the "neutral" position on this matter is a sympathetic one to this individual and our justice system should reflect this.
You're not wrong, but when is the jury neutral to their sense of justice, and when to their sense of vengeance?
This is one of the lines that get blurred when the legal system don't provide justice. And it's not easy to navigate.
It is certainly important to think about that! But this isn't a widespread problem with all crime that is happening - it's specific to this case, meaning that the context of this case is important. On a broader scale we should be paying attention to justice vs. vengeance as it plays out in the entire system and we should and do have some protections to try and minimize vengeance seeking behavior. But the way this is being painted as an issue in the article seems to ignore broader issues with the justice system in general (you could just as easily talk about failures of justice when it comes to rich folks gaming the system, another way the justice/vengeance paradigm can be exploited) and the author seems to be picking a biased side and calling it "neutral". It feels dishonest to me to fail to discuss or address issues with the justice system as a whole when picking a side like this (siding with justice over vengeance, for example) without simultaneously highlighting how pulling to one side too hard also leads to different problems.
We tried. Remember Occupy Wall St?
When non-violence doesn't work, after long enough, it seems inevitable that someone reaches for violence.
Oh yeah, and its important to realize that things in history often slowly escalate.
The French Revolution didn't happen overnight. 9/11 didn't came out of nowhere, nor did the industrial revolution or other things which arguably improved lives.
If things don't change for the better after this the situation will continue to climb the escalation ladder.
A retrospective opinion about Occupy that I remember being popular once “How could Donald Trump ever actually had won?” stopped being the only political discourse was that, much like how the Kaiser closed the Eastern Front by sending a boxcar of Bolsheviks for the Tzar to deal with, Occupy was co-opted by identarian—some would say “woke”—grifters who sandbagged the movement by distracting it from its core economic message.
I find that analysis to be too conspiratorial when taken literally. First, I don’t think the protests by themselves ever would have amounted to much without lasting long enough to change behavior in the voting booth. Second, the grifters did not need to sneak in—or even be cynical grifters in the first place. A crowd that passively agrees with the idea that the less privileged should speak first combined with people who have an unexpected opportunity to spread the causes they truly believe in to a crowd is a recipe for leftist dysfunction in a leaderless movement that requires zero bad actors.
However, trying to make it into an everything movement means that its successors can’t capture the broad appeal due to infighting (or the lack of message discipline scaring away the normies). No one suppressed the peaceful reforms, yet the adage “those who prevent peaceful reformation promote violent revolution” still applies.
It doesn't take much to cause a hung jury.
I doubt a full panel will exonerate him, but they would have to exclude a lot of context to get twelve to agree to convict him IMHO. Judges are creative though.
Reddit has been publicizing instances of Luigi themed graffiti along with tags of deny defend depose. The man succeeded in publicizing his political/social/economic issue and making it go viral.
Yeah when they arrested him I predicted this would be a problem. They may still manage to convict but it'll be an uphill battle to get a jury that won't at least hang. I remember seeing people online talking about scattering fliers talking about jury nullification when he was arrested lol
How is it actually fair to hand pick jurors ?
They don't precisely hand pick, but each side can exclude jurors taken from the random pool for certain reasons.
The article mentioned they're asking where they get news and all sorts of things
Sounds pretty hand picked to me. Who else is left, the CEO's peers? People who have never had a bad day with paying for medical care? Folks who haven't ever thought about wealth disparity?
I don't work in criminal law but I have been to law school.
It's an adversarial system. The prosecutor and the defense both get to disqualify people if they meet criteria for not being unbiased. The judge has to approve those criteria.
In a case like this, finding a jury is going to be difficult and take significant time. They might choose to move it out of the city where the shooting happened if they have too much of a problem finding jurors.
Interesting. What happens if they move it further and further and find the whole nation filled with sympathizers? :/
I'm pretty sure there's a time limit or something.
Both defense and accusation have veto powers so it's not like one side can unilaterally decide who's in the jury.
The ideal is to pick unbiased jurors, preferably ones that haven't heard anything about the case.
Wouldn't this mean the only jurors you can pick are those who don't read the news, even from time to time (i.e. the least informed people)?
This is a common outcome of jury selection. Both the defense and the prosecution want people who aren't biased in favor of the opposition, so the end result is that juries tend to end up being composed of people who don't have strong opinions, which often just means they haven't bothered to think things through.
Being a lawyer is a de facto lifetime exclusion from jury duty. Even being a fireman whose sister is an attorney is close enough to knowing too much to be admitted into the jury box.
There are a few exceptions if you are a lawyer near a court where they try highly technical cases that are difficult to understand.
In criminal cases you are nearly a hundred percent correct.
I've had that thought too with Trump's fraud trial in NYC last year.
Somehow the judicial system there worked things out.
There were articles in the news reporting about many potential jurors having to be dismissed because they hated Trump and rubbished him ( while Trump watched ) during jury selection.
I saw a claim that the terrorism charge would mean no jury trial? Is that accurate for New York or is someone misunderstanding federal/state laws? The internet is full of hot takes and I'm not sure I can parse them correctly.
Link? The only possible validity for that claim would be the Gitmo military commissions, but that wouldn’t apply in this case.
I'm asking here because I'm not confident in it, and I don't link to misinformation if I can help it. There were several conversations on social media in this case and that's why I'm asking. So, no, no link.
I found this for new York
US constitution sixth amendment
Ok look the constitution is a little flexible in some places so while I know the sixth amendment, case law is different lol
But thanks, looks like the terrorism charge is more of a hate crime like enhancement (and tbh not sure it's proveable) and he would be required to have a jury trial due to the 1st degree murder charge.
I wonder if some folks a) misunderstood the NY laws, b) got confused about which charges were federal (Do we even have a federal domestic terrorism crime? I thought we explicitly didn't but that was a while ago), or c) conflated military rules in there with confusion about federal charges.
Or most likely, spread some shit they heard someone else say. (Including possibly Gemini which is at least as of now not running on searches about Luigi at all. )
I am not a lawyer. Just logically I don't see why the prosecution team would make the complaint about it being hard to find impartial jurors if there isn't going to be a jury. Terrorism, I think, is defined by the behaviors having a political goal. If I was the defense I would try to argue that his actions had nothing to do with "politics", only in getting even with a lousy private business.
At the time the impartial jury issue hadn't been raised by prosecutors at the time I'd seen this mentioned, but it does seem to be bad info.
Terrorism in NYC has some specific requirements including intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
Definitions will matter here as well as whatever he wrote down, but he didn't make government demands and the every day civilian certainly wasn't particularly terrified, but CEOs might count as "a" population depending on the definitions.
If it happened, I'm trying to imagine what a Mangione acquittal would look like for Mangione and the country.
Courted by political parties?
A run for public office, more likely as GOP?
Possible assassination attempts against him?
Biopic(s)? This seems almost guaranteed regardless of trial outcome.
Increased violence against public figures, particularly corporate CEOs? The beginning of an American version of a French Revolution?
Why would you say he would run as GOP? That seems like the group least likely to support killing CEOs. I'm certain in general though, that he would be treated as radioactive by every establishment party.
It would certainly send rage and fear through the 1% and CEO communities.
I don't see him as being open to the republicans.
FBI, CIA, or a very well paid high end hitman hired discretely by a group of CEOs. Make it look like an ordinary killing, gang member, etc.
Agreed.
Already happening. There is a story about a guy stabbing his CEO.
Even without a Mangione acquittal a new President Shitstain term will increase frustration with the system and inspire more murders, IMHO.
That'd be my tin foil hat guess. Not saying that's the wrong guess.
four documentaries about Luigi mangione are already in the works
Like others have said, he probably wouldn't run as a Republican, but I could see him running as an independent candidate for something.
Can you imagine the logistics of the secret service if they had an elected representative whose hobby is murdering establishment elites that the court has given free reign to?
Hey, once isn't a hobby! Yet...
An third party fueled by violence? Could happen. That Overton window keeps moving...
I'm not sure if this is the right post to bring this up, but it has been a recurring thought in my mind.
I recall a case in which a man murdered his son's abuser on live TV, some of you may also remember this, Gary Plauché. There are many interesting components to this case, but the most marked one is that he received no prison time. I fail to see how we allow something like this to happen, with various justifications, including:
but we are mostly saying, there is no way in hell that Mangione is going to "get off" without some sort of huge punishment. To be clear, I agree with this sentiment, there is no way that a rich person is going to be murdered without some sort of visible repercussion, if for nothing more than to send a statement to keep the underlings in check.
However, it is a sad reminder that, in fact, certain deaths are more valuable/justified/whatever you want to call it. People may be created equally, but they certainly are not treated equally.
Unrelated rant/question about quality of Wikipedia these days
Has anyone noticed a decrease in the accuracy, but also the quality of writing in Wikipedia entries recently? I'd say, (probably through my own bias), it coincides with the rise of LLM and I wonder if that attributes to it.
As an example of what I'm talking about, the entry about Gary Plauche completely ignores the perspective his son had that he felt his father's actions actually ruined his life, iirc, because it was all anyone could ever talk about and how his father was a hero. He talked at length about how this traumatized him and he could not move on from it. Even now, it is hard for me to find articles that talk about this, and the best I can find is from New Zealand, which includes lines such as:
Which I feel is quite the different story from how Wikipedia currently ends his story, with:
To be fair, in 2024 he may have felt different, especially looking back on his dad 10 years after his death. But I wonder if it's more about the articles disappearing - without the sources the editors aren't able to document that past well.
It'd be interesting to dig backwards in that edit history and see if it was changed
We new that with the FBI and NYPD offering rewards.
People are murdered everyday, and that doesn't happen for those people.
I've been busy, so have forgotten to do it, but I have been thinking about contacting the FBI to point out to them they wouldn't be offering a reward for an ordinary person's murder.
This is starting to give me Joker vibes.