Why is it considered terrorism to murder a CEO?

Question

According to this article, Luigi Mangione got charged with terrorism for murdering the CEO. I am not sure why this murder can - under US law - be considered an act of terrorism.

Here is a relevant page from NY penal law that defines terrorism:

A person is guilty of a crime of terrorism when, with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she commits a specified offense.

I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government.

Did I overlook anything?

Answer 1

The accused's pretty much manifesto stated intent was to intimidate health insurance company executives to adopt policies that do not deny health insurance claims in the manner that United Health and many other health insurance companies do.

Indeed, it had the intended effect. One health insurance company promptly stopped denying claims for providing anesthesia for the entire duration of surgeries as a direct result of that murder.

This is the theory by which it is intimidation or coercion of a civilian population.

Of course, it is one thing to bring the charge and to get it by a grand jury that will indict a ham sandwich in a presentation brought by the prosecutors alone, ex parte, and quite another to convince a petit jury following an adversarial trial of that theory.

Prosecutors try to bring every possible charge, even severe charges that may be a stretch under the facts presented, in the hope of using the more severe charges as bargaining chips in a plea bargain, or providing a jury that wants to "split the baby" a way to convict of something while still showing some mercy by not convicting on all charges.

Answer 2

The CEO has been targeted not as an individual person, but as a member of the class which the shooter intended to terrorize (or at least that is what is alleged).

You said:

I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO

There's clear evidence that quite a few members of the public were feeling frightened and intimidated by that act. Not that it matters to the statute you quoted.

Answer 3

Why it is considered as terrorism to murder a CEO?

It's not, as such. That is, CEOs do not have special status under New York or Federal law that would inherently make murdering them terroristic. Brian Thompson having been a CEO is not directly relevant to Mangione being charged with terrorism.

I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government.

I think your doubt is misplaced, but it is in any case irrelevant whether Mangione's alleged actions were effective in intimidating or frightening anyone. What is required by the law you quoted is intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to similarly affect public policy or government units.

If Mangione had such intent and acted on it by murdering Thompson, then that satisfies the NY definition of terrorism, regardless of whether anyone was in fact frightened or intimidated. If Mangione did not have such intent, then no action he performed meets the NY definition of terrorism, regardless of how many people or whom he frightened or intimidated.

It is not clear to me from Mangione's manifesto-like explanation that the required terroristic intent was present, but there's enough there that I can see the government trying to make the case. It may be a hard row to hoe if the state can't come up with more evidence for that intent, though.

Answer 4

Introduction and motivation

The law as quoted by the OP is reasonably clear, and it applies to the case, as the answers by littleadv and John Bollinger demonstrate.

In an attempt to address a perceived underlying cause of the OP's doubts, this answer tries to expand the scope of the discussion by putting the existing law and its application into a larger context.¹ Why does the concept of "terrorism" exist, and why is it punished harshly? Why are some crimes immediately labeled as terrorism while others are not, even though they technically fit the criteria?

Exploring such questions is a matter of legal theory as a branch of philosophy. Borrowing from the University of Oxford's page Jurisprudence and Political Theory, it discusses "the concept and the nature of law", the "essential function or purpose" of the law and "the nature and justification of political authority".

What the rule of law protects

Influencing politics with a gun³ is terrorism; influencing it with money is accepted mode of operation. One violates the rule of law as it is implemented, the other one doesn't, unless you grossly overdo it.

The rule of law protects each individual, which is the main civilizatory achievement of the Modern Age and is widely agreed to be a very good thing. The rule of law also protects the institutions. Whether that is a good thing depends on how well they are working.

If the institutions are not working well, especially if they are partial, they favor people with influence at the cost of everyone else; Marxists would say they are tools of suppression. The rule of law then, in protecting the institutions, protects ongoing injustice. The commercial players in the health system and their beneficiaries, like the murdered CEO, were apparently considered examples for or protagonists of such injustice by the murderer.

Political motivations for breaking the law

It is probably this — justified or unjustified — realization that motivates people to break the rule of law in order to be more assertive in their attempts to influence the institutions or the people whose interests they protect: "They continue to abuse our country for immense profit" ... "Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming."

Self-preservation of the institutions

It is unsurprising that the institutions react swiftly and decisively to squash any such attempt, in an act of pure institutional self-preservation² as well as the preservation of the minority whose interests they represent. The concept of terrorism is the category which legitimizes such reactions both in the realm of public relations and in the realm of law: It creates the legal framework for the government to abandon regular procedures, in particular protections for the accused, and at the same time publicly legitimizes such transgressions.

A cause of institutional bias

It is also unsurprising that the institutions do not react as swiftly and decisively when the rights of powerless people are violated, for example by systematic discrimination, systematic police violence or systematic disenfranchising of certain groups of constituents, even though such actions would technically meet the terrorism definition. Endangering and intimidating these constituents, who have no power, does not endanger the institutions nor the interests they protect, which is why the institutions have less motivation to stop it. This changes only when the violations become so detrimental to public order (e.g., unchecked violent crime, burglary or looting, or systematic excessive police transgressions) that they start to erode public support for the institutions, thus endangering them and their protected interests.

---

_{¹ And no, I have not used an LLM to write or edit this, though I take the suspicion as a compliment regarding style and language — as a non-native speaker no less — because LLMs' texts are often well-written. But while the form may lead to doubt, I hope that the content is beyond the "do not hurt anybody's feelings" slime that LLMs would produce.}

_{² This self-preservation is related to Luhmann's extension of the originally biological concept of autopoiesis to societal systems; the concept that these systems are self-reproducing and maintaining.}

_{³ A note regarding the wording: This word choice (both of "gun" and "money") is deliberate. They are not euphemisms but neutral terms for of a wide range of possible acts involving a gun or involving money. The parallel wording emphasizes that both guns and money are essentially tools. How using either tool as a means of influence is valuated is discussed separately.}

Answer 5

Mr. Mangione's stated purpose was to intimidate insurance CEOs (who, taken as a group, constitute a "civilian population") into stopping their companies from denying claims. This is pretty much a textbook example of terrorism. While he apparently did not believe that this would actually work as intended, it was still the result he was trying for.