The district attorney, Carro ruled, hadn’t proved that Mangione “acted with terroristic intent” . . . simply because the judge reads Luigi’s writings as only indicating a desire “to draw attention to what he perceived as the greed of the insurance industry.”
For starters: The DA’s job is to convince the jury, not the judge, of Mangione’s motives; Carro essentially prejudged evidence and arguments the prosecution would produce at trial, and with a truly bizarre reading of the law.
The relevant statues defines terrorism as “an act intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence government policy, or affect government conduct.” Read more here.

