Politics news and discussion on TalkFuse.
“Would ‘Go Luigi'” Was a Threat, and Thus Subject to Harassment Prevention Order Statute
The Massachusetts Appellate Court upheld an extension of a harassment prevention order against a woman who repeatedly contacted a Target store seeking its manager and made threats referring to Luigi Mangione. The court found the conduct could reasonably be understood as intended to frighten the manager, who said she was “petrified” and moved to another location.
The incidents took place between 27 June and 1 July 2025. The woman called the store, appeared in person, made multiple calls to Target customer service, and said she would keep calling and visiting; her remarks included “go Luigi” and that the manager would be “sorry”. Under Massachusetts law, harassment for this order requires at least three deliberate, malicious acts aimed at a specific person, intended to cause and actually causing fear of physical harm or property damage.
In short
- Court upheld the extended harassment prevention order.
- The woman repeatedly sought out a Target manager.
- Luigi Mangione references were treated as threats.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The extension can be defended on the basis that the repeated, targeted contact and remarks about Luigi Mangione could reasonably be taken as a threat, especially after the manager said she feared for her safety and changed locations. A harassment prevention order offers a way to protect someone from credible intimidation before any physical harm occurs.
The case against
The order can be challenged on the ground that words such as “go Luigi” and “you’ll be sorry”, though alarming in context, may be too ambiguous to establish a deliberate threat of physical harm or property damage. Because the statute requires specific intent and actual fear, an extension should rest on clear evidence meeting each element, while avoiding restrictions based mainly on interpretation or protected expression.
Explained simply
Massachusetts has a civil court order designed to protect people from harassment. To issue one, a court must find at least three deliberate and malicious acts directed at a particular person, intended to cause fear of physical harm or property damage, and that the acts did cause such fear.
The case concerns a woman’s repeated attempts to contact a manager at a Target store. Luigi Mangione is a man accused in the killing of a US health insurance executive; references to him can be understood as invoking violence. The manager said she feared for her safety and moved to another store.