This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
I wish I could be on the jury for this one (if he’s caught and not unalived by cops)
No
If he gets caught, then I’d say yes. Murder should be treated as murder regardless of what the reason is. Making exceptions is never a good idea.
I just hope he doesn’t get caught.
I just hope he doesn’t get caught.
he will get caught. they already have his photo, he is not professional hitman, he can only evade for so long when there is the whole country’s law enforcement after him.
Except the photo they have of him with his face visible isn’t even the same guy. Doesn’t even have the same clothes or backpack. So unless this dude is proficient at changing his clothes and ditching a backpack all while riding an electric scooter down the street in New York, then they have the wrong guy in that photo.
wtf are you talking about? they have multiple photos and it is obviously the same person
The multiple photos with a face showing, has a different coat, hood, and backpack. Go look again.
can you link what you mean?
Sure thing:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/29120957
The hoods don’t even match. And the backpacks are different too, one had light gray straps, the other is black. And basically 50% of NYC dudes carry black backpacks.
you do understand that these photos are from different place and different time, right?
the black backpack seems more like some shoulder duffel bag to me i assume it is from the hostel checkin. people don’t travel around the city with the same luggage they used for inter-city travel.
people also can have different clothes for different occasion, like putting on some light rain or wind-proof jacket. it can also be shitty compression from some shitty camera.
it is the same person ffs, look at his face, that nose could have passport of its own.
Then all of the healthcare companies that allow people to die because they will not cover them need to be prosecuted, every executive, every decision maker.
Trinity: what is he doing?
Morpheus: he’s beginning to believe…
I’ll take that trade
Exactly. :)
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.
CS Lewis - Screwtape Letters (preface)
Population Health needs a regulated definition.
2 or so years ago I’d have agreed with you.
But it’s become clear that the wealthy and powerful are beyond the reach of our justice system. coughdementedfeloninthewhitehousecough
So fuck 'em.
I understand why they will prosecute him if they catch him, but I wish for him to never get caught, and I feel really confident (given the other signs of planning) that the phone, water bottle, and very public appearance at Starbucks in recognizable clothing are nothing but a red herring.
Sounded like self-defense to me.
I’m confident that someone will get caught and be made into an example.
Whether they were the one that actually did it is immaterial.
Brian Thompson and his co-workers murder hundreds of thousands of people with systemic neglect, spreadsheets, and lawyers. They murder in broad daylight, during business hours. And yet they’re comfortable, well paid, successful people who will never see a day in jail. What they’re doing isn’t even considered a crime.
I hope he doesn’t get caught, also. Because the same laws that protect those fucking ghouls will crush him for bringing attention to the grift.
they’re comfortable, well paid, successful people who will never see a day in jail.
They also run the risk of getting assassinated by the people who they have exploited, so we’ll see how comfortable they remain in the future.
Like I said, making exceptions is always a bad idea. It’s how these fuck heads even get away with it. But at the same time I can’t agree with exceptions even if I agree with the reason behind it.
The point is that there are already exceptions.
Which is bad, and needs attention.
This IS the attention.
From whom?
Like, all of humanity in the US?
Making exceptions is never a good idea.
Why not? The whole reason we have judicial discretion is that every crime departs from the platonic ideal in one way or another.
The working class has been losing a class war for decades without ever properly noticing that it was happening. Working Americans have been dying in that war, and now someone struck back.
I’ll be sold on the “no exceptions” ideal when we haul in the corporate murderers alongside the people who fought back.
Jury nullification is the other acceptable option.
Yeah, that’s kinda my point. The system is fucked beyond repair specifically because these people running the companies get exceptions. These people have basically let thousands of people die for the sake of money. So like I said before, murder is murder and should be treated as such.
Given the perspective you described, I would consider the actions of the company to be systematic mass murder who the legal system fails to stop, and the actions of the shooter to be community defense against a mass murderer. They’re certainly not equivalent, and I don’t see what the benefit is of treating that defense equally to even one callous for-profit murder.
The problem isn’t that exceptions are made and therefore all crimes should be treated in an ignorant vacuum. The problem is that the idealist legal system doesn’t even consider indirect suffering as the violence it is, because the legal system is ultimately beholden to the power of capital (money buys politicians and the media power to make them win, politicians write laws).
I hear and understand your point, and I can’t say that I disagree with it.
That being said, I sure as hell wouldn’t convict the guy.
Yes.
Even in a unjust world mob justice isn’t justice. This means a mob deciding someone is guilty and acting out punishment is unjust. But also a mob deciding a crime should go unpunished is unjust.
There’s plenty wrong with how insurance works and plenty wrong with the justice system. But instead of giving up, we should be trying to fix these issues. It’s all to easy to give in to our basic instincts and point to someone to blame. We punish them instead of fixing the issues. Killing one ceo might feel good, but it doesn’t really change the big picture and in fact constitutes layer upon layer of failure. We should be better than that. History is full of people (singular and groups) being used as a scape goat to deflect and feel like something is being done, whilst in fact not actually fixing anything and just feeding hate.
Also in a capitalist world, the people with the most money have the most power. If we collectively decide it’s open warfare, purge style distopia, they are going to have the upper hand. So purely from a self interest point of view, it would be better to work on fixing shit instead of reverting to monke.
It did fix one issue. Just hear Blue Cross rolled back their decision to limit General Anaesthesia. That is one good turn.
Perhaps some CEOs must be sacrificed from time to time for fixing all the issues. Not everyone at once, just enough to put some pressure on the companies.
Not quite. The reason we reject vigilantism is not that it is always unjust, but only usually. In this case, however, the outcome was in line with any reasonable objective standard of justice, as far as I can tell.
But instead of giving up, we should be trying to fix these issues.
Genuine question - how long do you think we should try to fix the issues before coming to the conclusion that they can’t be fixed through conventional means? Do you think we should resort to nonconventional resolutions at all, if the conventional ones cease to function or don’t yield results? If not, why not?
Nobody actually has an answer to that because there is no answer to it.
The system is so broken that there is no longer a way to fix it.
Any processes that could be implemented that have the potential to fix the issues comes from a broken system.
These processes would then be administered by the broken system.
Therefore no matter how good the process is, it will end up broken.
You may say that I am a hopeless person.
You may say that I am wrong and there is obviously something that can be done that has not yet been done.
I would say you are right, but experience indicates that although the possibility of reform exists, the capacity of the system to reform itself would be administered by a broken system.
Therefore even reform will end up broken and fail.
There was a reason why Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned. I’m just out here handing out rosin .
The system is only broken because humans are dicks to other humans
There is no fixing the human condition. Maybe when the computers become sentient they’ll not look too poorly on us.
I think we could be rehabilitated we just can’t be in charge of the rehabilitation
Humans could simply choose not to be evil.
I mean… If not for the fact that a felon is about to become President again, I would want some form of justice in the law for the assassin. A slap on the wrist, maybe. A few years in jail; definitely not life or a death sentence.
But that’s just to enforce the rule of law to not embolden others to commit such crimes, even if they could easily be justified. Since that’s not being enforced with an even bigger threat to the rule of law, fuck it. Shit doesn’t matter anymore anyway.
If not for the fact that a felon is about to become President again, I would want some form of justice in the law for the assassin.
Maybe we should run him in 2028. I think it would be a landslide.
“Deny, Defend, Depose 2028!”
but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
To maybe help your pessimistic side:
Even when the murderer gets convicted, that CEO will still remain dead.
I don’t want him prosecuted, but not because I think killing people is good or forgivable (though it couldn’t really happen to a better person lol) but because the criminal justice system is awful, especially in the US.
If the death penalty is on the table, then I don’t think I need to explain why that’s bad, but I fundamentally disagree with imprisonment. I’m no expert, but there are better ways to handle harm and justice, and I feel the current system is unjustifiably evil in it’s treatment of convicts.
From an ethical perspective, killing is often justifiable. We’ve been trained like monkeys in a cage to respond aversely to death, but that reaction is based in a social contract that is only conditionally valid.
It is in some cases justifiable, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the only option in the majority of cases where people might jump to it if given the chance.
I don’t really agree we’ve been trained to respond that way, when I quite often see the exact opposite. Killing is a fast and easy solution that many people are quick to advocate for. I’m quite steadfast in my belief that being able to look beyond killing is one of the few privileges our intelligence gives us, to be better than the cruelty of nature.
I don’t agree that breaking the social contract means death is appropriate, justifiable or even necessarily to be celebrated, but it does mean we can seek to undo that injustice and reduce the harm by other forceful methods. Acting in vengeance is not justifiable.
Let me clarify my view on this whole thing: Someone has died and I’m sad about that as an objective fact. I don’t expect this death will lead to anything good, it doesn’t remove the exploitative structure and so won’t lead to any better outcomes for any of the exploited. The only relatively tiny positive is that now that one specific person can’t profit from that exploitation, but now someone else will take that place instead. Nothing worthwhile has come of this.
Killing is a fast and easy solution… being able to look beyond killing is one of the few privileges our intelligence gives us
Sure.
We are all animals (some more than others). And we have learned the hard way that to realize more of the transcendental values — to bring more courage, wisdom, and meaning into this world — we should preserve life whenever possible. But there’s nothing fundamentally sacred about life… We kill all the time. Literally non-stop. Billions of animals, just like us, sentient and desperate to live, butchered for your use and pleasure. So unless you’re a vegan, you do not get to discuss “the sanctity of life.” It just sounds hollow.
I am vegan, and that’s exactly the reason why.
I think it’s quite simply the case that we should make the choice to try and make life as uncruel as possible. It’s not really about the sanctity of life, I don’t believe in that. I just think we can literally choose to be better, so why shouldn’t we? That’s what I believe and I understand that many people won’t agree with me.
Also hey, I’m just having a discussion here, we’re all friends. There’s no need to be mean and say I’m talking gibberish.
Well, you have my respect! I’m willing to have my mind changed. Why don’t you think we should kill evil people? I don’t get it.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m absolutely an idealist and I acknowledge that.
Let me be clear, I specifically think we shouldn’t immediately jump to killing as the first choice. If killing an evil person is going to lead to actual good outcomes, and is seemingly the best/most viable option, I’m not necessarily against it even if I don’t care for it. Violence is a tool we can use, but I prefer to limit it where possible.
Reform would be great if possible, it likely may not be. I think taking away the ability to do harm is probably the best place to start, imprisonment is certainly an option there but it’s not the only one (and doesn’t need to look like the current prison systems we have). If killing leads to a good outcome, and it’s not possible to do anything less (for example we don’t have the power to just round up all the billionaires and corrupt politicians to do these things), then it’s justifiable.
Once approaching justice after the harm has been stopped, one also needs to consider how victims feel and what they’re going to need to try and reduce the impact of the harm they’ve suffered. I’m no expert on any of this and I don’t pretend to be, but I know there are better ways than the current judicial systems. In all honesty I think it’s a case by case kind of thing. The Leftist Cooks have a great video about it that I more or less vibe with. (It is quite long though)
My main concern with this whole affair, is that it hasn’t changed any power structures, people will still be exploited. I want to see structural change, not just blind revenge.
As you slightly edited your question, I’ll just address that specifically. In stopping evil, I think it’s important that we don’t become evil. Killing purely for revenge is something I consider an evil act, that said I’m not one to judge for it, I think it’s extremely understandable. I’m as human as anyone else and I’ve certainly had my fair share of revenge fantasies.
There’s probably also a whole conversation we could have around the fact that killing can ruin someone’s life just in terms of the mental impact, and plenty of other similar arguments.
Thanks for the reply. This is a genuinely tricky question, because most of us acknowledge that revenge under some circumstances isn’t just permissible but desirable, yet the devil is in the details. Consider revenge
- For practical reasons such as a deterrent to future transgressors. Or
- To ameliorate some tiny fraction of the hurt inflicted by the transgressor.
For instance, it would be devastating to lose a loved one, but it would hurt even more if those who killed her were out there enjoying themselves consequence free.
Id like to see trump face ramifications before this guy.
From a rule of law perspective the shooter needs to be punished.
But considering the amount of suffering that CEO and other senior leaders at that company have inflicted on innocent sick people, there’s a big fat dose of karma that goes with this incident, . And I wouldn’t throw the book at the shooter (although you know they will).
Rule of law in America is over.
but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
I feel like that’s your optimistic side speaking. My pessimistic side thinks this just encourages CEOs to hire more stringent security details, making themselves even more untouchable. I very much doubt that the intended lesson will be learned here.
I’ll never cheer for an act of murder. But I am not broken up about this one.
Genuine answer? He should be tried. Murder is still murder. But I wouldn’t go out of my way to catch the guy, given the chance.
Far greater acts of evil and murder happen every single day, but I’m supposed to be bother by this one because the guy who died played by the rules of our broken-ass system? Or am I supposed to still be so blinded by the myth of capitalism, that wealth inherently represents virtue, that I should believe this CEOs life is worth more than the suffering occurring in every other part of the world? Should I choose to believe that the people he neglected to help - in hischoosing to chase the Almighty Dollar - are worth less than his life, because someone pulled the trigger rather than just watching people suffer while holding back the means to help? What kind of fucked up trolley problem is this?
I’ll never cheer for an act of murder. But I am not broken up about this one.
Fun fact, murder means “illegal killing,” not an immoral one. There are plenty of unethical but legal killings, and vice versa. So to clarify, murder isn’t always “bad” by definition.
🎵🎶 jury nullification 🎵🎶
I am not from the US. How many jurors are there in the trial? And don’t they have to all agree? There would definitely be at least one bootlicker or paid off person.
Twelve. Pretty sure one can hang the jury. In that case they’d probably retry him. All 12 would have to agree to aquit.
Correct. Jury trials in the US need unanimity from the 12 jurors to either establish guilt or innocence. Anything other than unanimity is a hung jury. Source: I’ve been a member of two juries that went to trial and reached unanimity. Also, be aware that a single juror holding out against the other jurors will go through intense pressure to adopt the prevailing opinion. The other jurors will be pissed that that one person is prolonging the process by days, especially when the judge keeps sending them back to keep deliberating and hopefully reach a unanimous decision. Jury nullification should not be taken lightly as it’s not a walk in the park.
12 angry (wo)men
Of course, it’s still murder, that’s why there is a judiciary. But, the system should also be better, and not allow people to be cheated out of their lives by profiteering goblins.
I want him prosecuted, and freed by jury nullification.
Let them see that yes this was murder, but the people agree with it.
This is one of those cases just begging for Jury Nullification.
