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.
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.
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.
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
Trinity: what is he doing?
Morpheus: he’s beginning to believe…
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)
Exactly. :)
I’ll take that trade
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.
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?
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.
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’m confident that someone will get caught and be made into an example.
Whether they were the one that actually did it is immaterial.
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 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.
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.
Maybe get a fine for .0005% of their net worth. You know, so they don’t do it again.
That’s how it works, right?
Even if he’s caught. Dudes going to get off if he demands a Jury trial. Not a single middle class or poor individual in America has a positive relationship with health insurance. Hell how does a prosecutor even screen jurors for this type of trial?
Bribery
This is a good question from the wrong angle. This event is cathartic for many people because the ultra rich who ruin countless lives never get punished. When they see “consequences” it’s a golden parachute. This event is frustrating because the media, legal, and security apparatuses expect us to treat this assassination as a grave act, but actively normalize the acts of harm Thompson and other leaders like him commit every day.
This event is revealing in stark terms the divide between the elite and the average person. Should murderers be prosecuted? Sure - in a world where justice and the rule of law matter for everyone equally. Doesn’t feel like we live in that world.
If murderers got prosecuted equally this CEO should have had a day in court years ago.
He’s been climbing the ladder at United for 20 years. Many years ago indeed.
Do you want to see the people who killed Osama Bin Laden prosecuted?
Because the United Heath CEO killed far more people, including many more children, than Bin Laden did on 9/11.🎵🎶 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.
I think it’s 6-12 jurors (although it tends to be on the higher end because of dicta from the supreme court)
or I’m missing something
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/size-of-the-jury
Unanimity is true though. One stubborn juror can cause a mistrial which means the case gets a new trial.
12 angry (wo)men
Why is violence legal when the government does it but not for regular people who have exhausted their peaceful options? Escalation of force gets justified all the time for cops and waging wars.
The monopoly on the use of force is quite the important part of having a state at all. If a state doesn’t have that, it descends into anarchy (the bad kind, with warlords and gangs). The US is very exceptional in this case as it has in its constitution the provision that such gangs (militia) are allowed, even desirable.
Yes, and if they use that monopoly of power to suppress and harm people then they will quickly lose that monopoly. A state is run by the people, if that changes the people will attempt to take control back.
Wait so can’t you argue this is constitutional?
US is weird.
Seems like something a politician in power would say.
It’s basic state theory, I believe we had that in middle school, along with the division of power. I mentioned the US exception because if you went to school there, your basic state theory might have been different from mine.
Yeah believe it or not the term “monopoly of power” doesn’t come up in US schools lmao.
For those interested in learning: (1)
In the USA violence can be legal for anyone under certain circumstances, otherwise I don’t know what’s expected from the second amendment…
Yes, I do.
I want the state to make it crystal clear that this guy was the shooter. That he did it. That he had no legal justification to do it. That his actions were undeniably criminal, and that his crime was clearly premeditated.
And then I want a jury of his peers to return a “not guilty” verdict, and every scumbag business executive across the country suddenly deciding to take an early retirement.
His jury can’t return that not guilty verdict if he isn’t prosecuted.
Removed by mod
It sounds rough to say, but I genuinely think this is part of a new American revolution, the people have had enough. It shows, I’m not saying we should go out and kill execs, but I am saying I wouldn’t be surprised if something like that happens.
Let me ask counter OP, say a full out rebellion occurred against the corporate oligarch class, ten years from now we have had a bloody and violent change from people who felt they had no other recourse. It was unpleasant but now we are in a society where the general public is much better off and it was generally remembered as a “war on corporate corruption” and the rich are much less willing to tread on their fellow man
In this pretend scenario the killers are now labeled freedom fighters, and public opinion is that it was a necessary overthrow of an unjust system. How would you realistically feel about the man now? I believe it’s all about societal context, and and the line between justice and a slaying does tend to blur after a certain, very extreme point has been crossed.
Now In reality, has that point been crossed yet? I don’t know, that’s yet to be determined, but I feel we will know sooner or later
It’s not even a hypothetical.
In the past workers used to kidnap and kill CEOs, we ended up with worker rights and a higher standard of living.
That stopped, and things slipped away.
Hopefully it’s starting again.
That’s a disgusting attitude. No one should be murdered because people don’t like their profession.
How would you like it if someone murdered you because they didn’t like your job?
If my job is murdering millions I would love for you to take up arms against me.
Nobody is being murdered for their profession. Choices are what people have a problem with. Choose to exploit the masses for the shareholders long enough and someone is going to pop off.
Edit: links, and this quoted fact:
There’s no indication yet of any companies facing actual penalties for the behavior.
No one was exploited. And yes, you’re condemning him for his profession. Would you say the same thing if he were a manager at McDonald’s?
A McDonald’s manager didn’t condemn my aunt and my grandmother to death in the name of profits.
Neither did he.
That’s not true.
No one? What if your profession is being a guard at Auschwitz? Is it “disgusting” to say that the SS deservered to die based on their profession?
He deserved to die and he deserved worse.
This is justice.
How? His victims get nothing; his money goes to his family now. The chances of Thompson actually paying for the damages he caused went from nearly zero to literally zero.
While I feel no sympathy for his death, I don’t think that there’s any justice in this. His rich family just got a little bit richer (or will, once his estate is processed). And now United gets to negotiate a new, lower pay plan for a replacement CEO, so they get to pocket even more money going forward. The people who came out ahead in this are not those victimized by Thompson’s company, but those directly in his circle.
It’s an injustice, if anything. Thompson should have had his assets seized and returned to his victims, but now that opportunity is gone forever.
It was justice because he can no longer harm others.
There was zero chance he was ever going to pay for shit before, so nothing has changed after.
Likewise his assets can still be seized after death, but like previously mentioned it was never going to happen, so it’s irrelevant.
Justice could have been greater, forcing him to spend his life in restitution. This is an acceptable (and actually likely to happen) form of it.
It was justice because he can no longer harm others.
Sure but he, alone, was not the one who harmed his patients. Realistically, he’s probably never even seen a patient’s file and likely couldn’t identify one if you asked him to. While he was the CEO and officially signs off on what the company does, the company is much more than just him. He will be replaced, and easily; likely before next week is even over. And everybody who enabled him and followed him and carried out his orders will continue to conduct the company as they have before.
IMO, justice for victims involves a positive effect; either through policy reform, repayments, etc. The victims aren’t suddenly going to get their claims approved now; they’re in the same situation today as they were yesterday. This is a wholly lateral move for them.
Claim denials went up something like 17% under his 3 year tenure. He absolutely personally had blood on his hands.
While this won’t do much to right the wrongs, it’s a very clear message to the upper classes that people are angry and not on their side.
What you say makes sense but when people can see that there are decades of precedent for what you describe literally never happening it becomes much more understandable that people start to conflate vigilantism and murder with justice.
If the system consistently fails to provide consequences for an elite class at the expense of an entire generation what options are left? If you fail to stop a child from poking a dog you can’t really blame the dog for biting the child; you fucked up by failing to provide consequences at any point before the situation blew up.
It’s an injustice, if anything. Thompson should have had his assets seized and returned to his victims, but now that opportunity is gone forever.
Do you believe it’d have ever come? Even if he was prosecuted for anything his victims weren’t gonna get a cent.
Removed by mod
The rule of law already works selectively, we’d just prefer it works selectively for us instead of them.
If he’s caught we should elect him president so he doesn’t have to go to jail.
Sometimes people provide a public service to humanity is very dark ways. Do not turn this guy in.
Yes, hell yes.
Get this man in a court room. Let the prosecutors spend weeks trying to find a jury where no one (or any of their relatives and friends) has been fucked over for life because of shitty insurance.
Let them talk about how unstoppable, determined, and committed the defendant was.
And then have the jury nullify the case.
It would be a good day to be alive.
Jury selection question to weed out biased jurors: “Have you ever had a claim that was unfairly denied?”
Weeks later: “We have been unable to find enough jurors to try the case.”
I want to see a trial.
I also want to start a go fund me for his or her legal defence find.
I’d love to see a well funded law firm make the argument that the shooter acted in defence of self and others and drag all of UHC bullshit under a very large and uncomfortable deposition microscope to prove the CEO was responsible for letting people die.
Maybe we could even start putting these health insurance CEOs on trial for all the wrongful deaths they’re causing without needing someone to take justice into their own hands first.
Absolutely no chance for justice in this system for this person. Musk bought a president that staged a coup 4 years ago. The potato supreme has a member that flew the flag of that coup, they are openly corrupt and have no checks or balances. That is the entire foundation of the legislative system and government. This guy was We the People and far closer to a real justice system than anything from this shit government.
Jury nullification on that case would be 😘👌
All I know is if I’m somehow selected for jury duty on this one, I ain’t never heard of either man or what happened in my life.
I don’t think he would make it to trial. The wealthy don’t appreciate those who unite the public against them, and they certainly wouldn’t want him to send another message by having the chance to explain his motives.
Id love to see him go to trial, and funds raised through gofundme are used to buy off the jurors and judge. It only makes sense that if the rich can use money to make their problems go away, the poor should be able to do so as well. And that is still within our “legal framwork”
Yes. I want the story of how United screwed them and their loves ones. I want thousands of families screwed by United to go as witness and tell their stories.
And hopefully the jury will find any evidence inconclusive.
Absofuckinglutely not. I want him to never be found and continue to off health insurance CEOs one by one until we get universal healthcare like the rest of the developed world. And after he’s through with them there’s a whole list of other rich assholes that the world would be better off without, starting with the defense contractors.
