Legally, the murder was wrong. Full stop. There’s no legal argument here that it wasn’t. It may not have been the guy they caught, but someone was murdered and legally that’s wrong.
Morally though, it’s a lot more gray. It’s pretty easy to prove that health insurers policies have literally been killing people thousands of people a year at at a minimum and even if it’s legal for some reason, that’s also still morally wrong. Attacking someone who’s attacking other people is usually called defending.
He was a CEO, not a king. He doesn’t single-handedly come up with and implement these decisions.
The policies are probably brainstormed in meetings with several people.
The policies are probably voted on by an even greater number of people
The policies are implemented by another set of people
The policies are enforced by another set of people
The profit of the company, which these policies likely aim to improve, is almost the single main goal of all of the shareholders.
Many other people have likely invested indirectly (e.g., in funds that contain that company’s stock) and were also benefitting from the implementation of these policies.
The CEO may have been a big part of the problem, but he’s not the only part. He may have even been a symptom of the problem. Was he elected, appointed? Who brought him into that position? Who didn’t make the decision to remove him from that position if the opportunity arose?
EDIT: I’m not really sure why people are downvoting this. I’m not saying the CEO was innocent, I’m saying he’s not the only one who holds the guilt for the decision.
How many of your loved ones have they already murdered?
How many more will have to die before the owners of this country decide that a for-profit healthcare system isn’t worth the threat those profits generate?
The death toll of the health insurance industry currently stands at like 68,000/year. Health, life, and medical insurance companies combined employ about 900,000 people. We could end the insurance industry overnight and the lives saved would outnumber the jobs lost in like 13 years.
You’re hopelessly wrong and un-abashedly trying to defend ghouls.
If the CEO makes the big bucks then they share the most of the blame. You can’t have one without the other.
Also don’t deliberately ignore the fact that for a brief moment in time after the CEO’s death, there was a drastic reduction in the number of claims being denied.
If the CEO makes the big bucks then they share the most of the blame. You can’t have one without the other.
This will definitely depend on the particulars of an organization, but usually it’s not just one singular CEO who’s getting rich by making these decisions.
Also don’t deliberately ignore the fact that for a brief moment in time after the CEO’s death, there was a drastic reduction in the number of claims being denied.
I wasn’t aware of this, and I’m not sure why you would describe that as “deliberately ignoring” it…lol
Edit: most things are a gray area. Doesn’t speak well of you if you think killing a human is so black and white it shouldn’t even be questioned. You motherfuckers sure ain’t philosophers.
Pretty obvious I meant that if you can’t see an argument for and against killing this guy you’re probably not much of a thinker, at least by choice on this issue
It doesn’t sound like it was self defence, even if you stretch the meaning away from the legal. His life wasn’t directly threatened by this organization.
He did it on behalf of others, which eliminates the self in self defence.
I was being cheeky mostly but i do think if we as society re asses what self defense means, whoever killed the parasite was defending america from social murder.
The ruling class would never accept such narrative but every American can decide for himself.
When cop murders a civilian for no reason, aint it always also defense? So clearly they misuse the term here. I think newer argument has more legs to stand on.
well they always say “feared for their life” so i think you have a point but that argument is root in idea that they always have a right to defend themselves and be given deference on their decision making, ie they only need to feel that way subjectively.
I’ve been thinking of it like what happened to Nicolai Caucescu. Sure, his death shouldn’t have happened and he should have had a trial for his crimes, corruption, and abuses of power; but, Romania came out better afterwards.
Not really. The jury will decide if this particular person is guilty or not, but either way a man was murderer and that’s an illegal action by whomever did it.
I’m pretty sure that was part of the point.
Legally, the murder was wrong. Full stop. There’s no legal argument here that it wasn’t. It may not have been the guy they caught, but someone was murdered and legally that’s wrong.
Morally though, it’s a lot more gray. It’s pretty easy to prove that health insurers policies have literally been killing people thousands of people a year at at a minimum and even if it’s legal for some reason, that’s also still morally wrong. Attacking someone who’s attacking other people is usually called defending.
The CEO was on his way to implement policies that would kill thousands of people, and injure tens of thousands.
I see no moral gray area.
He was a CEO, not a king. He doesn’t single-handedly come up with and implement these decisions.
The CEO may have been a big part of the problem, but he’s not the only part. He may have even been a symptom of the problem. Was he elected, appointed? Who brought him into that position? Who didn’t make the decision to remove him from that position if the opportunity arose?
EDIT: I’m not really sure why people are downvoting this. I’m not saying the CEO was innocent, I’m saying he’s not the only one who holds the guilt for the decision.
So what you’re saying is, the job’s not done yet?
There’s a question of where the line would be drawn.
But do you kill everyone responsible for a joint decision?
Do you kill everyone who benefitted from it? Shareholders, indirect investors, spouses and children…?
How many of your loved ones have they already murdered?
How many more will have to die before the owners of this country decide that a for-profit healthcare system isn’t worth the threat those profits generate?
The death toll of the health insurance industry currently stands at like 68,000/year. Health, life, and medical insurance companies combined employ about 900,000 people. We could end the insurance industry overnight and the lives saved would outnumber the jobs lost in like 13 years.
You’re right we have a lot more work to do.
When it comes to money they’re accountable and deserve millions.
When it comes to the impact of their leadership they couldn’t possibly be accountable.
You’re hopelessly wrong and un-abashedly trying to defend ghouls.
If the CEO makes the big bucks then they share the most of the blame. You can’t have one without the other.
Also don’t deliberately ignore the fact that for a brief moment in time after the CEO’s death, there was a drastic reduction in the number of claims being denied.
No, I’m not.
This will definitely depend on the particulars of an organization, but usually it’s not just one singular CEO who’s getting rich by making these decisions.
I wasn’t aware of this, and I’m not sure why you would describe that as “deliberately ignoring” it…lol
Because you refuse to
Edit: most things are a gray area. Doesn’t speak well of you if you think killing a human is so black and white it shouldn’t even be questioned. You motherfuckers sure ain’t philosophers.
Pretty obvious I meant that if you can’t see an argument for and against killing this guy you’re probably not much of a thinker, at least by choice on this issue
Yeah just as rich leeches refuse to stop exploiting innoncent people and you refuse to stop bootlicking
deleted by creator
Ah yes you dipshits knew what I meant as you are incredible mind readers
True but this was self defense. I don’t see murder. Murder is the terminology of the regime who is trying to pin some crime on him that I don’t see.
It doesn’t sound like it was self defence, even if you stretch the meaning away from the legal. His life wasn’t directly threatened by this organization.
He did it on behalf of others, which eliminates the self in self defence.
Yeah and cops are always in fear when they murder a civilian…
Tomato, potato
Is this a misuse of legal terms, or is there some sort of evidence behind this?
I was being cheeky mostly but i do think if we as society re asses what self defense means, whoever killed the parasite was defending america from social murder.
The ruling class would never accept such narrative but every American can decide for himself.
When cop murders a civilian for no reason, aint it always also defense? So clearly they misuse the term here. I think newer argument has more legs to stand on.
The term is “justifiable homicide”.
If the Joker is about to blow up a bus of 30 people and Batman shoots him dead with a gun then the jury acquits because it was justifiable homicide
I think the difference with cops is that they don’t need the self-defense argument, because the “oopsie” argument gets them out of jail too
well they always say “feared for their life” so i think you have a point but that argument is root in idea that they always have a right to defend themselves and be given deference on their decision making, ie they only need to feel that way subjectively.
When peaceful and effective protest are a choose1, gotta go with effective. If anything, it seems to me to be little different to the trolley problem.
I’ve been thinking of it like what happened to Nicolai Caucescu. Sure, his death shouldn’t have happened and he should have had a trial for his crimes, corruption, and abuses of power; but, Romania came out better afterwards.
One of the few times where freedom is washed in the tyrants blood instead of the working class. Truly a victory.
¡Hey Buddy! That’s for a jury to decide
Not really. The jury will decide if this particular person is guilty or not, but either way a man was murderer and that’s an illegal action by whomever did it.
Same thing said by cops every time they shoot someone.
that’s why propaganda is a key cog in ruling the working class. they play with words in such a way that there is always an argument