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.
Our justice system is a for-profit revenge and torture system. I don’t want anyone prosecuted by it ever again.
deleted by creator
I want to live in civilization and i enjoy its benefits, so no, i can’t go around saying someone should be acquitted because the crime was based. We’ve collectively agreed to put the law above our feelings, that’s a good thing, i wish it was done more, so i’m doing my part and preparing to send him cigarettes in prison.
No. He did the right thing.
nahh
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
Sounded like self-defense to me.
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.
I’ll take that trade
Exactly. :)
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)
Population Health needs a regulated definition.
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 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!”
Id like to see trump face ramifications before this guy.
I want him prosecuted, and freed by jury nullification.
Let them see that yes this was murder, but the people agree with it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
🎵🎶 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
No
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.
