Still a murderer. Regardless of how much we agree with his reasons and the rest of the outcomes.
Fuck that CEO, and fuck the entire US health insurance system, but I’m just not going to delude myself that this guy did not murder the piece of shit.
Edit: See, this is exactly what I’m so against. Too many people are willing to shit on anyone who says anything slightly negative about this guy, all while throwing logic out the window. This is disgusting and outright dangerous behavior.
People need to not lose sight that things got so bad that this guy had to take it this far. Downplaying the fact this was murder is not good.
The allies murdered a lot of Nazis.
Whats the bfd?
War is mass murder, we just feel uncomfortable saying that so we’re bullshitted into saying “it’s not murder… It’s war!” War being that thing where old men send young men to murder one another to either increase or retain their power.
Historically, murder solves shit, sorry. If the long arm of history truly does bend towards justice, thank murder, because the times passivism effected significant change are few and far between historically speaking. Sometimes the powerful goes too far in their decadence, they have, they limit the peasant’s non-violent options, they have, and the alternative to violence is subjecting your kids and their kids to the very same cruelty.
Sometimes enough is enough. Peasants were murdered yesterday, are today, will be tomorrow in the name of profit.
It being sanctioned by our captured state doesn’t make it not murder. Moreover it’s not just murder, it’s a one sided, ongoing slaughter for profit.
Luigi’s single murder merely put a new spotlight on what some of us already knew for the rest. May all of us be judged by how we react to that spotlight. The ones calling it wrong and evil end of story responding “turn off that spotlight so we can go back to pretending our society isn’t fucked right now.”
I’m torn.
Yes, murder is bad.
But when someone is responsible for thousands of deaths and will continue to willingly kill for money, is taking them out justifiable?
If the CEO had been firing a weapon into a crowd, there’s no question that killing him would have been justified. Is the fact that he killed with memos and board meetings rather than a gun actually relevant?
Nobody is denying he’s a murderer. The question is whether it’s based or not. I think it mostly is.
You have convicted him before the trial. Like he has his day in court. Years from now.
The person seen shooting the guy in the video is a murderer. That is clear as day.
You’re right. What he did is murder and it’s the job of the justice system to find him and convict him. I wouldn’t feel bad if he wasn’t caught, but it’s still probably the right thing to do.
I don’t seriously think that normalizing the murder of CEOs is going to fix things anyways, and it’s not a democratic way of dealing with the problem.
If its a yes or no question “Do you think Brian Johnson should have been killed?” My answer is No.
If you ask me “on a scale of 1 to 10 how much do you care about Brian Johnson being killed?” I’m going to ask if I can use decimal points because a 1 isnt low enough.
I can simultaniously not advocate for people murdering other people over their ideals and really not be too distraught when someone who pretty clearly has some sort of karmic retribution due gets their comeuppance.
it’s not that you’re not supporting a murderer, it’s that your commentary is supporting the aristocracy that runs the machine that eats us all.
they don’t hate you, they hate what you support.
Why does not liking killing people mean “supporting the aristocracy”?
I in no way support the CEO, UHC, or any of the predatory insurance companies (which is all of them). I hate them, even.
I still don’t like murder.
I don’t see why those have to be mutually inclusive.
let me show you how to navigate this.
I absolutely cannot support murder in any form, even when it comes from a billion dollar healthcare company.
it states your opinion clearly, and sets the boundary that nobody is exempt.
the way you phrased it and how it was perceived are as follows
I don’t support murder of any kind. but there was no reason to kill the man who expanded and supported medical tribunals that effectively led to the death of tens of thousands of American’s last year. murder is not the answer. now let’s talk about this like civilized people like we’ve been doing for the last 100 years and hope that something changes.
do you see the differences?
the second time around you set your boundary of, “murder bad”. but then move the goal posts in support of continuing the status quo that got us to this point because his company is murdering thousands of its customers.
Just to give one more take (without contributing any hostility, I hope!) - one way to look at it might be that you see this new development (Thompson’s murder and the nation’s “hell yeah!”) as the scary, dangerous step too far, whereas maybe many of us see the scary dangerous step(s) too far as having already happened (maybe long) in the past.
We’re in a really scary situation as a country, and that was almost exactly as true the day before Thompson’s murder as it is today. The significant events leading to our scary situation are a list of egregious misdeeds and manipulations by people in power, stretching back years - even if I take your premise that it’s wrong, this is just yet one more event (if a notable acceleration). I sincerely believe that a few more gray hoodies might actually send things back in the right direction and bring the owner class back to the negotiating table. As it stands (and ~equally true two weeks ago), the social contract in this country is in tatters. The rich get everything, everyone else - nothing, not even the healthcare we already frickin bought.
Laws are not virtuous by default, is it a moral judgment against killing itself here, or is the problem that it was not a legal act? Of course don’t let me reduce your position to one of my own two phrasings lol, but I am curious about the specific objection you have.
I really appreciate your perspective. It definitely helped me feel better about how hostile the rest of the responses have been.
I do already share that same thinking that it has been pushed too far long ago, though slowly to an extent.
I guess I have trouble wrestling with how far of a distance there is between the CEOs actions and their effects having caused deaths of many. It seems that the logic of that makes obvious sense, but there’s so many steps in between that it also seems so different from direct murder. Because of that distance of actions is what I feel makes it murder.
If we don’t consider this a murder and then continue that logic, at what point of involvement with the company does it stop and then become murder?
Still, I feel like this action, that I still feel is very wrong, is starting to give the people more power and the voice we should have had all along. So the results of this have seemed to benefit the people who have been victims of the predatory health insurance system.
I personally don’t ever want to feel good about killing another person. Even if justified. That just seems wrong.
Well, I can understand your point of view without sharing it. As for the hostility, beyond most folks just following whatever up/downvoting they see taking place already, there’s a critical element here that shouldn’t be missed - the positive response has been largely bipartisan, which is rare and valuable. And not only is it bipartisan, it points out an important truth which any resident of this country would do well to keep in mind -
At this stage of the game, we might be a hair’s breadth from realizing that it hasn’t been Democrats vs. Republicans for a long time, it’s just all of us regular folks vs the abusive rich (+their enablers).
I’m reaching here, but if other people feel that way, I can imagine wanting to discourage anything that takes away from a sudden (much needed) feeling of unity.
yeah he probably saved lives, if he ends up changing the health insurance landscape because of this
The rose-colored glasses you’re wearing must have really thick lenses.
Anyone who thinks that this one act will change anything is out of their minds.
Giant corporations exist to make money to satisfy the shareholders and pay those at the top exorbitant paychecks. They don’t give the first flying fuck about their employees or customers, and this one act isn’t going to change a damn thing.
We all wish it will, but I’m sorry to say, but it won’t.
And yet, actions taken by the UHC CEO have doubtlessly caused far, far more suffering and death. Why aren’t you criticizing him?
People voted for privatized healthcare. They created the UHC. Nobody holds a vote for vigilante murder, nor is anything significant gained by setting the killer free.
Just treat it as a fair trade.
You seem to be getting dangerously close to advocating for imprisonment of Luigi Mangione. Imprisonment is a violent act, and nobody here wants to be exposed to somebody advocating violence.
You can criticize both a piece of shit profiting off the misery of others, and the person that murdered him in cold blood and took a father away from two children. You can also criticize them both without equating them, in fact.
NYS Penal Law SECTION 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person
Whether or not he is a murderer depends on whether the DA can meet their burden of proving he committed the acts necessary to satisfy the elements of NYS definition of whatever degree of murder the Grand Jury indicts (if that happens) AND he is not able to establish the affirmative defense of justification.
None of these determinations have been made yet.
I gotta ask, are you a time traveler or a boot licker?
You’re using the legal definition, and there is no legal justification for what he did. I do believe there’s a moral one, though. Also I was unaware that the taking of a life with justification in the law is not considered murder.
Whether there is a legal justification depends on a jury. Sorry you don’t like it but it’s how the law works. I suggest you try to learn about the things you have opinions on.
Am I a bootlicker simply because I don’t agree with a killing?
I’m not in any way saying the CEO was not a total shitbag who was the effective cause of many deaths.
I just don’t like that murder was seemingly what needed to happen to give people a voice.
Then blame the monsters who ignore human rights for sake of profit, and their enablers. Not the person who saved lives by giving the billionaires a reality check. Yes, it was an unlawful killing. But if the law protects mass murder by denial of life saving care, then how should people change something?
