merc
He could lose 99.999% of his wealth, and still be among the richest 1% in the world.
To be in the richest 1% worldwide you need to be a millionaire. He’s worth $242 billion. If he only lost 99% of his wealth, he’d still be a billionaire, and still be 1000x richer than people who were merely in the top 1% worldwide. To be in the top 1% in the US you’d have to shave a 9 off that. He could lose 99.99% of his wealth and still be in the top 1% in the US.
The day before this burglary, Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man. The stolen car used in the burglary came from yet another murder.
Gee, it’s almost as if there were real crimes he could have been charged with, instead of the bullshit crime of his friend getting killed by the cops.
If the plan was “go into this house and kill the occupants” and the group executed that plan even though only one person pulled the trigger, that would be one thing.
The plan was never “go into this house, wait for the cops to show up, get into a shootout with the cops, and get shot by the cops”. Or, if it was, the kid who was charged sure didn’t follow that plan because he ran away instead or getting into a shootout. There are a variety of possible crimes for someone who was part of a group: conspiracy to X, reckless endangerment, negligence, etc.
At a bare minimum, if someone in a group is charged with X, it should be necessary to prove that the group’s plan was to do X. In addition, it should be necessary to prove that the group did X. That seems like it should be the absolute minimum. In this case, what’s absurd is that the group didn’t even do X.
In this case, the “murder” was the “murder” of one of the criminals, and the person who did the “murder” was the cop. It’s absolutely ridiculous that if the cop were charged with that murder (and somehow wasn’t just automatically immune) the cop could invoke their right to self-defense, and would almost certainly be acquitted. But, the person who was running away from the crime scene at the moment the murder happened can’t use the self-defense justification because he wasn’t the person who fired the shot.
If there’s a 2-man team of a spotter and a sniper, the sniper is pulling the trigger and the spotter is calling the shots, then sure, charge the spotter with murder too.
In virtually every other case, there are already crimes for what the other person did. Use those existing crimes.
This also makes me think of SWATting. Yeah, it’s awful to do that. But, 99% of the blame for a successful SWATting should fall on the cops. Someone makes a claim over the phone, and as a result you kick down a door and charge in, guns blazing? SWATting wouldn’t work if cops could go to prison for kicking in the door at a house where nothing was going on. If that were a risk, they’d stop and verify the facts before making a decision that could ruin their lives. The only reason it works is that cops are given immunity for just about everything, so there’s no real downside to shoot first and verify assumptions later.
Charging the kid for his buddy getting killed by the cops is some kind of black mirror garbage that can only happen in a world where cops can face no responsibilities for their actions. If we lived in a world where cops could face responsibility for their actions, the cop could get charged with murder. Now, he’d easily beat that murder charge because he was acting in self-defense, as the guy he shot was shooting at him. How twisted is it that the person who actually fired the killing shot could claim self-defense, but the person who was running away at the time can’t make that claim because he wasn’t the one who actually fired the shot?
I think the idea of felony murder makes sense, you’ve helped create a scenario where someone ended up
Imagine we used that on white collar crimes.
A lawyer helped register a company that later went on to commit fraud. Charge her because she helped create a scenario where someone committed fraud. Charge the IT manager because he hooked up the computers that were later used in the fraud.
It seems pretty basic, but you should charge people for things they actually did. If multiple people planned a crime but only one person was caught executing the crime, you can charge them all with conspiracy. That makes sense. On the other hand, this seems to involve charging someone with a crime that wasn’t part of the plan. If it was a potential foreseeable consequence of the plan, there are crimes for that: reckless endangerment, negligence, etc.
I just can’t imagine a real scenario where someone did something wrong, but there are no laws on the books that match the wrong thing they did. So, instead, you have to charge them with the crime someone else did instead.
Yes, you’re reading it right: “whom was shot”.
Whomsoever wrote that should be shot.
Controlling contagious diseases is not left to private providers.
But, by the nature of the US, it still has to involve them. Because of the system, you can’t get shots into people’s arms without involving private hospitals, private insurance companies, etc. Which, during the pandemic resulted in some insurance companies still trying to charge co-pays for vaccinations, or billing people who received them. Maybe it was just paperwork mix-ups but it happened. And, since many people are used to the private system, they assumed that they would get charged or couldn’t get vaccinated because they lacked insurance, so they didn’t get vaccinated.
Imagine if a city had all kinds of private fire departments but it had a Center for Major Fires that could issue orders if a fire was declared to be “major”. Until that point, firefighters could refuse to put out a fire at a business that hadn’t subscribed to their firefighting services. So, they could sit there and watch a building burn down, only using their hoses on the stray embers that flew into houses nearby which had subscribed. Then, one day, there’s a fire at an abandoned warehouse (no fire coverage, naturally) and it starts spreading to nearby buildings, some of which are also abandoned. The Center for Major Fires examines the situation and declares that this is a Major Fire, and that all the fire companies need to help put it out, regardless of whether it affects their pre-paid customers. But, unfortunately communicating that with the various fire companies is hard because the fire has already started to spread. Some companies are willing to do what’s required, but first they want to ensure that their paid-up customers are safe, then they’ll get to the abandoned warehouses… Other fire companies are hard to contact because they’re already too busy fighting part of this Major Fire, so any hope of a coordinated response is slim.
There are just some jobs that should be done by government. Firefighting and healthcare are both in that category.
That’s the part that makes the US system insane.
In countries with a public health care system, the goal of the patients and the doctors is the same. Everybody’s goal is to prevent diseases and sickness, and to treat it when it isn’t prevented. The administrators just estimate how much funding is needed to achieve that goal.
In the US system, the patients are trying to prevent and treat their sicknesses and diseases. The administrators are trying to find ways to avoid paying for any treatments, and the doctors make more money if they can find a way to bill more things.
And, what’s especially insane is that healthcare really isn’t a normal market like other things. If you’re buying a truck, you can shop around, haggle with salespeople, etc. If you’re hit by a truck, you’re not going to be comparison-shopping emergency rooms.