I know a lot of people were looking at this guy as some modern-day Robin Hood, but I always thought that someone who does this kind of thing has probably reached the end of the line and may not be...
I know a lot of people were looking at this guy as some modern-day Robin Hood, but I always thought that someone who does this kind of thing has probably reached the end of the line and may not be as clear-headed as many want to believe. So it's no surprise that he has been caught (assuming this is the guy).
It's wild that there are so many disappointed people right now. It's made us all reconsider our values. And I must admit, although I don't condone violence at all, certainly not murder, it's hard to feel any kind of sympathy for the victim here. I've been thinking for a while that we will soon start to see rebellion against the uber-wealthy, and now that it's happened, it's clear that many would like it to continue.
The violence is bad, and it's a bit jarring seeing normal people feel supportive of a man being gunned down in the street. But we have to be clear about who was responsible for inciting it and who...
The violence is bad, and it's a bit jarring seeing normal people feel supportive of a man being gunned down in the street. But we have to be clear about who was responsible for inciting it and who needs to change to prevent the next one, and on both counts it's the healthcare system.
People will try to spin this as "anti-rich rhetoric has gone too far" and those people will need to be told off. If you don't maintain your car's engine, eventually something will blow. Their broken system can only squeeze people for so long before something relieves the pressure. That can either be reform or they can wait for more desperate people to snap and do something crazy.
Anyone who truly condemns the violence should use this moment of public focus to pressure the insurance companies to do better.
It's really, really disheartening. There's a base human reaction to forms of injustice and suffering that makes people feel that "if just we killed the right people, we could solve this problem"....
Exemplary
It's really, really disheartening. There's a base human reaction to forms of injustice and suffering that makes people feel that "if just we killed the right people, we could solve this problem".
The truth is that violence rarely; I won't say never, but really exceedingly rarely solves problems.
No matter how many times we learn this lesson, it never seems to take. Insurance companies operate the way they do, not because of any individual, or even groups of people.
If that were the case, there would be some benevolent insurance company out there run by a great guy who everyone would love.
There isn't. People hate all of them, because they're not doing cruel things because they're run by some uniquely bad apples.
There are systemic issues at play which allow healthcare to be yet another market to maximize profits in. The solution to that problem is the the only solution to all systemic problems we have; policy.
We can't murder our way out of a bad healthcare system. Literally the only change that will result from this killing is increased protection for healthcare CEOs, which will, yet again, increase the cost of healthcare.
I wish humanity as a whole could move past reveling in moments of cathartic bloodshed. That base instinct has only ever caused mountains upon mountains of despair and suffering.
There's rarely ever any problem that is truly 'solved', so your statement might be true in this case, but I don't think you can look at many significant events in history and say violence isn't a...
Exemplary
The truth is that violence rarely; I won't say never, but really exceedingly rarely solves problems.
There's rarely ever any problem that is truly 'solved', so your statement might be true in this case, but I don't think you can look at many significant events in history and say violence isn't a major factor in causing change. I'm not saying change is always a good thing, or that it always results in a problem being solved, but if the status quo is broken enough, then to many it doesn't matter what changes or how because you may not be able to break something more than it already is.
I don't think violence alone can make a bad situation good or better, there has to be a non-violent alternative for people to turn to, but violence is often the driver behind allowing a compromise on that non-violent alternative to the status quo. Without violence, you have nothing to sway the status quo because the status quo are people who have what they want and need at the expense of others. If they have nothing to fear, they have no reason to change.
Sometimes it doesn't even come down to violence itself, but rather the threat of violence that alters behaviors. We're all subjected to this on a daily basis. Anything you do that might violate the law has an implicit threat of violence behind it, because you could be taken against your will and imprisoned by any physical means necessary, including being killed if you resist. You cannot tell me violence does not work to alter behaviors when its the foundation of law enforcement itself, and it's the only way to get people to stop doing things you don't want them to do when they refuse to compromise or cooperate in any manner.
That doesn't mean anyone can just go around killing people or hurting people, because most people lack a clue about what is going on or who has any sort of real complicity in the bad things that happen or to what degree. And it won't and shouldn't go unpunished, the only time it ever really does is when those who take violent action win the fight. That's not a moral or ethical win, it's just what happens when you hold enough power to dictate the outcomes of your circumstances beyond anyone else's power or will to overcome yours.
Sure it's likely that rich people won't learn a lesson from this, and they'll just get more security, but even Donald Trump was almost assassinated with Secret Service protection. Granted it's seemingly the case they mismanaged the security and others recognized that it could have been done better to prevent that situation from being as close of a call as it was, but it's not necessarily the case that security will guarantee safety. They can choose to not learn a thing and get more security, but if things get worse and people get more desperate, that security may not save them more than if they had changed courses.
The reality is that no individual CEO or such is wholly responsible or even has much of a say in what happens nationally or globally. They are part of a system, if they buck the system, they will likely lose their position because the system does not reward people for doing the right things, it rewards people for doing the greediest things. Then someone else will simply take their place to greed it up. Of course if CEOs are being assassinated at any kind of pace, they might actually start collectively pushing for the system to change while still playing within the system, but that's pretty speculative to say the least. It could also be miscalculated to think this collective of people alone would have the influence to change the system. That's the problem with a growing society, government, policy and business sector, it becomes so nebulous where the power resides that people don't know for sure who to blame for any specific things that are happening. But it's also not hard to realize that money = power in our system, at that point it just becomes about identifying who is using their money against the public's interests.
Spot on. As much as they'd have us believe otherwise, CEOs are also expendable under this system. The amount of murdering necessary to make a meaningful dent would be... gratuitous. The callous...
There are systemic issues at play which allow healthcare to be yet another market to maximize profits in. The solution to that problem is the the only solution to all systemic problems we have; policy
Spot on.
As much as they'd have us believe otherwise, CEOs are also expendable under this system. The amount of murdering necessary to make a meaningful dent would be... gratuitous.
The callous indifference - or in many cases, joy - the public showed in the wake of the shooting should be another wakeup call for America's somewhat sane political party. There is genuine bipartisan resentment towards the healthcare system, and a healthy appetite for the government to step in.
Will anyone harness that resentment and use it to push meaningful policy? I wouldn't count on it.
Agree that policy solutions should be the most effective and humane way to curb systemic forces that support corporate greed. But these days, the fox is not just in the hen house but running the...
Agree that policy solutions should be the most effective and humane way to curb systemic forces that support corporate greed. But these days, the fox is not just in the hen house but running the farm. That is a kind of self-sustaining power that silences the policy-making initiatives that could improve things. While I'm not thrilled by the violence, I think there has to be some other check on corporate profit maximization to put policy changes back into reach.
I hold the radical opinion that killing is always wrong. Philosophically, killing Hitler during WW2 is wrong. But by killing him you may end the war and the holocaust. Killing isn't a form of...
I hold the radical opinion that killing is always wrong. Philosophically, killing Hitler during WW2 is wrong. But by killing him you may end the war and the holocaust. Killing isn't a form of justice, but at certain scales utilitarianism outweighs deontology.
So the question is whether a targeted class war (insurees vs. insurers) has utility. Consider how many people die and suffer because of the American healthcare "system". That might be enough upside if these wrongdoings can end it. However I don't see enough inter-class terrorism happening to actually change things.
I agree that killing is wrong. I think the cost of violence is always higher than one thinks, and should be avoided. I guess I should clarify, I'm wondering if there is a check other than violence...
I agree that killing is wrong. I think the cost of violence is always higher than one thinks, and should be avoided.
I guess I should clarify, I'm wondering if there is a check other than violence that we could impose within the bought-and-paid for political system we find ourselves in. It seems like the kind of class solidarity needed to move the needle would be hard to come by given how disrupted communities (both on and off line) are. Anything individual action (even if not illegal) is likely to get one singled out by the powers that be one way or the other. I just feel stuck thinking about it.
Health insurance is highly regulated and changing laws changes the game. The context behind that, though, is that if there aren't more resources (more healthcare workers and equipment) and...
Health insurance is highly regulated and changing laws changes the game. The context behind that, though, is that if there aren't more resources (more healthcare workers and equipment) and efficiency can't be improved, shortages will continue. Decisions about who gets scheduled when for what procedures need to be made somehow. Single-payer systems need to make decisions about that too, and some of them are also being strained.
It's hard to fix something when nobody has much of a clue how to do it. But a focus on building capacity and doing it efficiently might help?
Politics that focuses on the suffering of patients can be motivating, but it doesn't result in more capacity, because they don't do the work.
That's an interesting point. I suspect that the obvious ways of building capacity -- paying people more, reducing workloads, etc. are avoided because all those things are cost centers, not profit...
But a focus on building capacity and doing it efficiently might help?
That's an interesting point. I suspect that the obvious ways of building capacity -- paying people more, reducing workloads, etc. are avoided because all those things are cost centers, not profit centers.
Where I live, there's been a protracted war/feud between UPMC, a medical system that added an insurance provider and became vertically integrated, and Highmark BCBS, an insurance provider that built its own medical system and became vertically integrated. Nevertheless, within all the shifts that has engendered, I don't see much of a push toward building capacity (rather the opposite, consolidating things and shutting down redundancies). My simple theory to explain this is that a system at capacity is fully utilized, and avoiding spare capacity is can be seen as avoiding waste. If the focus is on profit, this is a good thing. And if they keep the capacity below demand, they can ensure there are always enough sick people to fill their capacity. So there's a perverse incentive there.
Yeah, in a world where these corporations can look a politician in the eye and tell them 'shut up, or we'll donate twenty million dollars to your opponent next election cycle, and every cycle...
Will anyone harness that resentment and use it to push meaningful policy? I wouldn't count on it.
Yeah, in a world where these corporations can look a politician in the eye and tell them 'shut up, or we'll donate twenty million dollars to your opponent next election cycle, and every cycle after that until you stop trying' is a world that will then select for politicians who obey corporate interests, because all (or nearly all) the politicians who actually try to take these issues on don't get elected, or don't get re-elected.
The fact that this happens, imo, justifies the killings. There's just no other alternative. US Government has been neuterd by corporations, so the only way out is violence. Murder is always...
The fact that this happens, imo, justifies the killings. There's just no other alternative. US Government has been neuterd by corporations, so the only way out is violence.
Murder is always against the law, but public benefit isn't always the goal of laws. That's the reason why popular uprisings happened, and why many governments around the world across history had fallen. The Classic scenario is the french revolution, both in the late 18th century AND the 1830 revolution.
In early 20th century US, corpos would send armed men to kill Unionizing workers.
I agree with you in general, but I'd add that only certain types of murder are against the law. Health insurance CEOs denying claims for thousands are certainly murderers, but go about in a legal...
Murder is always against the law
I agree with you in general, but I'd add that only certain types of murder are against the law. Health insurance CEOs denying claims for thousands are certainly murderers, but go about in a legal manor.
I'd also add the American revolution to your list. Our whole country was founded on violent revolution!
I'm actually intentionally excluding rhe American revolution because, imo, it's mainly a bunch of elites wanting to keep the entire pie to itself, and the 13 colonies were states in all but name....
I'm actually intentionally excluding rhe American revolution because, imo, it's mainly a bunch of elites wanting to keep the entire pie to itself, and the 13 colonies were states in all but name.
And yeah there are indeed a few cases of legal murder, to ensure the benefit of shareholders :P
The problem with "good guy" insurance companies is adverse selection. You can't make money pooling risk if you can't spread the risk out. I'm not convinced there is a way to make insurance both...
The problem with "good guy" insurance companies is adverse selection. You can't make money pooling risk if you can't spread the risk out. I'm not convinced there is a way to make insurance both fair and profitable because the incentives for private insurance are too much at odds.
In a for-profit system the gap between costs and profit can be a bit blurred. But this can certainly be a great excuse to make more money! Idk... people are pretty big fans of Richard Li and FWD...
which will, yet again, increase the cost of healthcare
In a for-profit system the gap between costs and profit can be a bit blurred. But this can certainly be a great excuse to make more money!
there would be some benevolent insurance company out there run by a great guy who everyone would love
Idk... people are pretty big fans of Richard Li and FWD Group. But it is a bit of an outlier. Hard to think of a similar person within the boundaries of North America
It's one thing for people to praise a CEO's assassination on social media platforms like Instagram and Reddit where people often post under pseudonyms. But when UnitedHealthcare are getting...
It's one thing for people to praise a CEO's assassination on social media platforms like Instagram and Reddit where people often post under pseudonyms.
But when UnitedHealthcare are getting ratio'd on Facebook and LinkedIn, that's a sign that things are bad...
It’s been jarring to watch the emotional whiplash among the online progressive left. They went from “the unifying hero we need” and “this is a good thing” to “oh, he’s one of those? Murder is...
It’s been jarring to watch the emotional whiplash among the online progressive left. They went from “the unifying hero we need” and “this is a good thing” to “oh, he’s one of those? Murder is bad.” as his online posting history has been revealed. Either it was right and the shooter was a sinner doing the Lord’s work or it was always a wrong action.
It was always wrong in the broad strokes. But in my experience, most of the meme-ing and the "woo" were not about the actual murder and far more about the venting of the deep frustration about the...
It was always wrong in the broad strokes. But in my experience, most of the meme-ing and the "woo" were not about the actual murder and far more about the venting of the deep frustration about the healthcare system. It highlights the amount of blood on the CEO's hands that is fully ignored by society in the same way that white-collar crime and wage theft are treated as a "civil matter" compared with the shoplifting panics being fomented by stores in the media. If we could actually do that math, who has done the more heinous acts. And that is sobering in some ways, and results in entirely unserious behavior in others.
It was never about Brian Thompson. It was catharsis. I don't like how it resulted in him being dehumanized in that process, but I respect people not feeling empathetic when so many people know someone whose care has been fucked by insurance companies, with all sorts of negative outcomes, from unnecessary pain to disability or death. It was never reasonable to put the killer on a pedestal. I'm just disappointed that the energy will dissipate rather than turning into useful change.
You must be in different left-wing circles than me, as most people in my circles are still positive about the act itself even as we can now laugh at his stupid Tweets. The rest aren't even...
You must be in different left-wing circles than me, as most people in my circles are still positive about the act itself even as we can now laugh at his stupid Tweets. The rest aren't even switching to "murder is bad" but coming up with conspiracy theories about how the guy they caught isn't the one who actually did it.
That said, I'm in pretty far left circles compared to most of Tildes (though among leftists I'm not really "far left").
I'm mostly elaborating because some people (especially Americans) use "progressive left" to refer to liberals who aren't even social democrats, which is very different from the variety of...
I'm mostly elaborating because some people (especially Americans) use "progressive left" to refer to liberals who aren't even social democrats, which is very different from the variety of communists and anarchists in the circles I'm talking about. I don't think I'm the farthest left person on Tildes or anything, but I think the bulk of the users on this site are more on the liberal end of things. I do agree that wanting the workers to own the means of production is leftist lol
He's posted some "anti-woke" stuff, weirded people out by bringing the Unabomber's manifesto to bookclub... idk that he has a well-formed political stance personally, but he's not a left-wing...
He's posted some "anti-woke" stuff, weirded people out by bringing the Unabomber's manifesto to bookclub... idk that he has a well-formed political stance personally, but he's not a left-wing hero. I don't think he is particularly pro-Trump, or at least I haven't seen anything specific. Read two books by Steve-o (or 1 book 2x?) His Goodreads go shared as well.
Fwiw, I haven't seen anyone throwing him into the alt-right category, the leftists are still going "he has an alibi". But he's not the imagined everyman vigilante who's too clever to get caught as...
Fwiw, I haven't seen anyone throwing him into the alt-right category, the leftists are still going "he has an alibi". But he's not the imagined everyman vigilante who's too clever to get caught as he disappears into the night. Which, I mean, Batman is also a privileged kid with less than ideal political opinions.
Real people are infinitely more complex than symbols. "The Adjuster" was only ever a fiction.
I haven't seen this at all. The news keeps trying to push it as a "some isolated corners of the internet" thing. But my experience is, 99% of posts I've seen, enjoyed the murder on day 1 and...
I haven't seen this at all. The news keeps trying to push it as a "some isolated corners of the internet" thing. But my experience is, 99% of posts I've seen, enjoyed the murder on day 1 and continue to do so. Tildes is one of the only places that's even willing to throw a "murder is wrong, but.." in there.
He follows Ezra Klien, Edward Snowden, Joe Rogan, Andrew Huberman, and many others in between. Seems like a normal intellectual in his 20s to me. Hard to say what he truly believes.
He follows Ezra Klien, Edward Snowden, Joe Rogan, Andrew Huberman, and many others in between. Seems like a normal intellectual in his 20s to me. Hard to say what he truly believes.
Agreed. But ignoring perspectives also does not an intellectual make. Rogan's conversations should be taken with a MASSIVE heap of salt, but you can learn about the people he chats with from them....
Agreed. But ignoring perspectives also does not an intellectual make. Rogan's conversations should be taken with a MASSIVE heap of salt, but you can learn about the people he chats with from them.
His conversations with Trump and Vance were particularly interesting, and worth listening to for any American. Even if it's just to understand the bizarro-world these people inhabit.
Ignoring Rogan, who has massive listenership in key demographics that Harris did poorly with, was a massive mistake for the Harris campaign. Don't make that same mistake!
Ugh that's even more depressing then. I find it so hypocritical to swap judgement based on such minor things. I get if he was some proud boy or something, but nothing I've seen is anywhere near...
Ugh that's even more depressing then. I find it so hypocritical to swap judgement based on such minor things. I get if he was some proud boy or something, but nothing I've seen is anywhere near extreme enough for me to understand shifting views based on the knowledge it exists.
There was one guy I saw who was reminding his terminally-online leftist friends not to get a tattoo of the guy until after the trial in case “it turns out he was a member of one of those fashy...
There was one guy I saw who was reminding his terminally-online leftist friends not to get a tattoo of the guy until after the trial in case “it turns out he was a member of one of those fashy militias or something.” He knew the kind of people he was dealing with and gave them a fair warning.
If it makes you feel better I haven't seen anything like that, in person or online. My BlueSky feed is all people who think it was pretty justifiable and also that his name and GoodReads account...
If it makes you feel better I haven't seen anything like that, in person or online. My BlueSky feed is all people who think it was pretty justifiable and also that his name and GoodReads account is hilarious. I haven't seen a single post from a person who had changed their perspective on the shooting.
He follows a lot of populist vaguely right-wing chuds, and his political opinions are pretty scattered and confused, echoing some right-wing talking points but nothing deeply vile or supremacist....
He follows a lot of populist vaguely right-wing chuds, and his political opinions are pretty scattered and confused, echoing some right-wing talking points but nothing deeply vile or supremacist. Very anti-establishment but otherwise not a coherent ideology more than a bunch of vibes. I'd probably characterize him as being vulnerable to the alt right pipeline but not too deep in it yet. The kind of guy who, from my perspective as a leftist, is probably salvageable if a suitably eloquent white dude were able to point him to more left-wing content.
Exactly, it's hard for people to sympathize. But a lot of people turn this into a "good murder"/"bad murder", which worries me. I do not believe the murder to have any valid justification (, feels...
It's wild that there are so many disappointed people right now. It's made us all reconsider our values. And I must admit, although I don't condone violence at all, certainly not murder, it's hard to feel any kind of sympathy for the victim here.
Exactly, it's hard for people to sympathize. But a lot of people turn this into a "good murder"/"bad murder", which worries me.
I do not believe the murder to have any valid justification (, feels stupid to even have to clarify such a position.) But it should be a very clear signal that the insurance industry deserves a closer look.
Murder is generally bad, but would you fault a jew for killing Hilter in 1938? The killing of this specific CEO, was pretty much a matter of when, not if. Water can only take so much heat before...
Murder is generally bad, but would you fault a jew for killing Hilter in 1938?
The killing of this specific CEO, was pretty much a matter of when, not if. Water can only take so much heat before ot starts boiling, and US insurance companies really had that gas stove on maximum.
And judging by another insurance company rolling back another unpopular policy change after the murder, it seems that violence can indeed be good for the general public.
What a bizarre comparison. I can think of many ways in which public outrage causes change way before opting for murder... And I don't think so, actually, I think barely anyone even knew who he was...
Murder is generally bad, but would you fault a jew for killing Hilter in 1938?
What a bizarre comparison.
The killing of this specific CEO, was pretty much a matter of when, not if.
I can think of many ways in which public outrage causes change way before opting for murder... And I don't think so, actually, I think barely anyone even knew who he was until the assassination, then heard the backstory, and nodded along.
Please do provide a few examples of those many ways, otherwise the argument remains baseless. And it's not about who in particular killed which other particular person, but some layman killing a...
I can think of many ways in which public outrage causes change way before opting for murder..
Please do provide a few examples of those many ways, otherwise the argument remains baseless.
And it's not about who in particular killed which other particular person, but some layman killing a representative of the elite class was an increasingly probable matter.
My own feelings are that this is an example of disproportionate state resourcing - this murder investigation used the resources of like 1000 others. It feels like it's being used as a visible...
My own feelings are that this is an example of disproportionate state resourcing - this murder investigation used the resources of like 1000 others. It feels like it's being used as a visible example of what happens if the rabble exerts violence on the upper, upper class. So part of me wants their efforts to fail.
Like asparagus said, although I don't condone violence either, it's incredibly frustrating to see the state reserve resources for folks deemed worthy by our justice system.
I don't necessarily think it's about the victim as much as it's about the spectacle and motivation. If Brian Thompson had been killed during a drug deal gone wrong, or a botched home invasion, do...
I don't necessarily think it's about the victim as much as it's about the spectacle and motivation.
If Brian Thompson had been killed during a drug deal gone wrong, or a botched home invasion, do you think the story, and police effort would have been nearly as large? Maybe, but probably not.
This was clearly a political killing from the beginning, with motivations stemming from a problem that affects lots of people and is regularly reported on (healthcare accessibility).
The crime was a national spectacle, and so the police are going to be pressured, even if not directly, to devote far more resources towards solving it than they naturally would.
But if it was a white 8 year old girl randomly shot in the street… I’d expect a fair bit of coverage. But perhaps not this much. Hard to say, it’s a bit of a chicken or the egg situation.
But if it was a white 8 year old girl randomly shot in the street… I’d expect a fair bit of coverage.
But perhaps not this much.
Hard to say, it’s a bit of a chicken or the egg situation.
I don't normally pay much attention to police resource use, so I don't have an informed opinion on that. But it seems like a lot of the resources that resulted in catching him were donated: the...
I don't normally pay much attention to police resource use, so I don't have an informed opinion on that. But it seems like a lot of the resources that resulted in catching him were donated: the news coverage and the people curious enough to look at the wanted photos.
It seems fairly inevitable that famous crimes are going to get lots of attention and lots of resources. A lot of that attention is volunteered by the audience. Also, since a lot of people are paying attention, this becomes a PR issue for the police. They're going to be judged on whether they can catch him or not.
If you compare it to the investigation into the murder of Yeremi Colino, which happened in New York City on Saturday, what we can see is very different. There's no reward offered, for one thing....
If you compare it to the investigation into the murder of Yeremi Colino, which happened in New York City on Saturday, what we can see is very different. There's no reward offered, for one thing. We can't see how much has been spent on each investigation, and it is possible that police are spending much more effort on Yeremi's case than is being publicized, so it is possible that the resources going into both investigations are the same. I can't find any security camera photos of Yeremi's killers being circulated. Is one not available, or is that not being flashed around the same way? There's no artist's sketch of them being circulated, despite a description existing. Maybe the NYPD lazily combed Central Park looking for those killers, too, but without cameras that time. It is possible that they're spending exactly the same resources seeking justice for both victims, and it's simply the news that doesn't care about Yeremi, but 1) I seriously doubt it and 2) that's still a problem that we should be discussing.
I’m a little suspicious of this argument because the complaints about police spending too much resources this time finding a murderer seem new. Has that happened for a previous high-profile case?
I’m a little suspicious of this argument because the complaints about police spending too much resources this time finding a murderer seem new. Has that happened for a previous high-profile case?
Honestly I sort of hoped that the police would never find him and healthcare CEOs would fear that he would strike again. I don't want fear of murder to be their primary reason for behaving...
Honestly I sort of hoped that the police would never find him and healthcare CEOs would fear that he would strike again. I don't want fear of murder to be their primary reason for behaving decently, I'd rather they grow a functional human conscience instead, but that seems far less likely. Billionaires need to believe that there's a chance, no matter how slim, that they might actually face consequences for their actions. If the amount of human death and misery that just health insurance executives are responsible for was reigned in even slightly, it would be worth it.
How would that work though? Logically in the real world. A CEO would go before his board and say "yes, I know that profits are down 230% this quarter, but that's because we're no longer denying...
How would that work though? Logically in the real world.
A CEO would go before his board and say "yes, I know that profits are down 230% this quarter, but that's because we're no longer denying any claim because if we don't, I may be murdered", and then the board and all the shareholders they represent just say ok?
A scenario like you're saying is something that only happens in movies. If a very rich person is afraid of getting shot, they just hire security (Brian Thompson wasn't a billionaire, that's a whole other class of people living a whole other type of life). That's what's going to happen here. Another line item will be added to the budget of insurance companies for CEO security detail, that cost will be passed onto policy holders, and life will resume as normal.
If you want to change the healthcare system, lobbying, voting, and communication about real policy proposals are how you do it, not murder.
It would probably be a lot less blatant and significant than that. Instead of profits going way down, they just don't go up as quickly. They avoid doing attention-grabbing things like using AI to...
It would probably be a lot less blatant and significant than that. Instead of profits going way down, they just don't go up as quickly. They avoid doing attention-grabbing things like using AI to deny heath insurance claims. Maybe they deny fewer claims so they're more in-line with the industry average and not such an obvious target. Maybe we get a bunch of companies that struggle to hire CEOs because it's a dangerous position. And yes, definitely, there would be tighter security.
If you want to change the healthcare system, lobbying, voting, and communication about real policy proposals are how you do it, not murder.
What do you think the actual chances of something like that happening within the next couple of decades are? I think it's roughly as realistic as CEOs getting slightly less evil because they're keeping their heads down. Except the lobbying part, of course. That's absolutely going to be happening, just in the wrong direction.
Edit: Also, I did say I don't want murder to be how things get better. I just don't see anything getting better by working within the system as it currently exists. It's been captured completely by people who benefit from misery.
Unfortunately that's the main thing you're evaluated on as a CEO. Being afraid of dying doesn't change that. You could hire a battalion of private mercenaries to protect you for less than the cost...
Instead of profits going way down, they just don't go up as quickly.
Unfortunately that's the main thing you're evaluated on as a CEO. Being afraid of dying doesn't change that. You could hire a battalion of private mercenaries to protect you for less than the cost of a 1% decrease in profits for these large companies.
What do you think the actual chances of something like that happening within the next couple of decades are?
I don't know, it's impossible to predict what large groups of people will do. I would hope that greater exposure to the realities of the American healthcare system and what the alternatives to it are become popular enough to get candidates in office that want to fix the system. The ACA was a fantastic step in that direction, and is still broadly popular, even among many conservatives. It's happened in many other countries and there's no reason that it can't happen in the US also.
We live in a really, really complicated world. If the solutions to our problems were just killing people, we'd be living in a utopia by now.
I don't think killing this guy likely solved anything. I just don't think the killer being caught solves anything either. I think the self-interest of CEOs is the only motivation they have that...
I don't think killing this guy likely solved anything. I just don't think the killer being caught solves anything either. I think the self-interest of CEOs is the only motivation they have that can actually be influenced.
I don't really know what we're arguing about. You can't predict a solution, and I'm not claiming to have one either. Do you think that the shooter being caught has made things broadly better in some way?
No, but I also don't think the killer being at large would have any effect on healthcare, even if you could isolate and measure the impact of some tiny individual action like that. My point is...
No, but I also don't think the killer being at large would have any effect on healthcare, even if you could isolate and measure the impact of some tiny individual action like that.
My point is that cheering this guy as some hero of the people that's going to kick off healthcare reform is really misguided. He's just a random murderer. Maybe he felt that he had good reasons for why he did it, and maybe he did, but I think many murderers would say they did too.
I want to be clear that I wasn't doing that. He's an inevitable consequence of a broken system that leaves people feeling like they have nothing to lose. I have no sympathy for the victim, the...
My point is that cheering this guy as some hero of the people that's going to kick off healthcare reform is really misguided. He's just a random murderer.
I want to be clear that I wasn't doing that. He's an inevitable consequence of a broken system that leaves people feeling like they have nothing to lose. I have no sympathy for the victim, the same as I wouldn't if the CEO of Phillip Morris got emphysema from second hand smoke.
I think the hope I felt in the wake of his actions speaks more to how hopeless I've felt about America for years, and this being something that I at least didn't see coming, rather than any reasoned belief that it would change anything.
There's some tension between "inevitable" and "something that I ... didn't see coming." This was genuinely surprising, and I think we shouldn't forget that.
There's some tension between "inevitable" and "something that I ... didn't see coming." This was genuinely surprising, and I think we shouldn't forget that.
I don't understand what you mean, I was referring to the "inevitable consequence" part along with you saying it's surprising. IMO it's not surprising it happened even if it was unexpected. I was...
I don't understand what you mean, I was referring to the "inevitable consequence" part along with you saying it's surprising. IMO it's not surprising it happened even if it was unexpected. I was not surprised that the CEO was shot.
I'm attempting to reconcile the difference between "unexpected" and "not surprising." I guess a story being unsurprising in retrospect is just not very closely related to being able to predict it...
I'm attempting to reconcile the difference between "unexpected" and "not surprising." I guess a story being unsurprising in retrospect is just not very closely related to being able to predict it in advance?
Maybe it means something like, "it fits with what we already knew."
Not all unexpected occurrences are surprising. I'm not surprised when Trump lies but any particular lie is generally unexpected. I can predict he'll lie again, I can rarely predict which one....
Not all unexpected occurrences are surprising. I'm not surprised when Trump lies but any particular lie is generally unexpected. I can predict he'll lie again, I can rarely predict which one.
Someone lashing out in violence against our system is unsurprising. I didn't have my money on Luigi specifically though.
Inevitable in that people do desperate and destructive things under these circumstances. Usually they lash out at people close to them, or themselves. In hindsight, someone attempting to lash out...
Inevitable in that people do desperate and destructive things under these circumstances. Usually they lash out at people close to them, or themselves. In hindsight, someone attempting to lash out at the system in this way feels more obvious and to the point than more common responses, but I still didn't expect it because CEOs and the powerful don't seem vulnerable in that way.
It makes me feel hopeful that things I don't expect can still happen, because I truly do not expect anything good to happen for the foreseeable future.
We already saw CEO behavior shifting rapidly after the murder. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/anthem-blue-cross-blue-shield-time-limits-anesthesia-surgery-rcna183035 Many can claim is...
We already saw CEO behavior shifting rapidly after the murder.
Many can claim is was due to "backlash" but since when has insurance actually cared about public opinion. Yet immediately after the murder, they pulled this back.
Ot was always going to be a one time thing for for that specific killer, however if the herofication of the killer spreads a meme of "CEO killing" and attracts more desperate people to kill CEOs,...
Ot was always going to be a one time thing for for that specific killer, however if the herofication of the killer spreads a meme of "CEO killing" and attracts more desperate people to kill CEOs, then the US could see some change. It becomes a game of numbers, and the numbers aren't in favour of the few elites, especially in the US where guns are just around everycorner.
Come to think of it, disproportionate killing using fire arms directed at the elite memebers of society could be the trigger for gun laws in the US.
it's already common knowledge that the Justice system on the US is completely inaccessible of you're not rich, thus lawful solutions are impossible for the vast majority of US citizens, and thus: Violence is the only solution.
I think the uber wealthy are very good are redirecting populist anger away from them. This is why capitalism and communism very quickly become “Jews” or “Immigrants” or whatever else the target is...
I think the uber wealthy are very good are redirecting populist anger away from them. This is why capitalism and communism very quickly become “Jews” or “Immigrants” or whatever else the target is this month.
To the Feds, I'll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn't working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.
I question the "indecipherable" compared to it just being a curse word, especially given the two points where it lays. Also, idk if his tech was as locked down as he thought given his goodreads...
I question the "indecipherable" compared to it just being a curse word, especially given the two points where it lays. Also, idk if his tech was as locked down as he thought given his goodreads and all but perhaps he had juicy stuff no one can access.
Some more details, kind of stream of consciousness, from CNN. Key things I noted: the suspect did have documents critical of the healthcare system at the time of his arrest the suspect had a...
He may have accepted the probable outcome of being caught? While at the same time making an attempt to get away clean if he could. But yeah, not disposing of the pistol... especially if it was 3D...
He may have accepted the probable outcome of being caught? While at the same time making an attempt to get away clean if he could. But yeah, not disposing of the pistol... especially if it was 3D printed he could have burned most of it to plastic slag and ash, made it a lot harder to find/identify. At minimum the barrel would still exist but that is far less likely to get noticed in a trash bin.
Nah, that would have been unrealistic. There was no time ever where people (of a similar status to the killed CEO) would have been more on guard than right after the assassination. I am wondering...
Nah, that would have been unrealistic. There was no time ever where people (of a similar status to the killed CEO) would have been more on guard than right after the assassination.
I am wondering about this sparking copycat effects though. If this event made one thing incredibly plain, it showed everyone how united people of all political affiliations, all races, and (nearly) all socioeconomic statuses are in their rage and hate directed at for-profit health insurance corporations.
Just because he's more put together than your average random shooter doesn't necessarily mean he's being totally rational and thought this through. Further his next target may not have been as...
Just because he's more put together than your average random shooter doesn't necessarily mean he's being totally rational and thought this through. Further his next target may not have been as high level.
Not that I'm saying that was his plan, but just that it being unrealistic doesn't rule it out.
Ah, great... New York will probably use this to push through a ban on 3D printers in the state. They've tried to do it before. Also, welcome to the future. 3D printed guns, AI powered autonomous...
Ah, great... New York will probably use this to push through a ban on 3D printers in the state. They've tried to do it before.
Also, welcome to the future. 3D printed guns, AI powered autonomous killer drone warfare, and the looming specter of WWIII. We are seriously into dystopian apocalyptic sci-fi territory here.
Nah, not 3d printers... "Mayor Eric Adams says at his news conference that he thinks people wearing masks should pull them down and show their faces when entering shops or taxis, and that such a...
Nah, not 3d printers...
"Mayor Eric Adams says at his news conference that he thinks people wearing masks should pull them down and show their faces when entering shops or taxis, and that such a policy would have helped the police make an arrest sooner. He also reiterated his support for a ban on masks." --- NYT, emphasis mine.
Here I was thinking it was the guns killing people, when in fact it is masks! Can't ban the guns, no not ever!
Oh absolutely F Adams then. I wear a half-mask respirator when I have to go grocery shopping (or anywhere else indoors) as my partner is immunocompromised. COVID just happened and people still get...
Mayor Eric Adams says at his news conference that he thinks people wearing masks should pull them down and show their faces
Oh absolutely F Adams then. I wear a half-mask respirator when I have to go grocery shopping (or anywhere else indoors) as my partner is immunocompromised. COVID just happened and people still get sick from it. Arg!
No kidding— getting some serious whiplash from that pro-mask to anti-mask 180°. My household still masks regularly when we’re sick. It’s just common courtesy. This smacks of that “face diaper”...
No kidding— getting some serious whiplash from that pro-mask to anti-mask 180°. My household still masks regularly when we’re sick. It’s just common courtesy.
This smacks of that “face diaper” nonsense the right was spewing in the throes of the pandemic.
Not really relevant since apparently, the suspect was from Maryland. It seems that as of 2023, he was in Hawaii. On November 18, his mother reporting him missing. Apparently he had ties to San...
Not really relevant since apparently, the suspect was from Maryland. It seems that as of 2023, he was in Hawaii. On November 18, his mother reporting him missing. Apparently he had ties to San Francisco.
I mean, obviously it's a bit moot given the country we live in, but it's absolutely relevant to a complaint about the mayor of NYC refusing to ban guns.
I mean, obviously it's a bit moot given the country we live in, but it's absolutely relevant to a complaint about the mayor of NYC refusing to ban guns.
The 3D thing is a sideshow, but one I am idly curious about. It seems inevitable that we'll learn which model printer he used. I'm wondering if he would have had any trouble getting a gun legally.
The 3D thing is a sideshow, but one I am idly curious about. It seems inevitable that we'll learn which model printer he used.
I'm wondering if he would have had any trouble getting a gun legally.
My extremely amateur understanding is it's not really that simple as most printers can't get the tolerances required for smooth and reliable operation, and maybe can't use the plastics required...
The 3D thing is a sideshow, but one I am idly curious about. It seems inevitable that we'll learn which model printer he used.
My extremely amateur understanding is it's not really that simple as most printers can't get the tolerances required for smooth and reliable operation, and maybe can't use the plastics required (again, super super amateur here so i'm sure i've got a lot of this wrong).
Point being, I wouldn't be totally surprised if he bought it. And that brings up a whole SLEW of questions on what's legal, because I don't think there's a law against selling a "ghost gun"?
Afaik, 3d printed guns are just 3d printed receivers which, due to a quirk in philosophy and the US legal code, are the only gun part that must be registered. Since the receiver isn’t necessarily...
Afaik, 3d printed guns are just 3d printed receivers which, due to a quirk in philosophy and the US legal code, are the only gun part that must be registered. Since the receiver isn’t necessarily exposed to the explodey bits in a gun, you can 3d print it and buy the other parts off the shelf.
Edit: hah, it looks like two other folks posted the same thing, but with more details! I defer to them.
The federal law only made it illegal to sell an unregistered firearm. You could legally make one for your own personal use, but that used to be very difficult. Making one and selling it is a...
The federal law only made it illegal to sell an unregistered firearm. You could legally make one for your own personal use, but that used to be very difficult. Making one and selling it is a felony. Since the advent of 3D printers and home lathes, many states have outlawed the "for your own personal use" part.
I'm going to double check on this one but I'm pretty sure PLA is the standard material they're designed in mind with for most of these. I was reading some articles and watching videos a while back...
I'm going to double check on this one but I'm pretty sure PLA is the standard material they're designed in mind with for most of these. I was reading some articles and watching videos a while back about it and one interesting take away is that making a handgun that cycles properly is definitely a bit of work... in terms of post processing/modifications and sometimes just luck.
Also keep in mind that part of that community is trying to make it so that guns are as accessible as possible. At least one design's aim was to make it so you could make something with no gun parts at all, basically to make a modern day liberator for oppressed people to rebel with, or as a stepping stone.
Edit: this YouTuber makes 3d printed guns and the pistol in the linked video is made with PLA and he says his printer is in an Ender 3v2 which is an entry level printer. If you're not aware, PLA is kind of entry level/basic plastic that most people are using.
There are ghost guns without printers. People are buying the parts online and assembling the parts themselves. Regulating those? Unrealistic in this climate.
There are ghost guns without printers. People are buying the parts online and assembling the parts themselves.
@teaearlgraycold "Unfinished receiver" or "80 percent receiver" are the magic words. They're receivers that, due to being in an unfinished state, weren't/aren't (I'm not up-to-date on federal...
"Unfinished receiver" or "80 percent receiver" are the magic words. They're receivers that, due to being in an unfinished state, weren't/aren't (I'm not up-to-date on federal attempts to regulate their sale) legally considered firearms and thus weren't/aren't subject to the same requirements, regulations, and laws that govern firearm sales and distribution.
Basically, you buy an unfinished receiver, and finish "smithing" it yourself. You might even have bought the receiver as part of a kit that included tools for the smithing, and all the other parts that attach to the receiver to assemble a functional gun.
Kit or not, the tools to finish the receiver are cheap and easy to obtain. The skills required are trivial to learn. You could complete the receiver at your kitchen table.
Polymer80 was probably the most popularized example of this. I own one. It's pretty neat.
If you want to read more about the murderer, here's a pretty in-depth article: An emerging portrait of the elite son charged in a killing that struck at corporate America. - New York Magazine
If you want to read more about the murderer, here's a pretty in-depth article:
I'll gladly wrap my head in foil over this one. I think this is all made up to 'catch' someone so killing CEOs isn't viewed as an easy-to-get-away-with crime. I'm not one for conspiracy theories,...
I'll gladly wrap my head in foil over this one. I think this is all made up to 'catch' someone so killing CEOs isn't viewed as an easy-to-get-away-with crime.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I can't imagine why most of this sloppy stuff is happening. At least ditch the gun.
Criminals are often sloppy, in some cases due to incompetence, in others due to hubris/cockiness. It’s entirely possible he thought he wouldn’t get caught, or that he wanted to get caught (to...
Criminals are often sloppy, in some cases due to incompetence, in others due to hubris/cockiness. It’s entirely possible he thought he wouldn’t get caught, or that he wanted to get caught (to spread his “gospel” so to speak).
A related and helpful concept is the motivation for spying and espionage: M.I.C.E.
Money: they want or need more money to live on.
Ideology: they are true believers (e.g., in communism, or white identarianism, or something else)
Coercion: they are being blackmailed (“we won’t release these pics of you at the gay bathhouse if you do this work for us”)
Ego: they did it because they could (when Robert Hanssen was arrested, he said “what took you so long”, with an implicit “dumbasses” attached to that).
These four points often intersect. For example, they may feel they deserve higher pay because they do such a great job (money and ego). In this case, the killing was probably mostly ideological with some egotistical underpinnings.
Realistically, for the most part, careful, thoughtful people don't commit capital crimes. If you filter for people who commit murder, you're already preselecting for a group of people who tend to...
Realistically, for the most part, careful, thoughtful people don't commit capital crimes.
If you filter for people who commit murder, you're already preselecting for a group of people who tend to be more impulsive, with less inhibition and executive control, because killing someone virtually never improves your life in the long run. It's almost always an inherently irrational act.
So you'd expect most murderers to be sloppy. They murdered someone, which is a sloppy thing to do. It shouldn't be surprising that they did it sloppily.
One of the most generally relevant things I read in the aftermath of the first Trump assassination attempt is that looking for coherent political ideology in an assassins is a fool’s quest. Osama...
One of the most generally relevant things I read in the aftermath of the first Trump assassination attempt is that looking for coherent political ideology in an assassins is a fool’s quest. Osama bin Laden and Teddy K. are the exceptions, not the norm. Sure, there have been plenty of shooters who commit their violence to read their manifestos, but those are operating on a much less abstract hatred for the victims than what people want to be true.
Even then you’ve often got a majority makeup of people inclined to violence. You usually don’t sign up for a military force because you want to be an accountant or scientist. Even less so for a...
Even then you’ve often got a majority makeup of people inclined to violence.
You usually don’t sign up for a military force because you want to be an accountant or scientist. Even less so for a paramilitary, revolutionary, or terrorist force.
That’s not to say that they aren’t much smarter/put together than the average outfit, but you’re usually still taking outliers on the curve
The whole thing was sloppy I'm not surprised at all he got caught. I doubt there is some kind of big conspiracy. Occam's Razor theory - the simple explanation is often the correct one. Everyone...
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I can't imagine why most of this sloppy stuff is happening. At least ditch the gun.
The whole thing was sloppy I'm not surprised at all he got caught. I doubt there is some kind of big conspiracy. Occam's Razor theory - the simple explanation is often the correct one. Everyone wants to believe we live in a movie. It's fun to imagine the killer as a badass Robinhood figure fighting against the shadowy government and big corporations.
If I had to speculate, it sounds like he was a very intelligent kid who had some sort of psychotic break - killed someone - and is now going to spend his life in prison. He was probably panicking after actually murdering someone and unable to think clearly. This isn't as sexy of a plot so people don't want to believe it.
I'm hesitant to buy this for reasons others have already elaborated, but at the same time I'm acutely familiar with policing's tendency towards both incompetence and malice, so I end up finding it...
I'm hesitant to buy this for reasons others have already elaborated, but at the same time I'm acutely familiar with policing's tendency towards both incompetence and malice, so I end up finding it believable nonetheless.
There's too much lining up for me to even consider this. Given what we know so far I wouldn't be shocked if he admits it at some point, but I suspect he'll push for a trial.
There's too much lining up for me to even consider this. Given what we know so far I wouldn't be shocked if he admits it at some point, but I suspect he'll push for a trial.
He got pretty far before getting caught and it seems like that was down to a thought-out escape plan. If he thought his plan was solid he might have thought that it was safest to keep the...
He got pretty far before getting caught and it seems like that was down to a thought-out escape plan. If he thought his plan was solid he might have thought that it was safest to keep the contraband with him rather than leave a breadcrumb trail for police to follow. Not smart but he's not some pro hitman.
I try to be practical but this guy must’ve lost his mind. I keep going back and forth between he must’ve been trying to get caught with all of this evidence on him, but then another super...
I try to be practical but this guy must’ve lost his mind. I keep going back and forth between he must’ve been trying to get caught with all of this evidence on him, but then another super irrational tin foil hat fiction writing part of me thinks it has Manchurian candidate written all over it.
Everything is absurd these days, reality feels like it’s hanging on by a thread.
Seems like he could benefit from some mental health insurance... Yeah this murder is completely self inflicted. In a country where firearms are common, and mental helath is rarely covered by...
Seems like he could benefit from some mental health insurance...
Yeah this murder is completely self inflicted. In a country where firearms are common, and mental helath is rarely covered by insurance, such an outcome is all but certainly, but unfortunately for Americans, their government can't think beyond a 4 year term, and Corpos can't think beyond a 3 month term. Meanwhile, the situation for actual people os getting worse.
All damning evidence aside, which may or may not have been elaborately planted, why pin it on someone from a family who's likely in the 1% of earners? I would expect a lowlife drifter type to take...
All damning evidence aside, which may or may not have been elaborately planted, why pin it on someone from a family who's likely in the 1% of earners? I would expect a lowlife drifter type to take the fall, not someone with the suspect's background and family network.
I'm kind of surprised he got caught. I haven't kept up with the details of the case, so I may be wrong in criticizing him. I thought using a bike to cut through traffic was brilliant. I was told a...
I'm kind of surprised he got caught.
I haven't kept up with the details of the case, so I may be wrong in criticizing him.
I thought using a bike to cut through traffic was brilliant.
I was told a picture of him with his mask pulled down was not him. If it was, that was just thoughtless.
I would have gotten a gun without a serial number, and dumped it in NYC.
I would had a second bag ( not a back pack ) and a change of clothes in the back pack. I would have changed ASAP once getting away.
Maybe a pair of sun glasses for getting the bus at McD's, but not going in there. Just walk around on the break.
He had a 3D printed gun. And a lot of people thought the pictures weren't the same person. But as far as I can tell it seems like they were. He was not a mastermind criminal. He had a plan and he...
He had a 3D printed gun. And a lot of people thought the pictures weren't the same person. But as far as I can tell it seems like they were.
He was not a mastermind criminal. He had a plan and he executed a plan and he didn't really have a plan for after that, except perhaps to get caught since he had his manifesto written out.
It's really easy to kill people if you have the motivation. It's also easy to walk away in the chaos and immediately hop on a taxi at the bus and leave town. But after that it gets much more complicated.
I'm not sure if it was a situation where he couldn't have gotten away if he wanted to. Maybe if he had a plane ticket to somewhere without extradition, but law enforcement would also be going...
I'm not sure if it was a situation where he couldn't have gotten away if he wanted to. Maybe if he had a plane ticket to somewhere without extradition, but law enforcement would also be going through airports with a fine tooth comb. Maybe he lays low for a while, but maybe if he wants to make a splash and feels his message would be receptive, he thinks it's to his advantage to make a whole court show and become the center of attention.
So 100 years ago we had the first Gilded Age and we also had violent Italian anarchists. Remember Sacco and Vanzetti throwing bombs? I guess the historical lesson here is don’t fuck with the Italians
So 100 years ago we had the first Gilded Age and we also had violent Italian anarchists. Remember Sacco and Vanzetti throwing bombs?
I guess the historical lesson here is don’t fuck with the Italians
I know a lot of people were looking at this guy as some modern-day Robin Hood, but I always thought that someone who does this kind of thing has probably reached the end of the line and may not be as clear-headed as many want to believe. So it's no surprise that he has been caught (assuming this is the guy).
It's wild that there are so many disappointed people right now. It's made us all reconsider our values. And I must admit, although I don't condone violence at all, certainly not murder, it's hard to feel any kind of sympathy for the victim here. I've been thinking for a while that we will soon start to see rebellion against the uber-wealthy, and now that it's happened, it's clear that many would like it to continue.
The violence is bad, and it's a bit jarring seeing normal people feel supportive of a man being gunned down in the street. But we have to be clear about who was responsible for inciting it and who needs to change to prevent the next one, and on both counts it's the healthcare system.
People will try to spin this as "anti-rich rhetoric has gone too far" and those people will need to be told off. If you don't maintain your car's engine, eventually something will blow. Their broken system can only squeeze people for so long before something relieves the pressure. That can either be reform or they can wait for more desperate people to snap and do something crazy.
Anyone who truly condemns the violence should use this moment of public focus to pressure the insurance companies to do better.
It's really, really disheartening. There's a base human reaction to forms of injustice and suffering that makes people feel that "if just we killed the right people, we could solve this problem".
The truth is that violence rarely; I won't say never, but really exceedingly rarely solves problems.
No matter how many times we learn this lesson, it never seems to take. Insurance companies operate the way they do, not because of any individual, or even groups of people.
If that were the case, there would be some benevolent insurance company out there run by a great guy who everyone would love.
There isn't. People hate all of them, because they're not doing cruel things because they're run by some uniquely bad apples.
There are systemic issues at play which allow healthcare to be yet another market to maximize profits in. The solution to that problem is the the only solution to all systemic problems we have; policy.
We can't murder our way out of a bad healthcare system. Literally the only change that will result from this killing is increased protection for healthcare CEOs, which will, yet again, increase the cost of healthcare.
I wish humanity as a whole could move past reveling in moments of cathartic bloodshed. That base instinct has only ever caused mountains upon mountains of despair and suffering.
There's rarely ever any problem that is truly 'solved', so your statement might be true in this case, but I don't think you can look at many significant events in history and say violence isn't a major factor in causing change. I'm not saying change is always a good thing, or that it always results in a problem being solved, but if the status quo is broken enough, then to many it doesn't matter what changes or how because you may not be able to break something more than it already is.
I don't think violence alone can make a bad situation good or better, there has to be a non-violent alternative for people to turn to, but violence is often the driver behind allowing a compromise on that non-violent alternative to the status quo. Without violence, you have nothing to sway the status quo because the status quo are people who have what they want and need at the expense of others. If they have nothing to fear, they have no reason to change.
Sometimes it doesn't even come down to violence itself, but rather the threat of violence that alters behaviors. We're all subjected to this on a daily basis. Anything you do that might violate the law has an implicit threat of violence behind it, because you could be taken against your will and imprisoned by any physical means necessary, including being killed if you resist. You cannot tell me violence does not work to alter behaviors when its the foundation of law enforcement itself, and it's the only way to get people to stop doing things you don't want them to do when they refuse to compromise or cooperate in any manner.
That doesn't mean anyone can just go around killing people or hurting people, because most people lack a clue about what is going on or who has any sort of real complicity in the bad things that happen or to what degree. And it won't and shouldn't go unpunished, the only time it ever really does is when those who take violent action win the fight. That's not a moral or ethical win, it's just what happens when you hold enough power to dictate the outcomes of your circumstances beyond anyone else's power or will to overcome yours.
Sure it's likely that rich people won't learn a lesson from this, and they'll just get more security, but even Donald Trump was almost assassinated with Secret Service protection. Granted it's seemingly the case they mismanaged the security and others recognized that it could have been done better to prevent that situation from being as close of a call as it was, but it's not necessarily the case that security will guarantee safety. They can choose to not learn a thing and get more security, but if things get worse and people get more desperate, that security may not save them more than if they had changed courses.
The reality is that no individual CEO or such is wholly responsible or even has much of a say in what happens nationally or globally. They are part of a system, if they buck the system, they will likely lose their position because the system does not reward people for doing the right things, it rewards people for doing the greediest things. Then someone else will simply take their place to greed it up. Of course if CEOs are being assassinated at any kind of pace, they might actually start collectively pushing for the system to change while still playing within the system, but that's pretty speculative to say the least. It could also be miscalculated to think this collective of people alone would have the influence to change the system. That's the problem with a growing society, government, policy and business sector, it becomes so nebulous where the power resides that people don't know for sure who to blame for any specific things that are happening. But it's also not hard to realize that money = power in our system, at that point it just becomes about identifying who is using their money against the public's interests.
Spot on.
As much as they'd have us believe otherwise, CEOs are also expendable under this system. The amount of murdering necessary to make a meaningful dent would be... gratuitous.
The callous indifference - or in many cases, joy - the public showed in the wake of the shooting should be another wakeup call for America's somewhat sane political party. There is genuine bipartisan resentment towards the healthcare system, and a healthy appetite for the government to step in.
Will anyone harness that resentment and use it to push meaningful policy? I wouldn't count on it.
Agree that policy solutions should be the most effective and humane way to curb systemic forces that support corporate greed. But these days, the fox is not just in the hen house but running the farm. That is a kind of self-sustaining power that silences the policy-making initiatives that could improve things. While I'm not thrilled by the violence, I think there has to be some other check on corporate profit maximization to put policy changes back into reach.
I hold the radical opinion that killing is always wrong. Philosophically, killing Hitler during WW2 is wrong. But by killing him you may end the war and the holocaust. Killing isn't a form of justice, but at certain scales utilitarianism outweighs deontology.
So the question is whether a targeted class war (insurees vs. insurers) has utility. Consider how many people die and suffer because of the American healthcare "system". That might be enough upside if these wrongdoings can end it. However I don't see enough inter-class terrorism happening to actually change things.
I agree that killing is wrong. I think the cost of violence is always higher than one thinks, and should be avoided.
I guess I should clarify, I'm wondering if there is a check other than violence that we could impose within the bought-and-paid for political system we find ourselves in. It seems like the kind of class solidarity needed to move the needle would be hard to come by given how disrupted communities (both on and off line) are. Anything individual action (even if not illegal) is likely to get one singled out by the powers that be one way or the other. I just feel stuck thinking about it.
Health insurance is highly regulated and changing laws changes the game. The context behind that, though, is that if there aren't more resources (more healthcare workers and equipment) and efficiency can't be improved, shortages will continue. Decisions about who gets scheduled when for what procedures need to be made somehow. Single-payer systems need to make decisions about that too, and some of them are also being strained.
It's hard to fix something when nobody has much of a clue how to do it. But a focus on building capacity and doing it efficiently might help?
Politics that focuses on the suffering of patients can be motivating, but it doesn't result in more capacity, because they don't do the work.
That's an interesting point. I suspect that the obvious ways of building capacity -- paying people more, reducing workloads, etc. are avoided because all those things are cost centers, not profit centers.
Where I live, there's been a protracted war/feud between UPMC, a medical system that added an insurance provider and became vertically integrated, and Highmark BCBS, an insurance provider that built its own medical system and became vertically integrated. Nevertheless, within all the shifts that has engendered, I don't see much of a push toward building capacity (rather the opposite, consolidating things and shutting down redundancies). My simple theory to explain this is that a system at capacity is fully utilized, and avoiding spare capacity is can be seen as avoiding waste. If the focus is on profit, this is a good thing. And if they keep the capacity below demand, they can ensure there are always enough sick people to fill their capacity. So there's a perverse incentive there.
Yeah, in a world where these corporations can look a politician in the eye and tell them 'shut up, or we'll donate twenty million dollars to your opponent next election cycle, and every cycle after that until you stop trying' is a world that will then select for politicians who obey corporate interests, because all (or nearly all) the politicians who actually try to take these issues on don't get elected, or don't get re-elected.
The fact that this happens, imo, justifies the killings. There's just no other alternative. US Government has been neuterd by corporations, so the only way out is violence.
Murder is always against the law, but public benefit isn't always the goal of laws. That's the reason why popular uprisings happened, and why many governments around the world across history had fallen. The Classic scenario is the french revolution, both in the late 18th century AND the 1830 revolution.
In early 20th century US, corpos would send armed men to kill Unionizing workers.
I agree with you in general, but I'd add that only certain types of murder are against the law. Health insurance CEOs denying claims for thousands are certainly murderers, but go about in a legal manor.
I'd also add the American revolution to your list. Our whole country was founded on violent revolution!
I'm actually intentionally excluding rhe American revolution because, imo, it's mainly a bunch of elites wanting to keep the entire pie to itself, and the 13 colonies were states in all but name.
And yeah there are indeed a few cases of legal murder, to ensure the benefit of shareholders :P
The problem with "good guy" insurance companies is adverse selection. You can't make money pooling risk if you can't spread the risk out. I'm not convinced there is a way to make insurance both fair and profitable because the incentives for private insurance are too much at odds.
In a for-profit system the gap between costs and profit can be a bit blurred. But this can certainly be a great excuse to make more money!
Idk... people are pretty big fans of Richard Li and FWD Group. But it is a bit of an outlier. Hard to think of a similar person within the boundaries of North America
It's one thing for people to praise a CEO's assassination on social media platforms like Instagram and Reddit where people often post under pseudonyms.
But when UnitedHealthcare are getting ratio'd on Facebook and LinkedIn, that's a sign that things are bad...
It’s been jarring to watch the emotional whiplash among the online progressive left. They went from “the unifying hero we need” and “this is a good thing” to “oh, he’s one of those? Murder is bad.” as his online posting history has been revealed. Either it was right and the shooter was a sinner doing the Lord’s work or it was always a wrong action.
It was always wrong in the broad strokes. But in my experience, most of the meme-ing and the "woo" were not about the actual murder and far more about the venting of the deep frustration about the healthcare system. It highlights the amount of blood on the CEO's hands that is fully ignored by society in the same way that white-collar crime and wage theft are treated as a "civil matter" compared with the shoplifting panics being fomented by stores in the media. If we could actually do that math, who has done the more heinous acts. And that is sobering in some ways, and results in entirely unserious behavior in others.
It was never about Brian Thompson. It was catharsis. I don't like how it resulted in him being dehumanized in that process, but I respect people not feeling empathetic when so many people know someone whose care has been fucked by insurance companies, with all sorts of negative outcomes, from unnecessary pain to disability or death. It was never reasonable to put the killer on a pedestal. I'm just disappointed that the energy will dissipate rather than turning into useful change.
Italian-American hate knows no end 😞 when will we stop being prosecuted for our delicious pasta dishes and greasy hair.
You must be in different left-wing circles than me, as most people in my circles are still positive about the act itself even as we can now laugh at his stupid Tweets. The rest aren't even switching to "murder is bad" but coming up with conspiracy theories about how the guy they caught isn't the one who actually did it.
That said, I'm in pretty far left circles compared to most of Tildes (though among leftists I'm not really "far left").
Reading this I’m not sure what left even means anymore. I want workers to own the means of production. That’s left in my opinion.
I'm mostly elaborating because some people (especially Americans) use "progressive left" to refer to liberals who aren't even social democrats, which is very different from the variety of communists and anarchists in the circles I'm talking about. I don't think I'm the farthest left person on Tildes or anything, but I think the bulk of the users on this site are more on the liberal end of things. I do agree that wanting the workers to own the means of production is leftist lol
I'm out of the loop on the change in opinion. What do you mean by "he's one of those"? Is he actually a Trump supporter, something like that?
He's posted some "anti-woke" stuff, weirded people out by bringing the Unabomber's manifesto to bookclub... idk that he has a well-formed political stance personally, but he's not a left-wing hero. I don't think he is particularly pro-Trump, or at least I haven't seen anything specific. Read two books by Steve-o (or 1 book 2x?) His Goodreads go shared as well.
The others have given more specific answers; to the terminally online, there's little difference between alt-reich and center-right.
Fwiw, I haven't seen anyone throwing him into the alt-right category, the leftists are still going "he has an alibi". But he's not the imagined everyman vigilante who's too clever to get caught as he disappears into the night. Which, I mean, Batman is also a privileged kid with less than ideal political opinions.
Real people are infinitely more complex than symbols. "The Adjuster" was only ever a fiction.
I haven't seen this at all. The news keeps trying to push it as a "some isolated corners of the internet" thing. But my experience is, 99% of posts I've seen, enjoyed the murder on day 1 and continue to do so. Tildes is one of the only places that's even willing to throw a "murder is wrong, but.." in there.
Haven’t seen the posting history. What one of “those” is he?
The only thing I've seen is that he thought video game and porn addiction in Japan was a lot bigger of a problem than it really was.
He follows Ezra Klien, Edward Snowden, Joe Rogan, Andrew Huberman, and many others in between. Seems like a normal intellectual in his 20s to me. Hard to say what he truly believes.
Joe Rogan does not an intellectual make.
Agreed. But ignoring perspectives also does not an intellectual make. Rogan's conversations should be taken with a MASSIVE heap of salt, but you can learn about the people he chats with from them.
His conversations with Trump and Vance were particularly interesting, and worth listening to for any American. Even if it's just to understand the bizarro-world these people inhabit.
Ignoring Rogan, who has massive listenership in key demographics that Harris did poorly with, was a massive mistake for the Harris campaign. Don't make that same mistake!
The others have given you your answer, vaguely center-right.
Ugh that's even more depressing then. I find it so hypocritical to swap judgement based on such minor things. I get if he was some proud boy or something, but nothing I've seen is anywhere near extreme enough for me to understand shifting views based on the knowledge it exists.
There was one guy I saw who was reminding his terminally-online leftist friends not to get a tattoo of the guy until after the trial in case “it turns out he was a member of one of those fashy militias or something.” He knew the kind of people he was dealing with and gave them a fair warning.
If it makes you feel better I haven't seen anything like that, in person or online. My BlueSky feed is all people who think it was pretty justifiable and also that his name and GoodReads account is hilarious. I haven't seen a single post from a person who had changed their perspective on the shooting.
He follows a lot of populist vaguely right-wing chuds, and his political opinions are pretty scattered and confused, echoing some right-wing talking points but nothing deeply vile or supremacist. Very anti-establishment but otherwise not a coherent ideology more than a bunch of vibes. I'd probably characterize him as being vulnerable to the alt right pipeline but not too deep in it yet. The kind of guy who, from my perspective as a leftist, is probably salvageable if a suitably eloquent white dude were able to point him to more left-wing content.
Exactly, it's hard for people to sympathize. But a lot of people turn this into a "good murder"/"bad murder", which worries me.
I do not believe the murder to have any valid justification (, feels stupid to even have to clarify such a position.) But it should be a very clear signal that the insurance industry deserves a closer look.
Murder is generally bad, but would you fault a jew for killing Hilter in 1938?
The killing of this specific CEO, was pretty much a matter of when, not if. Water can only take so much heat before ot starts boiling, and US insurance companies really had that gas stove on maximum.
And judging by another insurance company rolling back another unpopular policy change after the murder, it seems that violence can indeed be good for the general public.
What a bizarre comparison.
I can think of many ways in which public outrage causes change way before opting for murder... And I don't think so, actually, I think barely anyone even knew who he was until the assassination, then heard the backstory, and nodded along.
Please do provide a few examples of those many ways, otherwise the argument remains baseless.
And it's not about who in particular killed which other particular person, but some layman killing a representative of the elite class was an increasingly probable matter.
Who are these disappointed people and what sort of ending were they hoping for? Seems like all the likely endings are bad.
My own feelings are that this is an example of disproportionate state resourcing - this murder investigation used the resources of like 1000 others. It feels like it's being used as a visible example of what happens if the rabble exerts violence on the upper, upper class. So part of me wants their efforts to fail.
Like asparagus said, although I don't condone violence either, it's incredibly frustrating to see the state reserve resources for folks deemed worthy by our justice system.
Though is the use of resources directly because of the murder victim? Or just because of the large media attention pressuring the police to perform?
That's a good point, but I feel like it's a famous crime because the victim represents the amount of capital and power that he does.
I don't necessarily think it's about the victim as much as it's about the spectacle and motivation.
If Brian Thompson had been killed during a drug deal gone wrong, or a botched home invasion, do you think the story, and police effort would have been nearly as large? Maybe, but probably not.
This was clearly a political killing from the beginning, with motivations stemming from a problem that affects lots of people and is regularly reported on (healthcare accessibility).
The crime was a national spectacle, and so the police are going to be pressured, even if not directly, to devote far more resources towards solving it than they naturally would.
But if it was a white 8 year old girl randomly shot in the street… I’d expect a fair bit of coverage.
But perhaps not this much.
Hard to say, it’s a bit of a chicken or the egg situation.
I don't normally pay much attention to police resource use, so I don't have an informed opinion on that. But it seems like a lot of the resources that resulted in catching him were donated: the news coverage and the people curious enough to look at the wanted photos.
It seems fairly inevitable that famous crimes are going to get lots of attention and lots of resources. A lot of that attention is volunteered by the audience. Also, since a lot of people are paying attention, this becomes a PR issue for the police. They're going to be judged on whether they can catch him or not.
If you compare it to the investigation into the murder of Yeremi Colino, which happened in New York City on Saturday, what we can see is very different. There's no reward offered, for one thing. We can't see how much has been spent on each investigation, and it is possible that police are spending much more effort on Yeremi's case than is being publicized, so it is possible that the resources going into both investigations are the same. I can't find any security camera photos of Yeremi's killers being circulated. Is one not available, or is that not being flashed around the same way? There's no artist's sketch of them being circulated, despite a description existing. Maybe the NYPD lazily combed Central Park looking for those killers, too, but without cameras that time. It is possible that they're spending exactly the same resources seeking justice for both victims, and it's simply the news that doesn't care about Yeremi, but 1) I seriously doubt it and 2) that's still a problem that we should be discussing.
I’m a little suspicious of this argument because the complaints about police spending too much resources this time finding a murderer seem new. Has that happened for a previous high-profile case?
Honestly I sort of hoped that the police would never find him and healthcare CEOs would fear that he would strike again. I don't want fear of murder to be their primary reason for behaving decently, I'd rather they grow a functional human conscience instead, but that seems far less likely. Billionaires need to believe that there's a chance, no matter how slim, that they might actually face consequences for their actions. If the amount of human death and misery that just health insurance executives are responsible for was reigned in even slightly, it would be worth it.
How would that work though? Logically in the real world.
A CEO would go before his board and say "yes, I know that profits are down 230% this quarter, but that's because we're no longer denying any claim because if we don't, I may be murdered", and then the board and all the shareholders they represent just say ok?
A scenario like you're saying is something that only happens in movies. If a very rich person is afraid of getting shot, they just hire security (Brian Thompson wasn't a billionaire, that's a whole other class of people living a whole other type of life). That's what's going to happen here. Another line item will be added to the budget of insurance companies for CEO security detail, that cost will be passed onto policy holders, and life will resume as normal.
If you want to change the healthcare system, lobbying, voting, and communication about real policy proposals are how you do it, not murder.
It would probably be a lot less blatant and significant than that. Instead of profits going way down, they just don't go up as quickly. They avoid doing attention-grabbing things like using AI to deny heath insurance claims. Maybe they deny fewer claims so they're more in-line with the industry average and not such an obvious target. Maybe we get a bunch of companies that struggle to hire CEOs because it's a dangerous position. And yes, definitely, there would be tighter security.
What do you think the actual chances of something like that happening within the next couple of decades are? I think it's roughly as realistic as CEOs getting slightly less evil because they're keeping their heads down. Except the lobbying part, of course. That's absolutely going to be happening, just in the wrong direction.
Edit: Also, I did say I don't want murder to be how things get better. I just don't see anything getting better by working within the system as it currently exists. It's been captured completely by people who benefit from misery.
Unfortunately that's the main thing you're evaluated on as a CEO. Being afraid of dying doesn't change that. You could hire a battalion of private mercenaries to protect you for less than the cost of a 1% decrease in profits for these large companies.
I don't know, it's impossible to predict what large groups of people will do. I would hope that greater exposure to the realities of the American healthcare system and what the alternatives to it are become popular enough to get candidates in office that want to fix the system. The ACA was a fantastic step in that direction, and is still broadly popular, even among many conservatives. It's happened in many other countries and there's no reason that it can't happen in the US also.
We live in a really, really complicated world. If the solutions to our problems were just killing people, we'd be living in a utopia by now.
I don't think killing this guy likely solved anything. I just don't think the killer being caught solves anything either. I think the self-interest of CEOs is the only motivation they have that can actually be influenced.
I don't really know what we're arguing about. You can't predict a solution, and I'm not claiming to have one either. Do you think that the shooter being caught has made things broadly better in some way?
No, but I also don't think the killer being at large would have any effect on healthcare, even if you could isolate and measure the impact of some tiny individual action like that.
My point is that cheering this guy as some hero of the people that's going to kick off healthcare reform is really misguided. He's just a random murderer. Maybe he felt that he had good reasons for why he did it, and maybe he did, but I think many murderers would say they did too.
I want to be clear that I wasn't doing that. He's an inevitable consequence of a broken system that leaves people feeling like they have nothing to lose. I have no sympathy for the victim, the same as I wouldn't if the CEO of Phillip Morris got emphysema from second hand smoke.
I think the hope I felt in the wake of his actions speaks more to how hopeless I've felt about America for years, and this being something that I at least didn't see coming, rather than any reasoned belief that it would change anything.
There's some tension between "inevitable" and "something that I ... didn't see coming." This was genuinely surprising, and I think we shouldn't forget that.
It's both. It is not surprising given the state of healthcare, especially UHC. It was unexpected on this particular day in this particular moment.
Given this CEO got shot, the rest of the story isn't particularly surprising, though there were plenty of other scenarios about who did it.
I don't understand what you mean, I was referring to the "inevitable consequence" part along with you saying it's surprising. IMO it's not surprising it happened even if it was unexpected. I was not surprised that the CEO was shot.
I'm attempting to reconcile the difference between "unexpected" and "not surprising." I guess a story being unsurprising in retrospect is just not very closely related to being able to predict it in advance?
Maybe it means something like, "it fits with what we already knew."
Not all unexpected occurrences are surprising. I'm not surprised when Trump lies but any particular lie is generally unexpected. I can predict he'll lie again, I can rarely predict which one.
Someone lashing out in violence against our system is unsurprising. I didn't have my money on Luigi specifically though.
Inevitable in that people do desperate and destructive things under these circumstances. Usually they lash out at people close to them, or themselves. In hindsight, someone attempting to lash out at the system in this way feels more obvious and to the point than more common responses, but I still didn't expect it because CEOs and the powerful don't seem vulnerable in that way.
It makes me feel hopeful that things I don't expect can still happen, because I truly do not expect anything good to happen for the foreseeable future.
We already saw CEO behavior shifting rapidly after the murder.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/anthem-blue-cross-blue-shield-time-limits-anesthesia-surgery-rcna183035
Many can claim is was due to "backlash" but since when has insurance actually cared about public opinion. Yet immediately after the murder, they pulled this back.
Ot was always going to be a one time thing for for that specific killer, however if the herofication of the killer spreads a meme of "CEO killing" and attracts more desperate people to kill CEOs, then the US could see some change. It becomes a game of numbers, and the numbers aren't in favour of the few elites, especially in the US where guns are just around everycorner.
Come to think of it, disproportionate killing using fire arms directed at the elite memebers of society could be the trigger for gun laws in the US.
it's already common knowledge that the Justice system on the US is completely inaccessible of you're not rich, thus lawful solutions are impossible for the vast majority of US citizens, and thus: Violence is the only solution.
Could you elaborate on your reasoning for this?
Well, I would expect him to be caught sooner or later. Maybe it's just lack of imagination on my part.
Ah, I think I misunderstood what you were saying, then. I thought you were saying "bad for society," not "bad for the gunman personally."
I think the uber wealthy are very good are redirecting populist anger away from them. This is why capitalism and communism very quickly become “Jews” or “Immigrants” or whatever else the target is this month.
The manifesto.
I question the "indecipherable" compared to it just being a curse word, especially given the two points where it lays. Also, idk if his tech was as locked down as he thought given his goodreads and all but perhaps he had juicy stuff no one can access.
American media is terrified of those seven little words.
Thank you for posting this. I appreciate being able to know what he wrote.
Some more details, kind of stream of consciousness, from CNN.
Key things I noted:
If he is the shooter, it's wild to me that he would keep the gun.
He may have accepted the probable outcome of being caught? While at the same time making an attempt to get away clean if he could. But yeah, not disposing of the pistol... especially if it was 3D printed he could have burned most of it to plastic slag and ash, made it a lot harder to find/identify. At minimum the barrel would still exist but that is far less likely to get noticed in a trash bin.
Pure speculation, but I was wondering if he was going to target someone else.
Nah, that would have been unrealistic. There was no time ever where people (of a similar status to the killed CEO) would have been more on guard than right after the assassination.
I am wondering about this sparking copycat effects though. If this event made one thing incredibly plain, it showed everyone how united people of all political affiliations, all races, and (nearly) all socioeconomic statuses are in their rage and hate directed at for-profit health insurance corporations.
Just because he's more put together than your average random shooter doesn't necessarily mean he's being totally rational and thought this through. Further his next target may not have been as high level.
Not that I'm saying that was his plan, but just that it being unrealistic doesn't rule it out.
Completely fair.
Perhaps he is looking for his day in court. He didn't go out guns blazing, suicide by cop. Maybe he wants to tell his story.
Good point!
NYT’s on the capture.
A 3D printed gun ? Things keep getting more and more interesting.
Ah, great... New York will probably use this to push through a ban on 3D printers in the state. They've tried to do it before.
Also, welcome to the future. 3D printed guns, AI powered autonomous killer drone warfare, and the looming specter of WWIII. We are seriously into dystopian apocalyptic sci-fi territory here.
Nah, not 3d printers...
"Mayor Eric Adams says at his news conference that he thinks people wearing masks should pull them down and show their faces when entering shops or taxis, and that such a policy would have helped the police make an arrest sooner. He also reiterated his support for a ban on masks." --- NYT, emphasis mine.
Here I was thinking it was the guns killing people, when in fact it is masks! Can't ban the guns, no not ever!
Truly, we are entering the “you wouldn’t download a car” era…
The acceleration of change seems to be getting faster and faster.
The jerk of change is increasing?
/noise
The jerk is above 0.
Oh absolutely F Adams then. I wear a half-mask respirator when I have to go grocery shopping (or anywhere else indoors) as my partner is immunocompromised. COVID just happened and people still get sick from it. Arg!
Sorry, particularly personal frustration there.
No kidding— getting some serious whiplash from that pro-mask to anti-mask 180°. My household still masks regularly when we’re sick. It’s just common courtesy.
This smacks of that “face diaper” nonsense the right was spewing in the throes of the pandemic.
Just tell people you have a massive herpes outbreak, and are shy. Then ask if they wanna see. They should leave you alone.
Doesn't NYC have some of the strictest gun laws in the country?
Not really relevant since apparently, the suspect was from Maryland. It seems that as of 2023, he was in Hawaii. On November 18, his mother reporting him missing. Apparently he had ties to San Francisco.
I mean, obviously it's a bit moot given the country we live in, but it's absolutely relevant to a complaint about the mayor of NYC refusing to ban guns.
Yes, although funny enough Donald Trump was able to get a carry permit.
He just have made one of the greatest deals of all time.
Yes, the city is even stricter than the rest of the state too.
modern philosopher Ani DiFranco: "Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right."
The 3D thing is a sideshow, but one I am idly curious about. It seems inevitable that we'll learn which model printer he used.
I'm wondering if he would have had any trouble getting a gun legally.
My extremely amateur understanding is it's not really that simple as most printers can't get the tolerances required for smooth and reliable operation, and maybe can't use the plastics required (again, super super amateur here so i'm sure i've got a lot of this wrong).
Point being, I wouldn't be totally surprised if he bought it. And that brings up a whole SLEW of questions on what's legal, because I don't think there's a law against selling a "ghost gun"?
Afaik, 3d printed guns are just 3d printed receivers which, due to a quirk in philosophy and the US legal code, are the only gun part that must be registered. Since the receiver isn’t necessarily exposed to the explodey bits in a gun, you can 3d print it and buy the other parts off the shelf.
Edit: hah, it looks like two other folks posted the same thing, but with more details! I defer to them.
The federal law only made it illegal to sell an unregistered firearm. You could legally make one for your own personal use, but that used to be very difficult. Making one and selling it is a felony. Since the advent of 3D printers and home lathes, many states have outlawed the "for your own personal use" part.
I'm going to double check on this one but I'm pretty sure PLA is the standard material they're designed in mind with for most of these. I was reading some articles and watching videos a while back about it and one interesting take away is that making a handgun that cycles properly is definitely a bit of work... in terms of post processing/modifications and sometimes just luck.
Also keep in mind that part of that community is trying to make it so that guns are as accessible as possible. At least one design's aim was to make it so you could make something with no gun parts at all, basically to make a modern day liberator for oppressed people to rebel with, or as a stepping stone.
Edit: this YouTuber makes 3d printed guns and the pistol in the linked video is made with PLA and he says his printer is in an Ender 3v2 which is an entry level printer. If you're not aware, PLA is kind of entry level/basic plastic that most people are using.
Wouldn't the absence of such a law mean that no guns require tracking information? Thus one must exist, at least implicitly.
There are ghost guns without printers. People are buying the parts online and assembling the parts themselves.
Regulating those? Unrealistic in this climate.
@teaearlgraycold
"Unfinished receiver" or "80 percent receiver" are the magic words. They're receivers that, due to being in an unfinished state, weren't/aren't (I'm not up-to-date on federal attempts to regulate their sale) legally considered firearms and thus weren't/aren't subject to the same requirements, regulations, and laws that govern firearm sales and distribution.
Basically, you buy an unfinished receiver, and finish "smithing" it yourself. You might even have bought the receiver as part of a kit that included tools for the smithing, and all the other parts that attach to the receiver to assemble a functional gun.
Kit or not, the tools to finish the receiver are cheap and easy to obtain. The skills required are trivial to learn. You could complete the receiver at your kitchen table.
Polymer80 was probably the most popularized example of this. I own one. It's pretty neat.
The Wikipedia article on receivers gives a decent overview of things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_(firearms)
There it is. Thanks for completing the thought!
If you want to read more about the murderer, here's a pretty in-depth article:
An emerging portrait of the elite son charged in a killing that struck at corporate America. - New York Magazine
I'll gladly wrap my head in foil over this one. I think this is all made up to 'catch' someone so killing CEOs isn't viewed as an easy-to-get-away-with crime.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I can't imagine why most of this sloppy stuff is happening. At least ditch the gun.
Put another way: how much more effort and money was invested in this arrest than other homicides?
A lot. Probably a lot.
Criminals are often sloppy, in some cases due to incompetence, in others due to hubris/cockiness. It’s entirely possible he thought he wouldn’t get caught, or that he wanted to get caught (to spread his “gospel” so to speak).
A related and helpful concept is the motivation for spying and espionage: M.I.C.E.
(The above is paraphrased from Dr. Alex Wellerstein, Reddit u/restricteddata)
These four points often intersect. For example, they may feel they deserve higher pay because they do such a great job (money and ego). In this case, the killing was probably mostly ideological with some egotistical underpinnings.
Realistically, for the most part, careful, thoughtful people don't commit capital crimes.
If you filter for people who commit murder, you're already preselecting for a group of people who tend to be more impulsive, with less inhibition and executive control, because killing someone virtually never improves your life in the long run. It's almost always an inherently irrational act.
So you'd expect most murderers to be sloppy. They murdered someone, which is a sloppy thing to do. It shouldn't be surprising that they did it sloppily.
One of the most generally relevant things I read in the aftermath of the first Trump assassination attempt is that looking for coherent political ideology in an assassins is a fool’s quest. Osama bin Laden and Teddy K. are the exceptions, not the norm. Sure, there have been plenty of shooters who commit their violence to read their manifestos, but those are operating on a much less abstract hatred for the victims than what people want to be true.
How do you relate your statement to members of a revolutionary organization such as the IRA or Mandela's African national Congress?
Even then you’ve often got a majority makeup of people inclined to violence.
You usually don’t sign up for a military force because you want to be an accountant or scientist. Even less so for a paramilitary, revolutionary, or terrorist force.
That’s not to say that they aren’t much smarter/put together than the average outfit, but you’re usually still taking outliers on the curve
The whole thing was sloppy I'm not surprised at all he got caught. I doubt there is some kind of big conspiracy. Occam's Razor theory - the simple explanation is often the correct one. Everyone wants to believe we live in a movie. It's fun to imagine the killer as a badass Robinhood figure fighting against the shadowy government and big corporations.
If I had to speculate, it sounds like he was a very intelligent kid who had some sort of psychotic break - killed someone - and is now going to spend his life in prison. He was probably panicking after actually murdering someone and unable to think clearly. This isn't as sexy of a plot so people don't want to believe it.
I'm hesitant to buy this for reasons others have already elaborated, but at the same time I'm acutely familiar with policing's tendency towards both incompetence and malice, so I end up finding it believable nonetheless.
Maybe time will tell.
There's too much lining up for me to even consider this. Given what we know so far I wouldn't be shocked if he admits it at some point, but I suspect he'll push for a trial.
He got pretty far before getting caught and it seems like that was down to a thought-out escape plan. If he thought his plan was solid he might have thought that it was safest to keep the contraband with him rather than leave a breadcrumb trail for police to follow. Not smart but he's not some pro hitman.
I try to be practical but this guy must’ve lost his mind. I keep going back and forth between he must’ve been trying to get caught with all of this evidence on him, but then another super irrational tin foil hat fiction writing part of me thinks it has Manchurian candidate written all over it.
Everything is absurd these days, reality feels like it’s hanging on by a thread.
Seems like he could benefit from some mental health insurance...
Yeah this murder is completely self inflicted. In a country where firearms are common, and mental helath is rarely covered by insurance, such an outcome is all but certainly, but unfortunately for Americans, their government can't think beyond a 4 year term, and Corpos can't think beyond a 3 month term. Meanwhile, the situation for actual people os getting worse.
All damning evidence aside, which may or may not have been elaborately planted, why pin it on someone from a family who's likely in the 1% of earners? I would expect a lowlife drifter type to take the fall, not someone with the suspect's background and family network.
An attempt to prevent class warfare? Just trying to think like a conspiracy theorist.
I'm kind of surprised he got caught.
I haven't kept up with the details of the case, so I may be wrong in criticizing him.
I thought using a bike to cut through traffic was brilliant.
I was told a picture of him with his mask pulled down was not him. If it was, that was just thoughtless.
I would have gotten a gun without a serial number, and dumped it in NYC.
I would had a second bag ( not a back pack ) and a change of clothes in the back pack. I would have changed ASAP once getting away.
Maybe a pair of sun glasses for getting the bus at McD's, but not going in there. Just walk around on the break.
He had a 3D printed gun. And a lot of people thought the pictures weren't the same person. But as far as I can tell it seems like they were.
He was not a mastermind criminal. He had a plan and he executed a plan and he didn't really have a plan for after that, except perhaps to get caught since he had his manifesto written out.
It's really easy to kill people if you have the motivation. It's also easy to walk away in the chaos and immediately hop on a taxi at the bus and leave town. But after that it gets much more complicated.
I'm not sure if it was a situation where he couldn't have gotten away if he wanted to. Maybe if he had a plane ticket to somewhere without extradition, but law enforcement would also be going through airports with a fine tooth comb. Maybe he lays low for a while, but maybe if he wants to make a splash and feels his message would be receptive, he thinks it's to his advantage to make a whole court show and become the center of attention.
So 100 years ago we had the first Gilded Age and we also had violent Italian anarchists. Remember Sacco and Vanzetti throwing bombs?
I guess the historical lesson here is don’t fuck with the Italians
As someone whose great grandfather is, to my knowledge, buried next to his bodyguard...
They had a whole thing going at that point.