In short:
UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson was shot dead out the front of a hotel on Wednesday in what police are calling a “premeditated, targeted attack”.
The first unmasked photographs of a person of interest in the case have been released by the New York Police Department.
Multiple US media organisations, citing unnamed investigators, say the ammunition used to shoot Mr Thompson were inscribed with the words “deny,” “defend” and “depose”.
The words on the ammunition may have been a reference to strategies insurance companies allegedly use to try to avoid paying claims.
Words on ammo in CEO shooting echo common phrase on insurer tactics: Delay, deny, defend
depose is a reference to the Second Amendment
I also wonder how
How?
Have you seen this man?
No you didn’t
Actually, I think I saw him at the Starbucks in the Melbourne CBD. They should definitely spend police resources looking for him there
Some reports say that the words “LOL”, “Rekt” and “N00B” were on them.
“N00B”? Maybe as banter to dunk on the scrub, but that CEO had years of experience killing. It was a boss fight.
God I wish he had fortnite danced on him before he left
Just imagine if this became serial!
Read Assassination Politics by Jim Bell
Full text took a little digging:
https://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm
His treatment by the state and judiciary seems pretty appalling, def makes it look like they were scared of him. Or, Jim Bell was basically an insane sovcit type with paranoid delusions. I’m willing to accept that both are true.
Why?
I have learned to judge a media’s opinion on someone by the picture they use next to the article to manipulate people’s opinion. I don’t think they could have used a more flattering picture in this case. This is from a store camera, I doubt all the frames show him with a huge charismatic smile on his face .
The killer might have seen a relative die after an insurer denied coverage.
This would explain his motivation for the killing, and the message. That doesn’t excuse violence however.
That doesn’t excuse violence however.
it exactly excuses violence, juries take in to account state of mind when judging and judges take into account suffering when sentencing, it’s called mercy
in an ideal world these insurance companies would be prosecuted by the states for conspiracy to defraud their customers, organised crime/rico and for harassment , at minimum
that hasn’t been happening even tho the crimes by the insurance have been well known for decades
We’ll see how the trial goals. A judge would probably consider the risk of encouraging vigilante justice, ie letting individuals bypass the justice system to act as judge, jury, and executioner.
I’d be very surprised if a court excuse a vigilante killer because he/her suffer distress or harm. That would be a dangerous precedent, many people would see that as a right to kill for all kind of reasons.
It seems more plausible that such factor lead to that vigilante getting a lighter sentence, rather than to receive complete pardon/mercy.
That doesn’t excuse violence however.
That alone, in isolation, may not excuse violence. But it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Their messages on the bullets are an explicit reference to systematic antisocial techniques used by these companies to unjustly deny coverage. Which has knowingly resulted in pushing families into poverty and deaths on a scale of millions, far more harm than any act of direct physical violence has.
That kind of mass slaughter is certainly excusing of defense, physical or otherwise, and the legal system is clearly not a viable option looking at history. Even just looking at the exaggerated police response this assassination had compared to most other killings in the city is a hint that the legal system is rigged in the favour of the owning class of society. Violence becomes the only effective act of resistance remaining to protest this systematic mass killing which doesn’t involve slow and lengthy mass collective organisation requiring the co-ordination of many thousands. And, quite frankly, a handgun execution is far more humane than the kinds of slow deaths many people have suffered from at the hands of this company, so I don’t understand why this killing should be considered exceptional or disproportionate simply because it’s direct physical violence, as opposed to legalised denial of health service.
legalised denial of health service.
but what the insurance companies have been doing is not legal
Fair correction, thanks. Lots of it is illegal (hence some of those legal tactics mentioned on the shell casings), it’s simply just not punished justly by the legal system. It’s a distinction worth making, even if the material end result is similar.
The murdered man has literal blood on his hands and has directly caused the deaths of thousands. I know, i know, vigilate justice is bad, but in a system as sewn up as the US, it’s more Direct Action
