As a British lad, I’ve been keeping tabs on the news about this guy and the wide support he’s getting.
With so much support, surely the public will get him out of jail just to spite the bastard rich kids and their CEO baron fathers?
The Man who was shot allowed a massive corporation to dangle its strings over people’s lives, medication being pulled away which is horrifying to me who uses the NHS as my primary medical service for hearing.
What do you think? Will Luigi “The CEO Reaper” Mangione ever get out of prison?
Oh you’d be surprised. There’s a lot of people that have the “Murder is Murder” mindset, its not hard to find those and convene a jury.
what’s funny is that since his motive was based on Brian killing people through executive actions that will come into play for those “murder is murder” people.
If murder is murder, then why wasn’t Brian brought to justice before this unfortunate event? Also, why aren’t his accomplices in UHC not brought to justice today?
He’s still going to jail, he’s going to lose and he knows that…but the case will be streamed and Luigi and his lawyers will pose the message not to the jury, but to the public.
he lost the battle so that we can fight the war.
You got to wait for the trial. Throughout history, but especially this year, we’ve seen many famous trials where the cops blatantly lied about evidence of course in press reports as they often do but also in court on the stand under oath. Just because you heard it doesn’t mean it’s true. Just because someone told you they have evidence of something, doesn’t mean they do.
Those same people conveniently refuse to consider murder with a con (pay us now for Healthcare when you inevitably get sick) and and pen (lol we were lying thanks for all the money go die now) to be murder.
What is your take then?
I think that health insurance companies are predatory and cause deaths. They are terrible, medical support should not be a for-profit market, and their existence is one of many many indicators of how incredibly broken our society often is.
However, I don’t believe individuals should be legally allowed to take matters into their own hands and execute other citizens. Regardless of their reasoning. If this man can execute the CEO of an insurance company because he believes he was wronged by that company, unfortunately the exact same argument can be used for a student to up and execute their university Dean, or a man of one religion can execute the preacher of another.
Citizens can’t choose when and where it is appropriate to kill each other based on their feelings. That’s lawlessness. As much as I hate, and I mean truly hate, these companies and everything they stand for, you can’t have people just getting shot to death by others and still be a civilized society.
“When peaceful revolution become impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable.” -President John F. Kennedy
If the system was fair, bealth insurance executives like Brian Thompson would have been indicted for his role in United Healthcare’s evil practices of arbitrarily denying claims, and would have been convicted and in prison already. There would be new laws passed to regulate health insurance companies.
But in our system, people like him get away with doing evil things, so vigilantism becomes inevitable.
So how do we move forward? I think the Luigi Mangione should face a fair, non-politicized trial, by a jury of his peers. The jury should be informed of their rights, including jury nullification, if they choose so (they currently do not get read that in their jury instructions). Hold the trial, let everyone present their arguments, let Luigi state why he did it (if he choses to speak), then let the jury decide his fate.
But moving forward, the health insurance companies have to be regulated, or we’re getting more vigilantes. Its inevitable.
Lawlessness is better than what we have, laws that serve a couple million at everyone else’s, hundreds of million’s expense with no legal recourse.
We get no say in economic policy or regulation, only the how or if to address some of the social issue symptoms of that economy through our legally bribed parties. Arguing over abortion’s legality instead of why productivity per worker has multiplied while the owner class now demands 2 breadwinners in most cases to survive, which is why most abortions happen, not enough to survive. But we don’t legislate the “free” to die in the streets alone market, so the argument becomes forced births or not. The argument should be to fundamentally change what our economy should be oriented to reward like teachers and nurses, and punish like insatiable, sociopathic, antisocial greed and vocations/investments that hurt society for individual profit. But both major parties are well bribed to say that’s evil socialism and tar and feather anyone who would dare say that to either of them.
Our system is already worse than lawlessness, our system is laws made by the wealthy (see ALEC) to extract the very lives from the poor for private profit, that the poor must simply suffer to remain lawful. It is effectively one way lawlessness from above. They can kill you with a dictate to their sycophants to deny more claims while sipping expensive bourbon on a beach, or by ignoring an expensive product safety issue, or by lowering inspection standards to save a buck and poisoning baby formula, and you and/or your baby can die quietly now that they have your money. That’s the law here and now.
Makes lawlessness seem pretty attractive given the current intransigent oligarchy killing us for profit legally…
I disagree that lawlessness is better. Lawlessness is merely a brief period between two political systems. It could be good or bad. You might get fresh Animal Farm revolution, Lord of the Flies, or whatever else. Roll the dice and hope you don’t get snake eyes.
Ok. Just keep in mind that in a system like that, you likely die. I likely die. All of us outside of that “ruling class” suffer way more than they do when people start getting killed.
I think murder is murder but that doesn’t mean that things like self defence aren’t morally justifiable.
Murder is murder in the simple scenario but it gets more complicated when the murderer is not the initial aggressor.
There are many cases where someone killed the person who murdered their loved one, and they still got convicted of murder.
This case would be seen less like revenge killing, more vigilantism. AFAIK, Luigi didn’t have someone close to him that died due to denied insurance claims. This removed the emotional factor unlike if, say, a person killing the murderer of their child to avenge their child’s death. The averge person have less sympathy to vigilantes than, a person who is avenging the death of their loved ones. Also, the bureaucracy and paperwork behind insurance denials obfuscates who is really responsible. People easily understand stabbing, or shooting someone to death, but doesn’t really make the connection of people dying, with the insurance’s claim denials. There’s no blood, no violence, just a calm and “peaceful” pull on people’s life support. It doesn’t trigger the same emotional response as shooting someone in the middle of the street.