America

[Banquo]

Gotta say, if I was on his jury I would have some tough thinking to do.

? porquoi?

Someone high up in the predatory US healthcare system getting shot to shit by some angry activist was a matter of time.

We're also now hearing about people having their medical debt forgiven all of a sudden. What a Christmas miracle!

But why would you have 'tough thinking' to do?

[Banquo]

Someone high up in the predatory US healthcare system getting shot to shit by some angry activist was a matter of time.

We're also now hearing about people having their medical debt forgiven all of a sudden. What a Christmas miracle!

But why would you have 'tough thinking' to do?

If they let Kyle Rittenhouse off for crossing state lines and shooting activists...

wow. two wrongs and all that.

[Son of Mathonwy]

? porquoi?

Someone high up in the predatory US healthcare system getting shot to shit by some angry activist was a matter of time.

We're also now hearing about people having their medical debt forgiven all of a sudden. What a Christmas miracle!

But why would you have 'tough thinking' to do?

'Tough thinking' on whether I would want to find him guilty or not. Whether more good or bad comes from him being found guilty or not guilty.

Assuming the reporting is correct and he did shoot someone dead, there's a pretty strong case for doing the normal thing and finding him guilty for all the normal reasons - it helps maintain the trustworthiness of the legal system, it discourages vigilantism (including shooting people you don't like), it would be the honest exercise of your sworn duty as a juror etc.

But there are reasons for finding him not guilty. The US healthcare system causes harm to large numbers of people in order to generate larger profits (ie it could still be profitable without this) and the victim here was very much one who caused this to happen. In another world, someone who caused the amount of harm this man caused would face his own justice and punishment. But we don't live in such a world. In this world, the only way (outside of pure accident) this man could face justice for his actions is via an act of vigilantism. This action might actually make US healthcare insurers do less harm (if not for the right reasons).

So it's not a straightforward decision.

[Mikey Brown]

Murder isn’t good or funny, but this is “the exception that proves the rule” as they say.

[Banquo]

I suppose I should be more surprised.

[Banquo]

I suppose I should be more surprised.

Spare us the self-righteous indignation over the death of a leading figure in an industry built on profiteering off of suffering.

self righteousness being your domain obvs. I'm not so much indignant over his death, as repugnant as cold blooded murder is, as bemused by the reaction- but not sure why I am tbh.

[Sandydragon]

The guy had a note explaining everything on him…I reckon he wanted to get caught. Otherwise why still have the silencer?

Agreed. He wants his moment in court. Keep the evidence on him, but offer no resistance and make sure he is in a public place. He wants to face a jury and have his 15 minutes of fame.

I won't condone pre-meditated assassination, murder is still murder and if we don't condemn it then it's impossible to be taken seriously when someone does the same in a cause that's less to anyone's liking. This might open up a discussion on healthcare, but I suspect it wont get far.

Fuck Brian Thompson and the other members of the predator class.

I'm not going to shed any tears over a mass murderer getting shot.

If you accept political violence for one cause then you have to accept it for every cause. Nope, you can keep that.

[Puja]

A woman has been charged in Florida with "threats to conduct an act of terrorism" after finishing a call with the insurance company once again denying her claim with, "Delay, deny, depose. You people are next.”

I'm assuming the arrest of every dickhead that crowed, "Your body, my choice" at a woman after Trump's victory, is imminent on that precedent...

Puja

[Puja]

If you accept political violence for one cause then you have to accept it for every cause. Nope, you can keep that.

That's quite clearly not true. Acts of political violence are not a single entity, all morally equivalent and without nuance. One does not have to accept September 11th in order to celebrate a revolution against a dictator.

I don't know I am quite on board with cheering on an assassination, but it's undeniable that Thompson killed thousands every year, with deliberate choices to end lives because it would make him more money. He was a mass-murderer, who was immune to any consequences, and he would've kept on killing. I might not be cheering on an assassin yet, but I have no sympathy for his death.

There has also been a notable statistical change in the number of declines since it happened, as well as igniting a public movement that may yet result in greater change. Obviously it is far too early to see how this falls out in the long run, but I thoroughly disagree that I am forced to regard every bit of political violence as equivalent.

Puja

[Stom]

Look, he's on trial for murder. He committed murder. He broke the rules. It should both be separated from the backstory, and also the backstory should be acknowledged.

So he should get the minimum sentence for murder.

BUT, the American people really should use this as a means to get off their arses and riot until the industry is destroyed.

[Banquo]

Why do you think there is so little sympathy for Thompson and his ilk?

I'd have thought this would make it quite clear:

Yes, always convinced by a twice posted internet meme

I get why a lot of (in my view) pretty odd people are celebrating the murder of someone who seems to be a lightning rod for all that’s wrong in US Healthcare. I was just bemused by some on here apparently supporting it and finding it ‘good’ or ‘funny’ or defending it. I then reflected on why I was bemused in the first place. Each to their own, live and let live I guess, unless you disagree in which case, get yer gun out!

[Stom]

Why do you think there is so little sympathy for Thompson and his ilk?

I'd have thought this would make it quite clear:

Yes, always convinced by a twice posted internet meme

I get why a lot of (in my view) pretty odd people are celebrating the murder of someone who seems to be a lightning rod for all that’s wrong in US Healthcare. I was just bemused by some on here apparently supporting it and finding it ‘good’ or ‘funny’ or defending it. I then reflected on why I was bemused in the first place. Each to their own, live and let live I guess, unless you disagree in which case, get yer gun out!

I agree...to an extent.

I feel sorry for the guy's family. I don't feel sorry for him.

We should always come back to that old chestnut:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

His benefiting from the system was an implicit acceptance of it. Which is wrong. The system is inhuman.

I still believe the murderer should be punished for...well, murder...but I also feel like there should be mitigating circumstances here. But it lies on the American people to make a decision on what they want to do.

[Which Tyler]

Look, he's on trial for murder. He committed murder. He broke the rules. It should both be separated from the backstory, and also the backstory should be acknowledged.

So he should get the minimum sentence for murder.

BUT, the American people really should use this as a means to get off their arses and riot until the industry is destroyed.

Yup.
Assuming it's not all a plant, then he's clearly guilty of pre-meditated murder. He gets his day in court, his lawyer gets to make all of his points for him, under public scrutiny, and the jury will have to decide between guilty or jury nullification (which to my limited understanding, isn't relevant here) or "not guilty" on the principle of an unforgivable procedural fuck up but the cops / FBI. Not guilty because you sympathise with his cause would be a utterly ridiculous and condemnable.

I'm hoping for a huge irony coming from this, with a massive popular opinion for single-payer, and Trump seeing the way the wind is blowing, and forcing it through in order to be popular.

[Puja]

Yes, always convinced by a twice posted internet meme

I get why a lot of (in my view) pretty odd people are celebrating the murder of someone who seems to be a lightning rod for all that’s wrong in US Healthcare. I was just bemused by some on here apparently supporting it and finding it ‘good’ or ‘funny’ or defending it. I then reflected on why I was bemused in the first place. Each to their own, live and let live I guess, unless you disagree in which case, get yer gun out!

I agree...to an extent.

I feel sorry for the guy's family. I don't feel sorry for him.

We should always come back to that old chestnut:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

His benefiting from the system was an implicit acceptance of it. Which is wrong. The system is inhuman.

I still believe the murderer should be punished for...well, murder...but I also feel like there should be mitigating circumstances here. But it lies on the American people to make a decision on what they want to do.

Good post - very much agree.

I would go further than saying that Thompson merely benefited from the system - he was an integral part of the system and it was his leadership choices and policies that were directly responsible for thousands of deaths. Just because he did it at a remove from his victims, at the stroke of a pen, doesn't make him any less of a murderer than if he went and turned the life-support machines off in person. He made decisions that killed people, knowing that they would kill people, because those decisions made him lots of money.

That doesn't make an assassination correct, but I feel it is important to emphasise that Thompson was an unrepentent mass-murderer who got rich from his sins and had no intention of stopping, and was beyond any legal punishment or restriction. If there is a hell, he's currently burning in it. He killed a lot more people than Bin Laden did and a lot of the public speakers complaining about the celebrating of this had no issues raising a glass to that.

Puja

[Banquo]

Look, he's on trial for murder. He committed murder. He broke the rules. It should both be separated from the backstory, and also the backstory should be acknowledged.

So he should get the minimum sentence for murder.

BUT, the American people really should use this as a means to get off their arses and riot until the industry is destroyed.

. Not guilty because you sympathise with his cause would be a utterly ridiculous and condemnable.

Cut to the chase better than me.

[Zhivago]

What's all this fuss about drones? Mass hysteria or what?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Yes, always convinced by a twice posted internet meme

I get why a lot of (in my view) pretty odd people are celebrating the murder of someone who seems to be a lightning rod for all that’s wrong in US Healthcare. I was just bemused by some on here apparently supporting it and finding it ‘good’ or ‘funny’ or defending it. I then reflected on why I was bemused in the first place. Each to their own, live and let live I guess, unless you disagree in which case, get yer gun out!

I agree...to an extent.

I feel sorry for the guy's family. I don't feel sorry for him.

We should always come back to that old chestnut:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

His benefiting from the system was an implicit acceptance of it. Which is wrong. The system is inhuman.

I still believe the murderer should be punished for...well, murder...but I also feel like there should be mitigating circumstances here. But it lies on the American people to make a decision on what they want to do.

Good post - very much agree.

I would go further than saying that Thompson merely benefited from the system - he was an integral part of the system and it was his leadership choices and policies that were directly responsible for thousands of deaths. Just because he did it at a remove from his victims, at the stroke of a pen, doesn't make him any less of a murderer than if he went and turned the life-support machines off in person. He made decisions that killed people, knowing that they would kill people, because those decisions made him lots of money.

That doesn't make an assassination correct, but I feel it is important to emphasise that Thompson was an unrepentent mass-murderer who got rich from his sins and had no intention of stopping, and was beyond any legal punishment or restriction. If there is a hell, he's currently burning in it. He killed a lot more people than Bin Laden did and a lot of the public speakers complaining about the celebrating of this had no issues raising a glass to that.

Puja

This is an important point. If Thompson had been a mass-killer who killed with a gun (but was similarly not prosecutable for the resulting deaths) Mangione would probably be considered a hero by most people. So if I was on the jury I would be thinking about how close Thompson was to this hypothetical gun-wielding mass-murderer. Is he effectively the same? Are there morally important distinctions? Could this be the basis of a kind of justified homicide defence? (I'm pretty sure it wouldn't fly as a real defence in court, but you could argue that it's a moral defence.)

Obviously this isn't the only consideration. Maybe acquitting him would cause too much damage to the legal fabric of the USA (which is already in a dire state).

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Someone high up in the predatory US healthcare system getting shot to shit by some angry activist was a matter of time.

We're also now hearing about people having their medical debt forgiven all of a sudden. What a Christmas miracle!

But why would you have 'tough thinking' to do?

If they let Kyle Rittenhouse off for crossing state lines and shooting activists...

"they"?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I suppose I should be more surprised.

Me too. It still shocks me how true horseshoe theory is and how little people believe in a system of rules. When people are prepared to say hurrah for murdering people they don't like it's a very short step from justifying chattel slavery. "This person doesn't deserve the dignity of a human being".

[Mikey Brown]

I think despite finding the situation and the uproar from the elites quite funny, most on the left don’t simply think he should get away with literal murder. Though I can’t speak for Cashead.

Of course there’s people saying stupid shit on social media, and amplifying the most extreme opinions (or clear jokes) for clicks/propaganda is very effective for dictating who is and isn’t worth taking seriously. Are there really that many who think he should be released with no charges?

Horseshoe theory always seems like a cop out to me. It’s the same reductive thinking that paints someone like Sanders stance on healthcare as ‘radical’. It also seems to be used to spin the fact that normal people on both the right and left often actually want the same things as inherently bad.

[Puja]

I suppose I should be more surprised.

Me too. It still shocks me how true horseshoe theory is and how little people believe in a system of rules. When people are prepared to say hurrah for murdering people they don't like it's a very short step from justifying chattel slavery. "This person doesn't deserve the dignity of a human being".

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I suppose I should be more surprised.

Me too. It still shocks me how true horseshoe theory is and how little people believe in a system of rules. When people are prepared to say hurrah for murdering people they don't like it's a very short step from justifying chattel slavery. "This person doesn't deserve the dignity of a human being".

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

I’m on my second bottle of red and will regret joining in but where do you draw your line on who is fair game for extra judicial killing?

[Donny osmond]

Me too. It still shocks me how true horseshoe theory is and how little people believe in a system of rules. When people are prepared to say hurrah for murdering people they don't like it's a very short step from justifying chattel slavery. "This person doesn't deserve the dignity of a human being".

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

I’m on my second bottle of red and will regret joining in but where do you draw your line on who is fair game for extra judicial killing?

I'm seeing off the eggnog.

Am I wrong in thinking that every President or Prime Minister makes decisions - reducing/changing health care systems, welfare payments, etc - that potentially result in many deaths? We seem to be saying that's, if not an exactly a good reason to murder, certainly one that we can understand and even sympathise/empathise with. Find it amusing, etc.

[Mellsblue]

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

I’m on my second bottle of red and will regret joining in but where do you draw your line on who is fair game for extra judicial killing?

I'm seeing off the eggnog.

Am I wrong in thinking that every President or Prime Minister makes decisions - reducing/changing health care systems, welfare payments, etc - that potentially result in many deaths? We seem to be saying that's, if not an exactly a good reason to murder, certainly one that we can understand and even sympathise/empathise with. Find it amusing, etc.

I was going to make that point re pm/chancellor/health secretary but then thought it would be undermined by the #fact that the assassination of Matt Hancock would have almost universal approval. (Insert tongue in cheek emoji here). You could also kill anyone who voted for the Conservatives, and therefore austerity, in 2010, perhaps? How about killing anyone who voted for Blair in 2005 as it was under their watch that the credit crunch happened which led to austerity. That would then leave only Corbyn acolytes, who would be present but not involved in any assassinations, and Farage acolytes, who would only kill furinners, so all would be well.

[Puja]

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

I’m on my second bottle of red and will regret joining in but where do you draw your line on who is fair game for extra judicial killing?

Shockingly enough, I'm not keen on extra-judicial killing myself and don't own a gun, so it's not really been important enough for me to sit down and mark out the exact line. I am not endorsing vigilantiism, but I am also not crying salty tears about this particular death. Where would I draw the hypothetical line on who I would feel sorry for getting killed? Don't know, but it's certainly far enough away on this occasion that I don't feel like I'm in any danger of needing to get out the Big Book of Ethics.

I feel like most people have a line that they'd draw somewhere on that scale, especially considering the reaction Corbyn got when he said it was a tragedy that bin Laden had been assassinated rather than brought to justice.

Lotta "slippery slope" fallacy happening here. It's not so much a case of "people they don't like", it's celebrating the death of a legally protected mass-murderer.

If Putin was assassinated tomorrow, even if people disagreed with celebrating, I doubt they'd say, "it's a short step from justifying slavery if you're happy."

Puja

I’m on my second bottle of red and will regret joining in but where do you draw your line on who is fair game for extra judicial killing?

I'm seeing off the eggnog.

Am I wrong in thinking that every President or Prime Minister makes decisions - reducing/changing health care systems, welfare payments, etc - that potentially result in many deaths? We seem to be saying that's, if not an exactly a good reason to murder, certainly one that we can understand and even sympathise/empathise with. Find it amusing, etc.

Seeing off the eggnog and leaping straight down the slippery slope, I see!

There's more than a bit of difference there, mostly based around the words "potentially result in many deaths." There are a lot of degrees of separation between a government policy and potential outcomes involving death - even if we take the worst possible interpretation of a PM's intentions, they are trying to run a country in whatever way seems competent to them.

A CEO of a Yank health insurance company is deliberately and knowingly withholding life-saving treatment from people who have paid for it, because it makes them more money if those people die. It's not a mistake, it's not an unforeseen consequence, it's not a byproduct of another decision, it's not like a PM making a choice where money needs to be spent in one place and cut from another in a trade-off of limited resources, it's not a rationing situation of limited resources, it's no accidental or obfuscated or in any way opaque - it is a literal quid pro quo of, "If I let them die, I get to keep their money."

There's a reason why I'm referring to it as murder rather than corporate manslaughter - it's not making a decision that may/will/could lead to deaths, it is building a business around deliberately letting people die.

Puja