8 ms·
No jury will convict the shooter, I suspect he’ll “resist arrest” and never make it to a court room for that reason.
by griomnib 2y ago
No jury will convict the shooter, I suspect he’ll “resist arrest” and never make it to a court room for that reason.
- jimmydoe 2y agoNew Yorkers will surprise you.
- griomnib 2y agoAs a New Yorker myself, I’m fairly confident.
- paulgb 2y agoI'm also a New Yorker and I think that most of us actually do not believe that assassinations are a net benefit to society, no matter how dissatisfied with the health care system we are.
- griomnib 2y agoThere’s an incredibly strong argument this particular person likely killed tens of thousand of people by his decisions to deny and delay care. This was not an employee carrying out orders from corporate, it’s the guy who is directly responsible for these deaths. This CEO is as much a mass murder as any other tyrant who commanded soldiers to commit atrocities. That will be part of the defense argument presented to the jury. Intent matters tremendously in the legal system (mens rea). This isn’t random, this is very, very targeted. Likewise, the lawyers this guy can afford after his GoFundMe legal defense fund raises millions will be top tier.
- spondylosaurus 2y agoHey now, he didn't just kill tens of thousands of people by denying/delaying care! He also got filthy stinking rich in the process.
- griomnib 2y ago…and he was under active investigation for insider trading - which is a real crime the government will prosecute because it affects other rich people. Killing poor people is fine, cheating the investor class is not.
- paulgb 2y ago> That will be part of the defense argument presented to the jury. That evidence wouldn't be admitted. There's no “the guy deserved it” defense for murder, it's always illegal to kill people.
- RunningDroid 2y ago> That evidence wouldn't be admitted. There's no “the guy deserved it” defense for murder, it's always illegal to kill people. That's where jury nullification comes in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
- paulgb 2y agoI'm aware of jury nullification, but it doesn't change what evidence can be introduced.
- griomnib 2y agoA) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). This is not drunk driving, ergo motive will be central to prosecution and defense alike. B) His lawyers will be the best of the best. C) Jury nullification.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). You literally can, You have to, of course, prove the elements of the offense, but iif the defense wants to introduce evidence whose only legal relevance is proving an element of the crime, the prosecution will be more than happy to stipulate to the legally relevant fact and render the evidence unnecessary. Generally, the defense will not wish to prove the crime, though. > B) His lawyers will be the best of the best. That’s an argument agasinst them spending effort proving a key element of the offense. > C) Jury nullification. Jury nullification exists, but evidence whose only purpose (given the facts in dispute) is to promote it is, ipso facto, legally irrelevant and will be excluded for that reason.
- robertlagrant 2y ago"It was targeted" is not normally a defence, though?
- dragonwriter 2y agoIt’s actually generally a point that the prosecution would want to prove, as it is premeditation.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> That will be part of the defense argument presented to the jury. Intent matters tremendously in the legal system (mens rea). It does, but “he did bad-but-legal things that morally justify my client’s premeditated homicide” is only legally relevant to proving premeditation, which doesn’t help the defense, and which the prosecution will be more than happy to stipulate to rendering the evidence irrelevant. > This isn’t random, this is very, very targeted. That’s not a fact in the defense’s favor, legally.
- marssaxman 2y agoIn terms of the jury's willingness to convinct, however, it is likely to weigh heavily.
- dragonwriter 2y agoThe fact that evidence is likely to make the jury act on factors outside of the law, combined with it being irrelevant to any legally relevant point in dispute, weighs heavily against it being allowed to be presented at all.
- tzs 2y ago> There’s an incredibly strong argument this particular person likely killed tens of thousand of people by his decisions to deny and delay care. Anyone got a cite for that? I want to know how that number was measured or calculated.
- IncreasePosts 2y agoIs "just following orders" okay now? Any healthcare worker at least deserves to be punched in the face for involving themselves in our broken system.
- hipadev23 2y agoI have a different viewpoint that when governance and the judicial systems fail time and time again to fix systemic problems, and the ultra wealthy and large corporations can literally do as they please, that violence is a very logical choice for those who seek retribution.
- bbqfog 2y agoIt was actually a pretty large net positive. Anthem immediately reversed their decision to cap anesthesiology coverage: https://www.wfsb.com/2024/12/05/anthem-backtracks-anesthesiology-cap-policy-ct/ https://www.wfsb.com/2024/12/05/anthem-backtracks-anesthesio...
- Marsymars 2y agoI'm not an expert, but this piece on Vox doesn't take that move as a positive: https://www.vox.com/policy/390031/anthem-blue-cross-blue-shield-anesthesia-limits-insurance https://www.vox.com/policy/390031/anthem-blue-cross-blue-shi...
- orwin 2y agoWas the man who strangled a homeless man on the subway convicted of murder, or did the jury let him go in the end? Is it judged yet? But I agree with you, I think most new Yorkers will convict someone who killed a CEO. Also I bet they'll let go someone who killed a homeless person. I don't know a lot of new Yorkers but petty bourgeois are the same in every countries.
- Atreiden 2y agoI'm not even a New Yorker, but I can tell you the vast, vast majority of the people in that city are not "petty bourgeois". There is tremendous money in the city, but it is not even close to evenly distributed.
- bilbo0s 2y agoI'm not a New Yorker, but I am an American interested in societal order. I'd much rather not have to test either of your theories. One thing I learned about civilian populations during the Iraq war, if you're going to force someone to get down off the fence, you'd better know what side of the fence they're gonna jump down on. If you don't know, then for the love of whatever you deem divine, just leave them on the fence. I would say that our leaders would quickly start to address some of the inequities throughout our legal system that allow people to be taken advantage of in egregious ways. But our leaders are not like that. They'll likely do nothing about a lot of the unfairness in the laws out there. There is in fact, unfortunately, a distinct possibility that many of our leaders went into politics to increase the unfairness. I just kind of get the sense that we're at a point in our history where we're already sitting on a powder keg. We shouldn't play with fire while we're sitting here. Let's at least get rid of some of the powder first.
- griomnib 2y agoYes, it is dangerous, and to be clear a very very bad direction, but here we are - the us political system is visibly collapsing in real time and this will continue.
- black_13 2y ago[dead]
- throwawa14223 2y agoWhy not? Should he be caught it seems like an open and shut case with video evidence.
- ct520 2y agoWhat I believe he is referring to is Jury nullification. I interpret your statement of open and shut case as you believe jury must convict if what they interpret to be facts of breaking a laws written by man. By a jury choosing not to convict there is another form of justice implied…
- aaomidi 2y agoYeah it’s effectively one of the final bastions of defense that’s not a civil war.
- griomnib 2y agoYes.
- 77pt77 2y agoAnd all it takes is one juror being inflexible.
- samatman 2y agoThat's all it takes for a hung jury, yes. In which case the prosecution will have plenty of grounds to screen for that in the next trial, that next trial will happen, and then the guy gets convicted of first degree murder. Presuming he's found in the first place. There's no world in which all twelve jurors vote not guilty if the defendant is demonstrated to be the assassin beyond reasonable doubt. That simply won't happen, it's a delusion. Hanging the first trial would merely delay the inevitable, and I don't expect that to happen either.
- 77pt77 2y agoThe deep south was infamous for simply not convicting white men for killing black men that had "raped" white women. No matter the evidence.
- tossandthrow 2y agoIs the shooting related to this? I have not stumbled upon any resources linking them, but it would interesting to learn more! Saying that they are linked, then it is interesting that we are falling back on why we have a lot of regulations and protections. While you can make a legal system where exploitation is legal (as some would argue the US health care system is), there is a breaking point where it will result in civil unrest. I am curious to see if that is the point we are reaching now.
- maxlamb 2y agoOne of the bullets had “deny” engraved in it.
- lambda 2y agoThat's one of the leading theories. Obviously, there's not enough information to say for sure. But the CEO's wife has said that there were threats, possibly related to lack of coverage: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/05/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-killed-what-we-know-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/05/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-kille... > In an interview with NBC, Thompson’s widow, Paulette told the network that “there had been some threats” against her husband. > “Basically, I don’t know, a lack of coverage? I don’t know details,” she said. “I just know that he said there were some people that had been threatening him.” And the shooter wrote the words "deny", "defend", and "depose" on shell casings that were found at the scene: https://apnews.com/article/unitedhealthcare-ceo-shooting-delay-deny-defend-depose-ee73ceb19f361835c654f04a3b88c50c https://apnews.com/article/unitedhealthcare-ceo-shooting-del... These words are reminiscent of the terms "delay, deny, defend", the title of a book about how the insurance company tries to avoid paying out on claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay,_Deny,_Defend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay,_Deny,_Defend So, one of the leading theories is that the shooter was motivated by some kind of case involving a denied claim. Obviously, there's not enough evidence yet to be sure of that, but that same frustration over insurers' failure to pay for necessary, life-saving treatments is part of why there's so much sympathy for the shooter and so little sympathy for the CEO who was shot. Of course, there are also other competing theories out there; it's possible that the whole bullet casings thing is just a ruse to distract people. But anger about how health insurance companies rack in record profits by denying life-saving healthcare to people has become a large part of this story.
- Waterluvian 2y agoIf the shooter is a contract killer I think the potential for jury nullification plummets. I also think it’s impossible to predict any way. But I can definitely see that nullification is a real possibility.
- dpkirchner 2y agoGiven his behavior it seems unlikely he's a contract killer. I wouldn't expect him to taunt the police with writing on shell casings or Monopoly money in backpacks. It seems like he's just not a complete idiot that has no plan and gets caught right away.
- bigfatkitten 2y agoSeems unlikely that he's be a contract killer. He clearly had minimal experience and no formal training in the use of firearms.
- tinix 2y agoexcuse me? what makes you say this? subsonic low calibur suppressed rounds don't cycle well. going for the slide without hesitation means the shooter has had weapons training imo.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoI think the pro-murder caucus is quite a bit smaller than you're envisioning. Some juries wouldn't convict the shooter, sure, but willingness to convict if that's where the evidence points is something the prosecution will be considering in jury selection.
- griomnib 2y agoI’ve spent days reviewing comments on Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, news articles, et al and I’ve never seen such a uniformity of opinion on anything in my life.
- loeg 2y agoAre you familiar with sampling bias.
- robertlagrant 2y agoBased on what I've read here they aren't.
- griomnib 2y agoI literally have a PhD in social science and studied public opinion research at the graduate level with one of the field’s most highly accomplished political scientists of his generation. I also have a basic modicum of common sense and the ability to observe my environment.
- robertlagrant 2y agoBut you're new to sampling bias jokes :-)
- riiii 2y agoYep. In today's world where everything is polarized to the extreme this seems to be unifying people. I don't think anyone had it on their bingo cards for 2024.
- lenerdenator 2y agoYeah, he's more of a pain in the death-for-profi... I mean... society's ass alive. Even if a jury does convict, he's in a state with no death penalty and the notoriety and nature of his crime will likely gain him support on the inside. Plus, all the press coverage of the trial gives him a podium... I'd be stunned if he makes it to court.
- AtlasBarfed 2y agoIf he is found and sent to jail it would be fascinating to see how he is viewed on the inside. If there's one thing that crosses almost all class and racial divides, it is our shitty medical care system. My (now passed) uncle was in jail to challenge drug incarceration laws back in the 60s, since the opposition needed a case that wouldnt settle to reach the supreme court. No one would touch him in jail.
- willis936 2y agoI think "stunned if he makes it to court" means "most likely outcome is that he is quietly assassinated by suits".
- threemux 2y agoDon't be so sure. It's interesting how quickly the places where this ghoulish view is proliferating (Reddit) have forgotten what they learned a month ago. The Internet is not reality and online posts are not a representative sample of the population. Instead, every survey of Americans shows around 80% are satisfied with their health coverage.
- bbqfog 2y agoNo, "every survey" doesn't suggest 80% of Americans are satisfied with their health coverage. Can you site this data? Every person I've ever met IRL has hated the health industry with a burning passion. As you would expect given the exorbitant prices on insurance and care. Also, no one enjoys having their employer hold so much leverage in their life as for most people health insurance is tied to their job.
- threemux 2y ago[flagged]
- bc569a80a344f9c 2y agohttps://news.gallup.com/poll/468176/americans-sour-healthcare-quality.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/468176/americans-sour-healthcar... There’s a huge difference between how people view health care in general, and their own health insurance. According to the linked survey, in 2023 it was notable that only 72% of people had a favorable view of their own health insurance. In recent decades that has indeed sat around 80%, as OP claimed. Again, that’s their _own_ insurance, while views of health insurance in general are quite worse, similar to how most people think congress is a shitshow yet rank their own representatives much higher. It’s an interesting dissonance.
- IncreasePosts 2y agoThis just speaks to the echo chamber you built for yourself.
- sershe 2y agoIs that so? For myself, I can say that if he was caught, turned out to be a vigilante, and was convicted to death, I'd pay good money to be assigned as an executioner. Most people are probably somewhere in the middle.