19 ms·

I'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

by paulgb 2y ago

I'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 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. 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 ago
  Hey 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 ago
      I'm aware of jury nullification, but it doesn't change what evidence can be introduced.
  - griomnib 2y ago
    A) 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.
      - ndriscoll 2y ago
        > 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. What's interesting about this is it places jurors into a position where they need to decide whether to make an adverse inference against the state. If they have reason to believe that the defense may have wanted to present such facts but the state disallowed it, then it makes sense to refuse to convict (even if they wouldn't otherwise be in favor of nullification) so as not to participate in a show trial. But they can't actually know whether this happened because explaining why you committed a crime is usually a terrible idea, so you'd usually expect it to not happen.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  "It was targeted" is not normally a defence, though?
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    It’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 ago
    In terms of the jury's willingness to convinct, however, it is likely to weigh heavily.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      The 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 ago
  Is "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 ago
I 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 ago
It 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 ago
  I'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 ago
Was 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 ago
  I'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 ago
I'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 ago
  Yes, 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]

by paulgb 2y ago

I'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 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. 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 ago
Hey 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 ago
    I'm aware of jury nullification, but it doesn't change what evidence can be introduced.
- griomnib 2y ago
  A) 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.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      > 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. What's interesting about this is it places jurors into a position where they need to decide whether to make an adverse inference against the state. If they have reason to believe that the defense may have wanted to present such facts but the state disallowed it, then it makes sense to refuse to convict (even if they wouldn't otherwise be in favor of nullification) so as not to participate in a show trial. But they can't actually know whether this happened because explaining why you committed a crime is usually a terrible idea, so you'd usually expect it to not happen.
robertlagrant 2y ago
"It was targeted" is not normally a defence, though?
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  It’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 ago
  In terms of the jury's willingness to convinct, however, it is likely to weigh heavily.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    The 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 ago
Is "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 ago

I 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 ago

It 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 ago
I'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 ago

Was 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 ago
I'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 ago

I'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 ago
Yes, 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]