3 ms·

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

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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- bbqfog 2y ago
  That this sort of mass killing is an externality to our legal system is why people have to take matters into their own hands. Our system is flawed and this a a symptom.
  - griomnib 2y ago
    Yes Hobbes discussed this in Leviathan.
- samatman 2y ago
  It is by no means always illegal to kill people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide This assassination meets none of the criteria however. I suspect we'd find an amusing overlap between people who want to exculpate the assassin, and those who are opposed to the state applying the death penalty to convicts. Whether or not the guy had it coming is an opinion, one I'm personally holding off on having until we have more information about it. That means I'm not ruling out thinking so, and harbor hope in any case that it might prompt other health insurance CEOs to consider whether providing better service to their customers might also be in their direct self interest. Then again, I'm not opposed to the death penalty either. But regardless of where one might fall on that question, it's delusional to think that the state will not regard the assassination as first-degree murder, and that a jury would do other than convict in the event that they're persuaded that the defendant is the same person as the one who was caught on video shooting him in the back. That's not what's going to happen.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pixelatedindex 2y ago
  There is a double standard though - when a common man is gunned on the street it’s just thoughts and prayers, there’s nothing we can do, etc. But when it’s an elite somehow that death is more important. If there is no justice for them, then there should be no justice here either. Otherwise it just reaffirms that some human lives are worth more than others.
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.

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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
bbqfog 2y ago
That this sort of mass killing is an externality to our legal system is why people have to take matters into their own hands. Our system is flawed and this a a symptom.
- griomnib 2y ago
  Yes Hobbes discussed this in Leviathan.
samatman 2y ago
It is by no means always illegal to kill people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide This assassination meets none of the criteria however. I suspect we'd find an amusing overlap between people who want to exculpate the assassin, and those who are opposed to the state applying the death penalty to convicts. Whether or not the guy had it coming is an opinion, one I'm personally holding off on having until we have more information about it. That means I'm not ruling out thinking so, and harbor hope in any case that it might prompt other health insurance CEOs to consider whether providing better service to their customers might also be in their direct self interest. Then again, I'm not opposed to the death penalty either. But regardless of where one might fall on that question, it's delusional to think that the state will not regard the assassination as first-degree murder, and that a jury would do other than convict in the event that they're persuaded that the defendant is the same person as the one who was caught on video shooting him in the back. That's not what's going to happen.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pixelatedindex 2y ago
There is a double standard though - when a common man is gunned on the street it’s just thoughts and prayers, there’s nothing we can do, etc. But when it’s an elite somehow that death is more important. If there is no justice for them, then there should be no justice here either. Otherwise it just reaffirms that some human lives are worth more than others.

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.