Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What we know about CEO shooting suspect

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#651

Post by wongarsu »

sladoledar wrote: post #567
agilob wrote: post #529

The wealth gap in 2012 US is larger than it was in pre-revolution France. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/us-inco...

I am not sure this is a fair comparison. Wouldn't this be true if we compare any pre-industrial society with any post-industrial society?

[1] has some actual numbers to answer that question, with e.g. [2] for modern US numbers (since [1] has only Europe). The wealth gap peaked in 1910, took a nose dive until the late 1960s (though much more pronounced in Europe than in the US) and is on the rise since then.

The post-industrial US dipped as low as ~1300 or ~1650 Europe, but is now back to levels Europe only reached in 1750, well on track to repeating the rising inequality during industrialization. Sweden is still at 1280/1600 Europe numbers, better than 1960s USA.

Actually it probably has risen a bit more since then since those are 2010 numbers, hence the comparison of US numbers to the French Revolution

1: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/top-rich-europe-long-run-hist...

2: https://www.blogscapitalbolsa.com/media/images/69b536a604624...

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#652

Post by appel »

lukan wrote: post #618
4ggr0 wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allgedely! https://x.com/SyeClops/status/1866353712148685002/photo/4

Thanks. Looks genuine, but I don't know much about the case to judge. I did a OCR of the pictures: The Allopathic Complex and Its Consequences luigi mangione's last words lor DEC 09, 2024 The second amendment means I am my own chief executive and commander in chief of my own military. I authorize my own act of self-defense in response to a hostile entity making war on me and my family. Nelson Mandela says no form of…

Another commenter linked to the archived version of the Substack post: https://archive.is/2024.12.09-230659/https://breloomlegacy.s...

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#653

Post by that_guy_iain »

datadrivenangel wrote: post #451
fhub wrote: post #434

Keeping a lot of the incriminating evidence on him (including, it seems, the jacket) can't be a careless mistake (in my opinion). So what are some of the possible reasons? - He committed the crime and had another target in mind - He committed the crime and really didn't think he'd get away with it so he kept it to keep some unknown options open. - He committed the crime and didn't want any doubt that he was guilty wh…

- He wasn't thinking clearly and didn't really have much of a post shooting plan outside of getting out of NYC Seems pretty likely that this was the case. Getting away from the site of the crime is challenging enough!

Getting in and out of NYC leaving as little as he did was the challenge. Getting across the border or camping out in the Forrest for a few weeks shouldn’t be that much of a challenge in comparison.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#654

Post by chasd00 »

russellbeattie wrote: post #545
xyst wrote: post #491

A couple of theories: - person clearly had meticulously planned the execution of the hit and exfiltration. Even leaving red herrings on his way out of the city (backpack full of Monopoly money). Yet clumsily keeps _all_ of the evidence that would implicate himself in this murder. Not to mention he is wandering about in public while a multi-state manhunt is underway with the full weight of alphabet soup agencies, and…

It never made sense to me why he was wandering around the city in the same exact clothes he used during the murder. If he had simply worn another jacket, he may never have been identified. How could he not have realized he'd be on camera or described by witnesses? Now he gets caught with all the incriminating evidence you could ask for? I'd say Occam's Razor points to your second theory: He's not playing some sort of…

My guess is he didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about his emotional state after pulling the trigger. He probably immediately regretted the decision and half heartedly followed some sort of escape plan.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#655

Post by ethbr1 »

llm_nerd wrote: post #623
xyst wrote: post #491

A couple of theories: - person clearly had meticulously planned the execution of the hit and exfiltration. Even leaving red herrings on his way out of the city (backpack full of Monopoly money). Yet clumsily keeps _all_ of the evidence that would implicate himself in this murder. Not to mention he is wandering about in public while a multi-state manhunt is underway with the full weight of alphabet soup agencies, and…

>media really over-estimated this persons competence It is a bit of psychological blindness where we convince ourselves that random murders aren't as easy as they really are. The truth is that almost anyone -- including people with lots of security theater -- can be nullified by random people. This is quadruply true in the era of drones.

There's very little in America to stop a person who is willing to die (or spend life in prison) from killing others.

Most normal people just have a healthy self preservation instinct, so aren't willing to accept those consequences.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#658

Post by wongarsu »

meowfly wrote: post #650
wesselbindt wrote: post #608

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. Because the Not Guilty verdict cannot be overturned, and because the jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, the law is said to be nullified in that particular case.

The basic premise, as I understand it, is that there is nothing illegal about coming to the wrong conclusion as a juror. I have also read that it can be contempt of court to try to convince jurors to intentionally come to a conclusion not based on the law and evidence. So what would happen if a single juror just remained steadfast that the defendant was innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Can a ju…

Whenever people justify why the US's jury system is better than the judgement by judges that's prevalent in continental Europe it's always about these exact scenarios. If you just want to find facts you don't need a jury of peers. The jury is at least in part there to pass a moral judgement beyond the letter of the law.

From what I understand a juror can only be removed during the jury selection process or if someone outside the jury "tampers" with the jurors. If you get called to jury duty, the quickest way to get out of it is to say you know about jury nullification. But if you don't reveal that and get into the jury you are free to rule as you want and to try to convince the other jurors to do the same.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#659

Post by wesselbindt »

meowfly wrote: post #650
wesselbindt wrote: post #608

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. Because the Not Guilty verdict cannot be overturned, and because the jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, the law is said to be nullified in that particular case.

The basic premise, as I understand it, is that there is nothing illegal about coming to the wrong conclusion as a juror. I have also read that it can be contempt of court to try to convince jurors to intentionally come to a conclusion not based on the law and evidence. So what would happen if a single juror just remained steadfast that the defendant was innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Can a ju…

Trying to nullify with a Michael Scott-style "I DECLARE NULLIFICATIOOOON!" or otherwise mentioning it is probably a bad idea. I suppose if you'll get warned and you do it again you'll be held in contempt. But I'm no expert.

The situation you describe is known as a hung jury, and would result in a mistrial. Usually this means the case is retried later (with a different jury).

Post reply on HN