Live data from Hacker News

What we know about CEO shooting suspect

bbc.com

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#821
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…

If he wanted to get caught, he didn't need to wear a disguise all the way from Georgia or wherever he came from. He didn't need to use a fake ID. He didn't need to flee the scene - at least, flee outside the city.

Why would he do all that if he wanted to get caught?

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#822

Usually I don't tend to get caught up in stories like this. But one thing has me completely fascinated, is how far off the deep end the internet went over the last few days. A murderer became a cult hero online. I saw many posts even suggesting "the snitch" should be hunted down and get what's coming to him/her. I try not to overreact to stuff online, but this took me a bit by surprise. Things really feel like a melt…

> Things really feel like a melting pot at the moment, with so much pent up anger amongst people who actually lead pretty decent lives. One of the reasons that many people voted for Trump, is nihilism. The real belief that Trump is the one most likely to burn the ‘system’ to the ground. That is the brightest hope some voters have.

Please put more effort into understanding people's issues with the system as it stands today.

And please understand that virtually no one wants to leave a burned-out wreckage on a desolate hellscape. Everyone fancies themselves Shiva, or a phoenix, or whatever cultural imagery makes sense to you.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#823
post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The average person is the average which includes some of the richest people on the planet, so I’m guessing you were thinking median? While the sentence is likely true, the sister statement to it would cover historical relativism. Society is generally expected to evolve and improve - this being the whole point of it. So being absolutely better than the past is not as relevant to the conversation as how poor people are…

No, a gap is still not an issue.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a world where everyone has everything they need and one person has a net worth of a gazillion dollars.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#825
post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement is so far outside of the bounds of reality it's laughable. What about those people that are using United Health Care and getting the support they need? They account for nothing?

UHC has one of the highest rates of claim denials. Sure, there are some people getting the support they need but there are a lot of people who are not. What justification is there for that? The only justification is "profit", and that is not something that should ever be involved in healthcare.

It should be noted that not all claims denials mean people aren't getting the support they need.

For example I had an insurance company not want to pay for a particular prescription drug my doctor prescribed. They were happy to pay for treating me, but they wanted it be done with some other drug.

They actually had a medical reason for this. The drug I had been prescribed had recently been found to have a risk of bladder cancer. There were other drugs just as effective but that did not have that risk and so they had removed it from their formulary.

In this case I wanted the first drug because I had used it before and knew that it worked well for me and that I didn't get any of the numerous annoying side effects that it and the alternatives could all have, and I had good reason to believe that I'd only need to be back on it for a month or two and then would be permanently done with it.

I concluded that the risk of bladder cancer from a couple months of the drug were negligible and preferable to dealing with drugs I'd never had before.

My doctor probably could have convinced them to go ahead and approve a one month subscription with the possibility of one refill, but I realized the drug was one of the ones that Walmart had on their $4 drug list and so had my doctor send the prescription there and I bought it for the cash price.

BTW, that $4 cash price at Walmart was cheaper than what I would have paid if my doctor had convinced the insurance to cover it and I filled the prescription at my regular pharmacy.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#826

The manifesto posted on X and other social media is a fake. The actual manifesto he had on his person has not yet been made public aside from a few lines.

It will not be published unless it makes it into evidence at the trial. The prosecutor may try to block it as prejudicing the jury.

This guy is going to end up in his hero Uncle Ted's old supermax cell where barely anything can go in or out.

Having the narrative set by a CEO murderer with double digit % cheering support in the entire US is not something the authorities will permit.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#827
post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was a joke when I saw the posts on the Reddit homepage celebrating the murder and even the murderer. Partly because I thought Redditors were above that type of thing, but also because I thought it was against their TOS. It's a real reminder of how little sympathy people can have about people who they consider the enemy or the "other". I'm almost certain nearly all of the people celebrating the murder bel…

A lot of people feel that he as the CEO of the health insurance with the highest rate of denied claims is indirectly responsible for the death of a large number of people. Thus killing him is justified as vigilante justice. And vigilante justice is frequently seen in a positive light when the justice system is unable or unwilling to act.

This just occurred to me though. Is UHC going to have a hard time finding a CEO that continues this practice? Have they actually been given any reason to change? Any reason to believe they won't just double down?

If this murder doesn't change anything, was it justified? I just don't know.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#828

You stand at the fork in the tracks. Pulling the lever will divert the train from a track with 10,000 people on it, to a track with 1 person on it. Do you pull the lever?

How exactly does killing a CEO save 10k people?

Hint: it doesn't. In fact, the only result I can imagine from this is the opposite. After all, UHC will probably need to pay their CEO (if anyone takes the job) more for a while, to overcome the risk of being murdered. So if CEO pay meant fewer claims being paid out, after this they'll probably pay out even fewer.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#829
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...

How does a rich person existing affect me? Is it just because I'm jealous that I don't have a yacht and so I should try to overthrow the system that doesn't let me have a yacht? Even though I'll never get a yacht in any system?

Can we look at the graph of wealth disparity of America versus other nations?

Post reply on HN