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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#961

Post by juunpp »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #809
harimau777 wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure people are actually leading pretty decent lives. The people I know are working stressful dead end jobs and living with roommates in order to barely make ends meet. They don't have much prospect of improving their lot because doing so requires capital that they don't have (e.g. to start a business or go to college). Even though they have health insurance, they avoid going to the doctor unless absolutely n…

The people I know are pretty much exactly the opposite of you so I think it comes down to age/experience, location, and other factors.

Yeah, you're quite literally in a bubble.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#962

Post by fastball »

Tryk wrote: post #936
fastball wrote: post #828

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your argument is that the reason they were not paying out more claims is because they had to compensate their CEO?

This isn't my argument. This is the argument of many people who think the murder is justified, including the parent comment which implied this is a simple 1 person vs 10,000 people trolley problem.

I am pointing out how silly that line of thinking is.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#963

Post by xcrunner529 »

matrix87 wrote: post #368

I don't know if this has been posted already, but here is his manifesto https://archive.is/2024.12.09-230659/https://breloomlegacy.s... Sounds like both he and his mother were suffering from chronic pain and UHC dicked them around and refused to act in good faith

And I was right. This is fake and his real manifesto is here: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto

I was suspicious from the link and “last words” BS and even moreso with the cringe gladiator references. Typical weirdo fan fan material.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#964

Post by fastball »

unknownsky wrote: post #708
donatj wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I strongly disagree. A huge power gap is a huge problem. A tiny group of people have an enormous amount of power over the rest of us. I still call that a big problem even if we have food and material goods. >and the majority that do suffer addiction or mental illness. This is also a problem, and a great example of something we could easily fix if power was not concentrated in the hands of a tiny few.

Could you expand on why you think some people being billionaires makes other people drug-addicted and homeless?

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#965

Post by DontchaKnowit »

bag_boy wrote: post #927
DontchaKnowit wrote: post #898

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you, perhaps, had an adderall problem before? I have, and I used to say things like this a lot, but really I think its projection. How could you possibly know?

Yeah, speaking from experience, unfortunately.

Yeah I feel you. Hope things have gotten better for you. Quitting was one of the best decisions I have ever made

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#966

Post by pathikrit »

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…

Most likely he realized once the authorities have his name - he can't run forever.

That being said - some obvious stuff he could have done like grow a beard and shave it after and fly out of the country to somewhere cheap like Thailand with $10k

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#967

Post by lend000 »

munksbeer wrote: post #586

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…

It's kind of sad. But I think that most people are fundamentally good -- they're just reactive and understand our broken healthcare system so little that they actually consider the victim to have actually earned a death sentence. When really, he was still a cog in the machine, not much closer to harming people than a software developer whose code ends up being used in military drones.

The problems with US healthcare boil down to there being more demand for healthcare than supply, and a fat bureaucracy sprouting up to partition that limited healthcare, often screwing over people who need exceptionally special care or who can't afford insurance in the first place. Who is to blame? You could reasonably apply some blame to the shortage of doctors created by the AMA, the FDA's guidance and the sugar industry's lobbying resulting in people being less healthy, lack of consumer protection laws around opaque medical pricing/gouging, and private insurance.

Would changing any one of these alone fix healthcare in the US? Maybe the first 2, if given a long time to materialize. But do any of these people deserve to die? It says a lot about you if you automatically dehumanize these people and say yes.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#968

Post by harambae »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #345

[flagged]

I’m not going to deny that a rich person being the victim plays a part here, but also very high profile crimes that are embarrassing to law enforcement get resources.

In particular, I’m thinking (for comparison) of the escape from Clinton Correctional in upstate NY. $23 million spent to recover 2 prisoners and the governor flew in to do a press conference. It wasn’t really rich people that were victims there.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#969

Post by tivert »

nashashmi wrote: post #346
xivzgrev wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think so, per article: He "became quiet and started to shake" when asked if he had recently been to New York, according to the criminal complaint filed in Pennsylvania. Being smart can lead to arrogance, which leads to stumbles. like carrying evidence, dining in public, etc.

I doubt he was arrogant. I think he was on the run and didn’t have any place to put away the evidence. Probably homeless this whole time. And had to go to get food at some point.

> I doubt he was arrogant. I think he was on the run and didn’t have any place to put away the evidence. Probably homeless this whole time. And had to go to get food at some point.

He totally did. Find a trash can, and put it in (though maybe disassemble the gun first, and dispose of it in pieces in multiple locations).

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#970

Post by spl757 »

munksbeer wrote: post #586

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…

Unfortunately, sometimes the law allows for the legal murder of people by pen. More people are killed by keyboards and pens, and I don't mean like John Wick, than are killed by guns because we have "for-profit healthcare". That means that the motive of the company is not determined by whether their decisions will kill people by the policies they create, but whether the decisions they make will be profitable. As long as those decisions don't run afoul of the law, they can kill at will. If that sounds fucked up, it is because it is fucked up.
Post reply on HN