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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#991

Post by iambateman »

leocgcd wrote: post #404
iambateman wrote: post #382

[flagged]

Rule of law also allows for banality of evil and bureaucratized, monopolized violence. I've seen some other arguments against sympathy in this thread (the murderer was wealthy himself, insurance companies aren't actually the archvillains of healthcare). Those other arguments haven't convinced me, but they certainly complicate the narrative. A blind appeal to "rule of law" is the one argument that I think is stupid on…

Rule of law says that the law applies to everyone. Living in a republic means we all bear some responsibility for not encoding violence in our laws, and have a recourse if we find evil emerges.

In other words, of course we need healthcare reform but literally killing healthcare leaders is a path to anarchy, not reform.

Those who beg for war usually get more war than they wanted.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#992

Post by iambateman »

tpdly wrote: post #433
iambateman wrote: post #382

[flagged]

This is a frustratingly incomplete analysis of the moral circumstances. It can be true that one finds this person (and the victim) sympathetic, and wants rule of law to be upheld.

Could you expand? How can it be true?

It’s possible that we have a different definition of sympathetic. For me, I mean that his actions feel justified and I would have no problem with him repeating that.

Supposing you accept that definition of sympathetic…Are you generally supportive of more public assassinations? Who is on your list? What about if your list is different from the generally accepted list?

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#993

Post by ProAm »

ProAm wrote: post #422
breadwinner wrote: post #44

He was carrying all of the evidence with him, including the fake ID he used at the hostel, the gun & suppressor, mask, and even a handwritten manifesto that points to his motivation. It seems he wanted to be found.

Jury nullification!

Jury Nullification!

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#994

Post by 3a2d29 »

tristor wrote: post #929
3a2d29 wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the CEO or everyone that works there?

The entire argument for high CEO renumeration is that they take on total responsibility for all actions of the company. The buck stops with them. So, why do we think it's acceptable for that not to be the case when the company does something bad?

Thats a good argument in a vacuum. But the world has determined "I was just following orders" is not a good defense.

We know the crimes against humanity are bad and subordinates are guilty if they do them. We don;t just let everyone off free except the head of state.

Not to see that united healtcare (as bad as they are) are anywhere near that, but I am saying that its clear that we, as a society, already hold all people complicit in evil as guilty. Not just the person at the top.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#995

Post by ahazred8ta »

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…

Given the number of people who think that Oswald did not shoot three people, that James Earl Ray did not shoot anyone, that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot anyone, the mental gymnastics are not surprising. It's always been like this; the internet just allows us to know about it in real time. There are still people to this day who will tell you that the Yippies really DID levitate the Pentagon.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#996

Post by Doxin »

shin_lao wrote: post #988
deadbabe wrote: post #203

I just think it’s great that for a short time, we got to live this fantasy that being a rich CEO is no guarantee that someone couldn’t easily just walk up to you one day, kill you off, and then disappear without a trace as a hero to those you did wrong. The fantasy of jury nullification is still alive, but very unlikely to happen. If someone can turn the guy in, then someone could easily find him guilty.

This CEO is just an employee of a company that makes a 4% profit margin, killing him achieves nothing and is sociopathic.

This CEO could've decided to stop having his company frivolously deny claims at any point. Pretending this man is 0% complicit in the deaths of the people covered by the insurance provided by the company _he is chief executive officer of_ is absurd.

There is a lot of debate to be had on whether or not this shooting is a good thing or not but "The CEO is innocent actually" is not it. You cannot be at the steering wheel of a steam roller that is currently in the process of crushing orphans and has been for years and then disclaim yourself of any responsibility.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#997

Post by jckahn »

crawfordcomeaux wrote: post #214
jckahn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the main reason I built https://chitchatter.im/ . I hope to see it be used as a tool to safely organize around building a better world.

Thanks for this! Gonna ask around for help in evaluating it for security.

Awesome! Let me know if I can help or answer any questions. :)

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#998

Post by computerthings »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #837
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #808

Boy, they are gonna have a hard time, picking a jury for this kid.

No, most normal people are not psychos who can rationalize murder

That's why most people celebrate the death of this CEO, because they're well-adjusted. Roughly 25k Americans die each year for lack ability to afford health insurance. Normal people don't cry over one filthy rich guy accused of insider trading and known to have overseen implementation of AI to deny claims, while giving zero apparent fucks for the orders of magnitude more people who are actually decent.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#999

Post by bud_davis »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #616
kypro wrote: 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…

Honest question, do you think there is a point where someone has earned death? For example, was the mission to kill Bin Laden wrong? Was the mission to kill the Iranian General in Iraq wrong? Is it wrong to kill someone via the death penalty for the rape and murder of a child? Many people fundamentally believe those things are good examples of killing other humans. And realistically, those people are responsible for…

Bin Laden should have been arrested and processed by a court. Killing the Iranian General was wrong. (this is a place for covert action, perhaps)

Same with everyone else the US has killed by drone.

Sentenced by a court to die, given the rule of law, is OK.

(note my personal belief is that the death penalty is wrong. today, it is legal).

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#1000

Post by Animats »

s_dev wrote: post #597
Animats wrote: post #383

A few days ago, HN had "The pitchforks are coming for us plutocrats."[1] I wrote, no, otherwise the US wouldn't have elected a billionaire as a populist president. Maybe that was wrong. The US has historically been a safe space for the rich. There's never been anything like the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, or the Maoist revolution. The people in charge of the American Revolution were mostly well off.…

>The US hasn't even had a period of high taxes intended to impoverish the rich, as the UK did after WWII. Effective US Corporation tax was as high as 50% post WWII. Effective income taxes were between 70% and 90%.

UK: "One for you nineteen for me."[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman

Post reply on HN