I can hold two ideas at the same time here, where I understand why it happened as a consequence of rampant evil on behalf of the ownership class, and it's a natural comeuppance after pushing the wrong person too far. (I think we're all shocked it took this long to happen.)

But also, unfortunately as much as we love a good revenge story, planting 3 slugs into another human being, even a nasty one, in cold blood, is not self-defense. The goal of self defense is the reduction of an attacker's ability to cause direct and imminent harm to the defender.

This was assault, and it was murder, and we can reason about the justification behind it, but I sadly don't really know what it will change, besides the bourgeois getting allocated even more of our money to have protection detail and hold their board meetings in walled enclaves or yahts away from the populace.

Violence begets violence. Blood begets blood, and those who live by the sword will die by it also. I think any sane rational person can agree this guy reaped what he and his ilk sowed every day, but still be against slaying human beings on the streets to make a point.

Edit: Knew I was just asking to get ratio'd for not 100% full-throttle stanning the trending narrative, but the actual responses (that I saw) were thought-provoking and well reasoned, so I appreciate that.

Sometimes it seems people forget the value of discourse and only care about "how popular is my opinion right now."

[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Self defense is also applied when defending others. It's nice to think someday we might be above violent reaction to violent action. But until there's an alternative, we're not, and we shouldn't be.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you think UHC is going to change its policies in any major way because of this? If it was self-defense, it was not very good self-defense. Like any other employee in a giant corporation, the CEO is easily replaced with someone else who will do the exact same job. Possibly an even better (from the company's perspective) job.

This does nothing to help all of the people who are being destroyed by the for-profit insurance industry.

I would say revenge makes more sense.

[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If they're smart, they will. If they're not smart they will need to hope they can afford to give their security team better health insurance than they themselves offer, otherwise we will see repeats of the reason you're personally allowed to be outside of your company owned work house.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I have no idea why you think any corporate employee isn't kleenex, but they are.

A CEO can't decide to put people above profits because they will be replaced if they do.

CEOs are not emperors. The problem isn't individual CEOs, the problem is capitalism.

[–] AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Idk how you can take such a strong stance against police for being police but not CEOs. If a cop stops doing their job, they too will be replaced with someone who will.

Please stop defending executives causing harm.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Please explain how calling CEOs replaceable kleenex and hating capitalism is a defense of CEOs.

Am I not hating capitalism the right way?

(Gotta love getting downvoted on .ml in the last comment for calling capitalism the problem, BTW. Guess you all became conservatives.)