No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
No.
What murderer? There's an alleged person who allegedly may or may not have allegedly done something that allegedly resulted in the alleged death of that CEO. Allegedly.
Unfortunately this is America, and as members of Congress have publicly stated, there's just nothing we can do about domestic gun violence. So even if an alleged person allegedly committed an alleged crime with a firearm, the system's hands are tied.
Oh well. Anyway I'm gonna go eat some cake, since it's all I have.
I believe wrongdoers deserve justice no matter where it comes from. The law is supposed to be a way to achieve that, but if it ceases to achieve that purpose then to hell with it; I prefer incivil justice over civil injustice.
Well. I'm not sure.
If it was a politician, probably yes. I don't want supporters of the dead politician start doing revenge shootings.
But a CEO that no one cares about? (well, besides the rich)
🤷♂️
I rather him just not getting caught.
BUT: If he's left enough breadcrumbs to be able to get tracked down, then I'd prefer he get caught now rather than later. News about insurances companies doing shitty claim denials are trending, theres a spotlight of evil healthcare practices. This is the best time for him to get the fairest trial.
Put him in front of a jury of his peers. Let them decide his fate.
But remember that:
-
Jurors cannot be punished for their decision either way.
-
Once a unanimous "non-guilty" verdict is reached, it cannot be overturned due to "No Double Jeopardy" clause.
Interpret that anyway you wish to. wink wink, nudge nudge.
In public sure. Behind closed doors he should hailed for his service to the proletariat
Even if he gets convicted, he'll be a hero in prison. We've had plenty of serial killers with cult followings, and this person is more dangerous to the establishment out in public.
It's very likely that he would get dealt with in a similar way that Epstein was.
Why in the fuck would I?
I want them to put an effort to find the guy, but ultimately I hope they never catch him. This dude is a hero, even if not for what he did, but the fear that he instilled in evil executives. It's much bigger than just the one guy. It's already made blue cross/blue shield change a fucked up policy. Even if this type of vigilante justice never happens again, the possibility of it must be in the back of every executives mind, and that alone should be enough to make the world slightly better. Even if just a little.
If he did it to instill fear in health insurance executives as a deterrent, then that means it was an act of terror. As an act of terror, that means the murdered CEO's life insurance company does not have to pay out. Claim denied.
Nope, but the shit CEO is the root cause.
I am a pacifist, and I recognize the danger of encouraging/pardoning vigilantism. There are people I feel are heroes, who others view as villains. People should argue, debate, and put pressure as much as possible with non violence... but that is clearly not working for the ultra wealthy who are so insulated from 99.9% of what we can do.
The murdered man was, even by US capitalist standards, excessively evil. In a functioning and just system he would have had life in prison with no chance of parole for 1000+ counts of at the very least man slaughter for the millions of people whose health care was delayed or prevented. The world is a slightly better place without that level of extreme greed and heartlessness in it.
I also feel like the main point of prison "SHOULD" be Prevention and Rehabilitation. Which if the Attacker was personally harmed by a CEO and lashed out, I don't think prison can accomplish either for him. I guess the US gov probably disagrees and thinks he should be rehabilitated as someone who is okay with being exploited by CEOs.
But I do want all evidence laid out, I want a jury to determine if he's unhinged and a danger to others, or someone who was hurt on a fundamental level and lashed out. We of course assume it's the second one, but we don't know yet.
Juries and judges will sometimes use the kid gloves when dealing with people who kill their abusers, and I think a light sentence with the message of "murder is wrong... but so is allowing thousands to die to increase profits. So maybe don't be so evil people wouldn't mind giving up 10 years of their lives to see you removed from this world" would be fine.
... but also if this becomes another one of a million unsolved cases, I won't lose a wink of sleep about it.
I don't want him prosecuted, but not because I think killing people is good or forgivable (though it couldn't really happen to a better person) but because the criminal justice system is awful, especially in the US.
If the death penalty is on the table, then I don't think I need to explain why that's bad, but I fundamentally disagree with imprisonment. I'm no expert, but there are better ways to handle harm and justice, and I feel the current system is unjustifiably evil in it's treatment of convicts.
I should probably point out that I'm not making a judgement about what he's done. More that depending on the context and why he's done this, there will need to be a different more nuanced response than the judicial system is capable of.
From an ethical perspective, killing is often justifiable. We’ve been trained like monkeys in a cage to respond aversely to death, but that reaction is grounded in a social contract that is only conditionally valid.
In an ideal system the jury would decide the sentence, and give him one day community service (time served).
No
I would definitely want to see them prosecuted. However, the sentence should probably be light. I'm not perfectly familiar with the justice system, so I don't know how much of this is currently the case, but I think vigilante justice should result in smaller punishments than for example if the reason of the murder was personal gain. If it can actually be proven that the murder victim did those terrible things they were killed for, depending how terrible those things are, the sentence should be reduced. If for example someone killed Hitler, there should be no punishments for this murderer.
Of course that allows murderers for personal gain to claim they did it for vigilante justice, but they would have to find something they can actually prove their victim to be guilty of. This will probably be hard. But I think if they actually find something on the victim, as twisted as it sounds, I think it's actually fine if the sentence gets reduced. Because in the end I think the murder of an unpunished morally bankrupt person is less bad than the murder of a completely innocent person.
As much as I take some degree of delight in this CEO’s death, yes, his killer should face justice. Vigilante revenge should not be allowed in a civilized society. If we condone that, we open the floodgates for all forms of reprisal. As justified as I and others may feel this murder is, the CEO still should have had his day in court.
Nah
Yes. I have no sympathy for the CEO but murder is still murder
Is it though? The US still has the death penalty, and the person who commits those killings just gets paid and goes home.
And none of those people of death row are responsible for even a small fraction of the evil private health insurers are capable of.
Then he should of already faced the death penalty for the thousands (millions?) of deaths he caused.