Submitted 3 months ago by hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
Yes of course he needs to be prosecuted.
I get that people hate insurance companies but at the end of the day this was a brutal and cold blooded murder.
As unhappy as we may be at the state of the world, the last thing anyone should want is for things to be determined by who has the gun and is willing to shoot.
Having said that though, maybe things are getting beyond the point of no return. Democracy in the US seems to be a joke, and the billionaire class have unfettered power. I worry we’re on trajectory towards violent revolution.
The ambivelence and even open celebration of a shocking violent murder is a warning sign of how bad things are right now. Across the democratic world countries are devided and in flux because the political class is not listening to voters and in hoc to the billionaires.
Trump in the US will be a mess. But France and Germany are also in political flux. What we are lacking globally at the moment is an outlet for this mess or a solution. People seem to be divided and unable to coalesce around a solution to the problems. I worry that means more chaos and ultimately violemce to come.
I want his story to be told then have a jury nullify the case. But I don’t see how any of that will happen.
Of course, it’s still murder, that’s why there is a judiciary. But, the system should also be better, and not allow people to be cheated out of their lives by profiteering goblins.
Yes, of course. Then face a jury. And hopefully go free via jury nullification.
Yes, and I want him found innocent by a jury of his peers.
But we all know the police are going to shoot him 17 times in the back in self defense when they find him
I’d say it will be nearly impossible to get an objective jury that also represents the defendants peers.
I am under the belief that there was no murder and he had a preexisting condition of lead poisoning. As such, we unfortunately do not cover these kinds of conditions in our penal system and his claim must be denied.
No, drag hopes they’re never found
Makes sense if they were caught, the system would bring a case against them. But given the facts of the case, a reasonable jury should find them not guilty.
A reasonable jury would give the killer a life sentence.
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 person.
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 lol) 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.
Why are people so against killing? From an ethical perspective, it’s often quite justifiable. We’ve been trained like monkeys in a cage to respond adversely to death, but that reaction is based in a social contract that is only conditionally valid.
It is in some cases justifiable, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the only option in the majority of cases where people might jump to it.
I don’t really agree we’ve been trained to respond that way, when I quite often see the exact opposite. Killing is a fast and easy solution that many people are quick to advocate for. I’m quite steadfast in my belief that being able to look beyond killing is one of the few privileges our intelligence gives us, to be better than the cruelty of nature.
I don’t agree the breaking the social contract means death is appropriate or justifiable, but it does mean we can seek to undo that injustice and reduce the harm by other forceful methods. Acting in vengeance is not justifiable.
No
Is this a one-off or the beginning of a movement? Probably a one-off. We shall see.
I’ll buck the trend here.
Yes, I want him prosecuted. I want every single piece of evidence the cops have put out in public, and I want the public to see exactly how they traced him and caught him. I want people to see just how insidious the surveillance state is, and I want them to understand what kind of lengths they’ll need to go to in order to avoid getting caught the next time.
Interesting take, but on the other hand I suspect that nothing new would be learned. afaik their main forensics techniques aren’t really a mystery, there are thousands of cases to learn from.
Let’s just say I am glad I do not have to make that call.
The comments here are what has prompted me to stop using Lemmy altogether. Farewell.
Bye :D
✌️
This is not a lemmy problem. This is an everywhere problem. If you find a platform not talking about it then it is being heavily moderated and you’re going to be in an echo chamber. For instance Facebook had a United health memorial post with 25x more “haha” reactions than heart/ sad reactions.
Best of luck though
I agree with you. Most people on Lemmy have shown themselves to be disgusting and vile, wishing murder on innocent people. It’s fine as long as it’s not them or their family, as long as it’s anyone else.
Who are you calling innocent? Literally thousands have died so this guy could get a bonus check.
Yes - I think it is fair that all murders be prosecuted. As for the gray area of morality, sentencing is variable and somewhat lax for this exact reason. I don’t believe that a judge will be lax with sentencing, but this would be a case in which I would like the shooter to receive a slap on the wrist punishment.
If he’s caught he should be tried fairly by a jury if he peers and justice carried out.
I hope he’s never found.
Yes, because murder is illegal. But if they never find the guy… That’s okay too.
nahh
Yes of course. Nobody wants someone walking the streets who thinks it’s their right to dish out the death penalty without due process. Who’s he going to pick next?
That said, obviously with limited resources the police have to pick what cases take priority over others. For example Sheffield police don’t do anything about motorbike theft (even if there’s a tracker installed) because they’re too busy chasing down all those people who hurt others’ fee-fees by misgendering them.
Who’s he going to pick next?
This was not a random or petty attack. Their message on the bullet casings makes it clear they were attacking this person because they’ve knowingly helped enable incomprehensible amounts of human suffering on a scale of millions.
I understand that vigilantism, speaking generally, has its own serious dangers. But speaking specifically, this person is clearly not a threat to people who aren’t legalized mass murderers. Who’s he going to pick next? Probably the CEO of the second most abusive healthcare insurer.
That said, obviously with limited resources the police have to pick what cases take priority over others.
The police follow the law. The law is defined by politicians, who are effectively purchased by the owner class. The police were never going to arrest that CEO for their crimes against humanity, it would be illegal for them to do it out of the public interest. Direct vigilantism was the only realistic chance at deterrence in this situation.
because they’re too busy chasing down all those people who hurt others’ fee-fees by misgendering them
Weird fantasy but ok.
Well all joking aside, he committed first degree murder so yeah. He should be prosecuted and sentenced to prison for up to 30 years.
Yes, and then let Biden pardon him…
Biden wouldn’t.
The fact they still haven’t been caught despite all the attention this has gotten so far tells me the shooter knew what they were getting into & was prepared for it. Legally speaking, I think that eliminates a “temporary insanity” defense, but I don’t think it should. Someone despondent over losing a dearly loved one due to the completely arbitrary, cynical, and sometimes outright ghastly “healthcare” system we live under refusing to provide the service they were paid for seems like something that would lead to a temporary insanity that just lasts a very long time.
It hasn’t even been two days yet.
Yes but hopefully he will have some traumatic story that just gives him a light sentence.
It’s still wrong, but when agitate someone, the punishment for them punching you should be less.
Yes, and do a public execution.
You mean all the other Healthcare CEOs?
No.
Yes, murder is illegal no matter how glad it makes people - unless of course the President did it, which as we all know would make it okay.
Surely there will be a Yougov poll, and they will listen to the results before continuing investigation. /s
Rogue@feddit.uk 3 months ago
Actions have consequences. It’s important we have precedents that the world is just
breadsmasher@lemmy.world 3 months ago
So execute billionaire CEOs of health insurance companies who have caused untold damage to innumerable regular people on the name of profit?
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
That’s part of making the world just!
mke_geek@lemm.ee 3 months ago
No that’s disgusting and immoral.