Was This Personal or Professional: (UHC CEO murder)

[BlueRidge]

Yes

But what is the argument? Is it that insurrection is a not a serious enough charge?

 

[once_upon]

Did insurrection amount to anything? Nothing amounts to anything.

 

[manhn]

Is there a violent crime that does not instill fear in people?

 

[BlueRidge]

Did insurrection amount to anything? Nothing amounts to anything.

For those who engaged in violence some long sentences.

 

[once_upon]

Is there a violent crime that does not instill fear in people?

But apparently CEOs get more consideration

Murder is Murder, but apparently some victims are more prized than others

Sorry I'm just a little pissy about people with money are more important than others.

I DO NOT CONDONE MURDER...I'm pissed that some people are more important than school children and parents are not terrorized by the murder of them.

 

[BlueRidge]

But apparently CEOs get more consideration

Murder is Murder, but apparently some victims are more prized than others

Sorry I'm just a little pissy about people with money are more important than others.

I DO NOT CONDONE MURDER...I'm pissed that some people are more important than school children and parents are not terrorized by the murder of them.

Here's why: political acts of violence upend society. Granted if this is a one off, it doesn't seem like it is doing that but if you don't treat it seriously, what do you do if there is another?

Its not about the CEO and its not about United Health Care, it is about whether we want to proceed to having more violence with people taking violent acts as legitimate ways to act on political beliefs.

This actually did happen around the turn of the 20th century. There were many bombings of prominent people, and then when those were found to be too hard the anarchists targeted ordinary people. An political assassination as this one was can't be ignored. That we don't seriously address many other crimes and harms to people in society is not a reason to not take this one seriously, its a reason to change how we address the others.

 

[Tesla]

What pisses me off about Mangione being charged with terrorism is he assassinates a wealthy white guy and is labeled a terrorist but someone shoots up a school and kills several children and is labeled a murderer. Charge the guy with murder. Leave terrorist out of it.

 

[PRlady]

Here's why: political acts of violence upend society. Granted if this is a one off, it doesn't seem like it is doing that but if you don't treat it seriously, what do you do if there is another?

Its not about the CEO and its not about United Health Care, it is about whether we want to proceed to having more violence with people taking violent acts as legitimate ways to act on political beliefs.

This actually did happen around the turn of the 20th century. There were many bombings of prominent people, and then when those were found to be too hard the anarchists targeted ordinary people. An political assassination as this one was can't be ignored. That we don't seriously address many other crimes and harms to people in society is not a reason to not take this one seriously, its a reason to change how we address the others.

While you’re reading your book, I’m reading mine, a history of Spain. Just like other places but even more energetically, the Spanish anarchists assassinated several prime ministers and generals with the support of a lot of the working class, in a hierarchical society where the rich got away with everything. The only “cure” was Franco’s dictatorship. Look how long it took them to get to a reasonably successful liberal democracy.

The anarchists were the symptom of a sick, corrupt society, not the cause.

 

[Aussie Willy]

But apparently CEOs get more consideration

Murder is Murder, but apparently some victims are more prized than others

Sorry I'm just a little pissy about people with money are more important than others.

I DO NOT CONDONE MURDER...I'm pissed that some people are more important than school children and parents are not terrorized by the murder of them.

Absolutely. People are incredibly p*ssed that those with the power to actually do something about gun violence cry over one rich guy being murdered but thousands of kids just get thoughts and prayers. And not to forget all the people who have died because people like the rich guy control what happens to them at the stroke of a pen or an algorithm.

This is an "Eat the Rich" cause that people feel they can get behind.

And what will make people angrier that whatever this shooting represents to them, nothing is going to change.

Wonder what people would think if it was a CEO of one of the gun manufacturers who had been targeted.

 

[BlueRidge]

While you’re reading your book, I’m reading mine, a history of Spain. Just like other places but even more energetically, the Spanish anarchists assassinated several prime ministers and generals with the support of a lot of the working class, in a hierarchical society where the rich got away with everything. The only “cure” was Franco’s dictatorship. Look how long it took them to get to a reasonably successful liberal democracy.

The anarchists were the symptom of a sick, corrupt society, not the cause.

Yes when you read about the Homestead strike and other violence perpetrated by the managers and owners its appalling, not to mention the conditions people had to work under you see how sick it truly was.

When no change comes, people turn to methods that only make things worse. I'm worried about the next few years because I don't think things like healthcare are going to be addressed.

 

[Private Citizen]

I think diluting the meaning of terrorism could be dangerous, if any crime that had some political content falls into that category.

I agree, but I think there's enough here for a charge. Probably not for a conviction.

Is there a violent crime that does not instill fear in people?

Probably not. The definition of terrorism has been posted on this thread. It's not whether people feel afraid. It's whether the act was meant to coerce or intimidate.

Man shoots out a subway car trying to kill his ex-wife. Not terrorism.
Gang member shoots out a subway car trying to kill a rival gang member. Not terrorism.
Man shoots out a subway car as part of an organized effort to destabilize the local transit system. Probably terrorism.

People will probably be afraid to take the subway in all three cases. All three are mass shootings, but only one is terrorism. It doesn't make the other two things any less bad.

 

[PRlady]

I don’t think violent one-offs and even mass actions are out of the question, providing a perfect excuse for government repression. Not that he needs one.

 

[BlueRidge]

I don’t think violent one-offs and even mass actions are out of the question, providing a perfect excuse for government repression. Not that he needs one.

People who want to influence the political situation need to think carefully about what they do.

In the book I'm reading the violence undertaken by the anarchists begun with Alexander Berkman plays a large role in the rise of an effective police force in NYC but then it becomes a more oppressive federal effort under J. Edgar Hoover who personally oversees the deportation of Alexander Berkman, long after he served his sentence for this violent act, under the espionage act.

 

[once_upon]

So meanwhile the CEO stays in the news, while 4 families are grieving around the holidays and 3 or 4 families are in a hospital waiting room to see what long term injuries there are. We have classrooms full of kids who heard screaming and gunshots.

Both murderers had something gone haywire in their brains. Both shooters left statements.

All victims deserve to be treasured.

If we name the CEO murderer as terrorist - other victims murderers should be too.

But I don't live in DC or a super major city.

Regarding Jan 6th they are going to be pardoned. There is no justice there. No blanking from my mind those terrorists moves into the capital buildings.

 

[PRlady]

Gifted, from NYTimes, the “skin in the game” argument as was crafted by someone in my business. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

I have no objection to this awful murder spurring real conversation about healthcare.

 

[MacMadame]

Is there a violent crime that does not instill fear in people?

If some guy I don't know kills his wife, I will be angry but I won't be afraid. Why should I be afraid? I'm not going to marry him. Or even meet him.

What pisses me off about Mangione being charged with terrorism is he assassinates a wealthy white guy and is labeled a terrorist but someone shoots up a school and kills several children and is labeled a murderer. Charge the guy with murder. Leave terrorist out of it.

Or charge school shooters with terrorism.

Then again, terrorism has a definition and many school shootings don't meet it. Just because they aren't terrorism, doesn't mean they aren't awful though.

 

[tony]

Young people have been idolizing Mangione since he was even identified because of that grainy photo of him in the hoodie. Stories and memes joking about warning other CEOs to watch out/step down, whatever were everywhere. And then he gets revealed as a good-looking, educated guy- the younger women are in love, the gay men are all posting about how they can 'fix him', etc. Even if it's tongue-in-cheek, it's not exactly a standard reaction to a killer.

I saw so many, in other words, "well that's what he gets [the CEO]' because of his salary and the association of him being the one and only person denying all of the claims over the years with disgruntled patients.

If Mangione had been Black or Latino or Middle Eastern, the reaction would have been so wildly different.

 

[On My Own]

Here's why: political acts of violence upend society. Granted if this is a one off, it doesn't seem like it is doing that but if you don't treat it seriously, what do you do if there is another?

Its not about the CEO and its not about United Health Care, it is about whether we want to proceed to having more violence with people taking violent acts as legitimate ways to act on political beliefs.

This actually did happen around the turn of the 20th century. There were many bombings of prominent people, and then when those were found to be too hard the anarchists targeted ordinary people. An political assassination as this one was can't be ignored. That we don't seriously address many other crimes and harms to people in society is not a reason to not take this one seriously, its a reason to change how we address the others.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I'm glad Mangione was charged for terrorism.

 

[On My Own]

Israel throws around “terrorism” for any attack on its policies. BDS is “economic terrorism,” the ICC is “legal terrorism,” pro-Palestinian rallies are “psychological terrorism” - I realize this is now too political for this thread but it’s why I’m sensitive to misuse of the term. Of course, Israel is the target of real terrorism and has been for decades; this shooting is not that.

Why, specifically, terrorism in the US needs to be viewed by its usage in Israel?

 

[MacMadame]

If Mangione had been Black or Latino or Middle Eastern, the reaction would have been so wildly different.

Absolutely. And it doesn't hurt that he's well-off (or at least from a well-off family).

 

[Private Citizen]

Gifted, from NYTimes, the “skin in the game” argument as was crafted by someone in my business. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

I have no objection to this awful murder spurring real conversation about healthcare.

Flawed implementation doesn't mean that the strategy was wrong.

I continue to see consumerism and "skin in the game" as good things. The statistic that insurance went from paying from 95% to 85% of costs also doesn't concern me. It's a positive sign.

As long as someone else is paying, no one has any incentive to reduce costs. The more care and more expensive care that people receive, the more insurance companies can pass along the costs to employers, who then pass along to consumers.

The problems are similar to cable TV or cell phones or any of the other things where Americans pay way more than other nations. There are monopolistic entities, lack of true competition, and labyrinthine bureaucracy.

I'd like to see a better regulated attempt at consumerism. Where I do agree with the article is that the implementation of "consumer directed healthcare" gave no real choice to consumers and simply passed more costs from insurance company to consumer. The benefit was all to the insurance companies, none to the end consumer.

If Mangione had been Black or Latino or Middle Eastern, the reaction would have been so wildly different.

Agreed. I'd also add fat or ugly.

 

[misskarne]

There have been incel murderers who specifically targeted women because they hate them. There have been race-driven murderers who have targeted certain races because they hate them. There was a man who murdered a whole bunch of gay men in a nightclub because he was a raging homophobe.

None of them were charged with terrorism.

So why should this be any different? Particularly given the "victim" was no innocent and his hands were stained with the blood of many more innocents.

 

[Private Citizen]

Hate crimes are different than terrorism. I repeat: someone being afraid does not mean something is terrorism.

And I vehemently disagree: the victim absolutely was innocent. He did not violate any law, regardless of what you think of his morality.

If you want to convict him in the court of public opinion and declare him guilty of violating unwritten imaginary laws because you disagree with his morality, then please don’t complain when Trump throws Liz Cheney in jail, hangs Joe Biden from the White House lawn, and exiles the Clintons to whatever country will take them. It would be the same thing.

The rule of law must stand, and we must apply the law as written. There is a legal basis for a terrorism charge. A charge is not a conviction. A jury will decide on whether this was terrorism, unless there is a plea.

 

[BlueRidge]

Calling something terrorism doesn't make a crime worse, it makes it a specific type of crime.

Some of the worst mass shootings were not terrorism because they didn't have a political element. This didn't make them somehow less bad because they weren't designated terrorism.

Terrorism is a highly politicized term of course but it doesn't make sense to treat it as though somehow it is used to show that the authorities take a crime more seriously than one that isn't designated terrorism.

 

[PRlady]

Calling something terrorism doesn't make a crime worse, it makes it a specific type of crime.

Some of the worst mass shootings were not terrorism because they didn't have a political element. This didn't make them somehow less bad because they weren't designated terrorism.

Terrorism is a highly politicized term of course but it doesn't make sense to treat it as though somehow it is used to show that the authorities take a crime more seriously than one that isn't designated terrorism.

So I think what upsets people is that terrorism is a political crime, usually against a government. Calling this terrorism elevated the healthcare industry to a political/power position, as if robber baron capitalism is a government being attacked.

If you throw a bomb at an Israeli embassy or even an Israel Studies department office, you’re a terrorist protesting a government. If you shoot a healthcare CEO, you’re attacking a system of rich people exploiting everyone else if you’re convicted of terrorism. It elevates the victim to an important class.

This might be very unclear, I’m still on my first cup of coffee.

 

[On My Own]

Calling this terrorism elevated the healthcare industry to a political/power position, as if robber baron capitalism is a government being attacked.

So you agree the intent was to instill fear in civilians (healthcare officials)?

 

[BlueRidge]

This might be very unclear, I’m still on my first cup of coffee.

Drink some more coffee.

The World Trade Center was not a government building.

 

[PRlady]

So you agree the intent was to instill fear in civilians (healthcare officials)?

No. I think the charge of terrorism was made because CEOs are Very Important People Representing the American Way of Life and if you shoot one you are a terrorist attacking America.

 

[On My Own]

https://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/threads/what-is-terrorism-uhc-ceo-murder-continued.112413/#post-6704781

 

[BlueRidge]

No. I think the charge of terrorism was made because CEOs are Very Important People Representing the American Way of Life and if you shoot one you are a terrorist attacking America.

I think this expresses very well how people feel.

I don't agree with it but its important to what is going on.