United Healthcare CEO Assassinated
- Thread starter The Penitent Man
- Start date
I just found this, it went under the radar.
www.bbc.com
Notice how it was the week after Charlie Kirk was assassinated? It seems to have been brushed under the rug. I’m fine with charging him for murder of the UHC CEO, but terrorism is stupid.
Judge dismisses terrorism charges against Luigi Mangione - BBC News
Judge Gregory Carro also ruled a second-degree murder charge against Mangione could stand during a hearing on Tuesday.
www.bbc.com
Notice how it was the week after Charlie Kirk was assassinated? It seems to have been brushed under the rug. I’m fine with charging him for murder of the UHC CEO, but terrorism is stupid.
Agreed. They throw the word terrorism around a lot, but I can't see that this was terrorism.I just found this, it went under the radar.
Judge dismisses terrorism charges against Luigi Mangione - BBC News
Judge Gregory Carro also ruled a second-degree murder charge against Mangione could stand during a hearing on Tuesday.
Notice how it was the week after Charlie Kirk was assassinated? It seems to have been brushed under the rug. I’m fine with charging him for murder of the UHC CEO, but terrorism is stupid.
So it’s been a year since Luigi Mangione committed his crime, and I had a thought.
People will claim political violence is worse than regular violence, because of the message it sends. So the violence is “more evil” because it creates fear in others.
But think about abortion, how come that is legal but not murder of born people? The reason is because everyone who is born knows that abortion won’t kill them, so it poses no risk and fear. Meanwhile if killing born people was legal, people would fear being killed.
So if someone is pro-life, it’s hypocritical to claim abortion is murder and “just as bad” as killing normal people, but then condemn ideological violence like terrorism or hate crimes as worse forms of violence.
People will claim political violence is worse than regular violence, because of the message it sends. So the violence is “more evil” because it creates fear in others.
But think about abortion, how come that is legal but not murder of born people? The reason is because everyone who is born knows that abortion won’t kill them, so it poses no risk and fear. Meanwhile if killing born people was legal, people would fear being killed.
So if someone is pro-life, it’s hypocritical to claim abortion is murder and “just as bad” as killing normal people, but then condemn ideological violence like terrorism or hate crimes as worse forms of violence.
The only “people” who claim this are in politics. The rest of us rubes have been witness to the violence the political class has brought upon us, and we’re aware of the message being sent.
When this at his attack happened, there was a national manhunt for the attacker.
Who made this decision? I was around people and mentioned this and someone mentioned he was a CEO, which in response I said “so” and the person didn’t respond. Is there some law which states when a CEO is murdered more resources should be used to hunt down his killer?
@Get2choppaaa
Yes, a private law, aka privilege.
That’s not what a law is.
Why are you tagging me? Did I miss something?
Because earlier in this thread you were defending the terrorism charges.
Well he did it in a terroristic way so I'm not sure why you're hot and bothered by me pointing that out.
So now shooting someone is “terroristic”? That makes no sense.
Don’t make this sexual bleh.
He targeted the CEO to make a political statement. That's an act of terrorism intended to involve a response.So now shooting someone is “terroristic”? That makes no sense.
Don’t make this sexual bleh.
How do we know it was intended to make a political statement and wasn’t just out of spite?
Because the CEO personally denied his claim?
This is ludicrous.
It really doesn't matter. The net effect is the same.
Lock this motherfucker up and give him the firing squad.
It was out of spite then.
Intent matters.
Should women who have abortions get the firing squad?
It being out of spite doesn't negate the effect of terrorism.
Intent to kill him out of spite is irrespective of the classification of a terroist act.
Imagine a world where a " Both - And " possiblity exists.
Not sure why this isn't computing in your brain.
As far as the abortion thing... Sure.
Except it is. The intent matters
Having an effect of a public response doesn’t make it terrorism.
Good, it would be nice if pastors treated abortion with the same severity as other wrongdoings.
If someone shoots the CEO of a company, or the president of a bank, or the head of an organization it's an act of political violence to make a statement.
Murder intended to intimidate or create a social or political or governmental effect is text book terrorism.
That's what happened.
Yes it does if the intent was to coerce others into recognizing a cause.
Again. Not sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend.
Well generally the church teaches abortion bad but there are opportunities for forgiveness and grace and repentance.
Anyway. I'm not sure we are going to get any further on this conversation.
You're adamantly trying to make a point which I'm not really that interested in debating not do I frankly care.
The guy murders a dude who worked his way up in a company all because he was fucked up. He should have the book thrown at him and made an example of just like how he tried to make an example of the victim of his murder.
So shooting the CEO of a fast food chain would be political violence?
We don’t know his intent.
I repeat: we don’t know his intent.
Would the church teach that for all crimes? We agree murder is the worst of all crimes, right?
“He tried to make an example of the victim of his murder”
How do you know this?