United Healthcare CEO Assassinated

Shaquilleoatmeal said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because the mofo had a manifesto/diary.

I'm that diary it said he wanted to send a message.

I don't think you're serious or you're not well informed on what happened here.

This is all known to people actually following the case.

For the love of god stop being so dense
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Get2choppaaa said:
Because the motherfucker had a manifesto/diary.

I'm that diary it said he wanted to send a message.

I don't think you're serious or you're not well informed on what happened here.

This is all known to people actually following the case.

For the love of god stop being so dense
Click to expand...
I just googled it and there was an article that he wanted to send a message released months later.

Would have been nice to mentioned that before. But nevertheless that doesn’t answer the question, would shooting a fast food chain CEO be terrorism?

Edit: there was tampering with evidence
 
Last edited:
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
I just googled it and there was an article that he wanted to send a message released months later.

Would have been nice to mentioned that before. But nevertheless that doesn’t answer the question, would shooting a fast food chain CEO be terrorism?

Edit: there was tampering with evidence
Click to expand...
Why do I have to mention everything for you?

As I said, folks following the case know this is the facts.

As far as tampering goes, the thing is that he was surrounded and coerced into surrender and admitted a bunch of stuff.

The signal from the noise is that his legal team doesn't want the information and diary releas eed to the public record .... Which tells you of its veracity.

If you'd like to genuinely know more see the Robert Barnes viva Frei Podcast on this last Sunday which discussed in detail the nuance.

And to your second question.

If you shot a fast food chain CEO because you were trying to say that corporate French fries were bad and trying to draw attention to it then YES it obviously would.

Again. Not. Sure. Why. This. Does. Not. Compute?
 
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
I just googled it and there was an article that he wanted to send a message released months later.

Would have been nice to mentioned that before. But nevertheless that doesn’t answer the question, would shooting a fast food chain CEO be terrorism?

Edit: there was tampering with evidence
Click to expand...
What if someone assassinated the CEO of a laundromat chain because one of the stores messed up his Dockers, but later the police found a manifesto revealing that the murder was really a message to China, because too many of their spies control the fate of our nicest clothes? Is that terrorism?
 
The Penitent Man said:
What if someone assassinated the CEO of a laundromat chain because one of the stores messed up his Dockers, but later the police found a manifesto revealing that the murder was really a message to China, because too many of their spies control the fate of our nicest clothes? Is that terrorism?
Click to expand...
And would the media be complicit in the crime for broadcasting it over the television?
 
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
Well built into this is motive. Earlier you claimed shooting a CEO was terrorism, I believe motive matters.
Click to expand...
Ok dude. Either I'm not communicating in a way you understand, or you're not sufficiently familiar with all the nuances of the case here.

Shooting a CEO for the purpose of drawing attention with the intent of coercing a change is a terrorist act.

That's what I was saying.

His motive was to call attention to cause change.

That's terrorism.

This is my last post on the matter and I've only commented because you tagged me for discourse.
 
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
And you failed to mentioned his manifesto earlier.

Furthermore, making an “example” out of him implies treating him different in comparison to most murders.
Click to expand...
Why did I have to mention this as though you're incapable of researching things you're pontificating on?

Again you're ignorant of things youre posting about trying to get some sort of psuedo- intellectual victory while not knowing about the thing youre talking about.

I'd not take much umbrage about that if it weren't for the way the posts read.

Repeated assertions. Lack of knowledge on the subject matter, followed by repeated assertions.

The base case should be: All people who commit premeditated murder should face the same penalty.

But in the case of someone who murders another person for a terroristic agenda, we should note their death publicly as well as retribution.

I'm sure you're not familiar with criminal justice theories but there are 2 models of criminal justice....they're the : The rehabilitative vs the retributive models.

Im more aligned with the retributive model as being more effective.

If you're trying to find some sort of "gotcha" in my ideological assertion... Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Get2choppaaa said:
The base case should be: All people who commit premeditated murder should face the same penalty.

But in the case of someone who murders another person for a terroristic agenda, we should note their death publicly as well as retribution.
Click to expand...
No, that’s being a f*cking simp for the government. Absolutely f*cking disgusting and pathetic.

Believing terrorism is “extra bad” is just that, a weak b*tch move.

And you never answered the questions about abortion earlier, you weaseled out of it, but I’ll repeat it again. If abortion is murder, does that mean abortion is worse than or at least equal all crimes?
 
Last edited:
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
No, that’s being a f*cking simp for the government. Absolutely f*cking disgusting and pathetic.

Believing terrorism is “extra bad” is just that, a weak b*tch move.

And you never answered the questions about abortion earlier, you weaseled out of it, but I’ll repeat it again. If abortion is murder, does that mean abortion is worse than or at least equal all crimes?
Click to expand...
Ok guy. You can call if simping for the government because your brain doesn't comprehend criminal justice concepts I've outlined for you. If having a fundamental belief that an act of violence which is intended to cause a coerced effect to manifest a societal/political or economic change is indeed terrorism, (which definitionally it is);makes me a simp....I guess I'm a huge simp.

You might check yourself on calling others simps when in your own prideful ignorance you weren't even aware of all the facts around the case regarding manifestos. I've tried to explain multiple points here to include criminology concepts and legal definitions concepts which you are not receptive to. However if you wish to continue to beclown yourself.... Have at it.

Abortion is the worst thing a woman can do. It's killing a child that is totally innocent. In my belief system we don't have a hierarchy of murder of an adult being more of less of a sin than murder of a child. They are both murder. I find one to be more reprehensible than the other... But they are both murder.

Regardless, the hypothetical question you pose is a non sequitur to the Luigi thing.... if you were really on solid ground on your argument you would be able to make more full complete points instead of trying to divert the topic to a different comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top