Bullets used to kill UnitedHealthcare CEO had words written on them, law enforcement official says
Bullets used to kill UnitedHealthcare CEO had words written on them, law enforcement official says
Brian Thompson, 50, was killed in a “premeditated, preplanned targeted attack,” police said.
Summary
Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in a premeditated attack outside the New York Hilton Midtown before speaking at an investor conference.
The gunman, still at large, fired multiple times, leaving shell casings marked with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.”
Authorities suggest Thompson was targeted but remain unclear on the motive. His wife confirmed prior threats against him.
Analysts speculate a possible vendetta tied to his company. The case raises questions about executive security, as Thompson lacked personal protection despite known risks.
You're viewing part of a thread.
All of this makes sense but none of it will change the mind of the person who shot the guy recently or the next one, or the number of such people the system creates. I'm merely pointing out that the system creates these people and they will kill others. The person who killed the CEO recently was already beyond the reasoning you're suggesting. There's no point considering these rational reasons when we have proof some folks don't stop because of them. Instead I think it's useful to look at what conditions got a person to disregard them. If we want to make a prediction we could observe how those conditions are likely to develop. I think that part is obvious. So I conclude the system will create more such people. If they get numerous enough, I speculate they might start organizing into groups too.
It will take just a bit more pressure for people to also walk in squads. There’s plenty of guns to go around.
Read some history. The Minute Men thought they could stop the British. It didn't work. The Redcoats were stopped by a British style army and the entire French navy.
Also, you can't talk about squads and lone gunmen at the same time
`
It's like you are having a different conversation from the other person.
Them, repeatedly: These conditions will create people desperate enough to take measures into their own hands, like we've just seen.
You: Well it won't work. And I'm going to provide a logical example of where similar things have failed.
Them: I'm saying these are the conditions that create the sorts of acts we've just seen. People are or are becoming desperate enough that the possible futility of their actions won't be a factor.
You: Well those acts will fail. Ever hear about....
People who are desperate enough to take these actions aren't weighing their decisions against historical record, or against any concern for any rational assessment of success. The point is that we've reached the point where people are desperate enough to take these actions, and the level of desperation being felt at large is unlikely to decrease during the next four years at least.
Here's the main reason I worry about people taking direct action.
Blackwater et al.
If you think that companies run and staffed by ex-CIA operatives don't have a plan to capitalize on civil unrest, you haven't been paying attention.
My dude, my point is you are arguing against a viewpoint that has not been expressed.
Here’s the main reason I worry about people taking direct action.
So, this isn't a thread about direct action?
Because gunning someone down seems pretty direct to me.
Sure it is, but I feel you are ignoring the context of the branch of it you have chosen to participate in, as I've already attempted to illustrate.
Having said that, if you don't get my point, nothing I say now is likely to make a difference...
Sure it is, but I feel you
So, this whole thing has been about your feelings?
Whatever.