Two 26-Year-Olds: One Killed a Homeless Man, Another is Suspected of Killing a Healthcare CEO
Two 26-Year-Olds: One Killed a Homeless Man, Another is Suspected of Killing a Healthcare CEO
Daniel Penny is free after killing a man victim to the system. What of Luigi Mangione, who is suspected of killing a man symbolic of it?
You're viewing a single thread.
This is not a juxtaposition at all. Terrible ethics aside, the CEO operated more or less totally in compliance with USA law. Being a fucking scumbag is not illegal -- indeed, our country sadly runs on this principle.
The fellow in the subway was acting to a DIRECT threat, and it's pretty easy to draw a line from that guy flipping out to someone being threatened/hurt/killed in the subway. He was already culpable of disorderly conduct or worse, and it's pretty clear that it wasn't Penny's intent to fatally injure him.
The juxtaposition some people feel is because the CEO is acting against their moral framework, but he's operating in a legal framework. This is why our country is fucking sick, but it is is what it is at this point.
but he's operating in a legal framework.
That defence is flimsy AF .
The US did a whole thing in Germany saying following the law was a bullshit excuse , they've literally set the precedent for assholes following the law being killed when they're guilty of mass murder.
Since our courts care about case law and not about moral frameworks, I think you'll see that defense being used quite successfully.
To be fair, our government then hired any Nazi they thought was smart enough to be useful.
"Terrible ethics aside"
Did the CEO do anything unlawful? If so, let's talk about it. Otherwise, how can you blame him? He's performing in a way that is sanctioned by US law. Think it's horrible? So do I! Until the laws change, you're going to see more of the same.
how can you blame him?
Very, very easily. Is this bait?
No, it's not bait. There are loads of people in the USA without a conscience that will take money, even if it results in innocents dying. By not making this implicitly illegal, our government allows (and some would say condones it). The CEO is simply acting within the legal framework that our government offers. You can say it's unethical, but it's not illogical. It's made possible by our laws being disjoint towards morality and being slanted towards profitability, even at the cost of human lives. It's disgusting.
Did the CEO do anything unlawful?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
Everything they did was legal and yet the US decded that legal was a bullshit excuse in the face of mass murder...here we are, history rhyming.
OK, so when a new government comes in and sweeps away our current federal laws, then CEOs heads will roll. Since that's not likely to happen, I don't see how that's relevant here.
If you are loosing an argument just mention the Nazis.
Don't let your arguments loose. An argument needs to be tightly held, corralled, and directed narrowly, right at the crack in the opponent.
If the Nazis are relevant in the discussion because they acted the same, sure.
Calling someone Nazi just because it's not, but this isn't the case
Their the ones making the laws man. Stop trying so hard to defend them and concern yourself with all the people struggling under his umbrella. If they made murder legal would you start killing people too? Draw a better line.
Their the ones making the laws man. Stop trying so hard to defend them and concern yourself with all the people struggling under his umbrella. If they made murder legal would you start killing people too? Draw a better line.
I'm not defending them. I'm just acknowledging how horrible our current system is and how unlikely it is to change. I have my own moral code and would not be comfortable taking $ as I deny terminally ill cancer patient medication that my company could easily pay for.
By the way, if the government made murder legal, I would not be a killer, but there are plenty of people that would. If we really wanted to solve the health care problem, we'd make for-profit health illegal. Since it's highly profitable to companies and those same companies spend a lot of money lobbying to keep this legal, you ain't gonna see this get fixed any time soon. I want to understand the system as well as I can so I may operate within it. That doesn't mean I agree or sanction what is happening. It's fucking horrible and as a supposed first-world country we should all be outraged. Two weeks from now that shooter will be out of the headlines and nothing will have changed.
I agree with what you are saying and it is a shame what greed is and has done to our society.
This was something I got wrong when I was younger. I didn't understand that there were sociopaths around. I'd have seen making laws to prevent, say, "exploiting people with cancer" wouldn't be needed. Now that I'm a bit older and wiser, I realize we need laws like that more than ever, because if such an opportunity exists in the USA (and it does) there will be a long line of people that take those jobs and sleep very well. They have little/no conscience. As long as they get theirs, fuck 'em.
There's a quote from the Roman days: "A civilization becomes great when men plant trees of which the shade they will never sit under". Meanwhile in present-day America I have heard this: "Who cares about global warming? I'll be dead!" Shameful.
He was being sued for insider trading for dumping his stock before an investigation went public and lowered its value. So technically, he probably was a criminal. But this is all very much beside the point.
Sorry, insider trading aside, I meant you cannot blame him for performing his function as CEO. His job is to coordinate more revenue from denying people medical treatments. You cannot blame him for performing that function would be my reasoning. The insider trading is orthogonal to the problems with the medical industry, although one could make an argument that if you offer a job that only sociopaths will take, they are likely to do other sociopathic behaviors while they are in charge, which is a danger to society as a whole.
I don't know why you think people cannot be blamed for the role they choose to have in society. That's very weird. And if that's not the point you're trying to make I'm not sure what it is.
I was answering the question you asked, which was about whether or not he had committed any crimes. And like I said it's beside the point, which you seem to agree with.
I don’t know why you think people cannot be blamed for the role they choose to have in society. That’s very weird. And if that’s not the point you’re trying to make I’m not sure what it is.
Our society specifically allows (and maybe even facilitates) public health insurance companies that can deny terminally ill people the care they need. If someone chooses to step into that job, I can't blame them from a legal standpoint. I can blame them from a moral one, but the laws of morality do not guide our country, sadly.
I don't think we disagree about that at all. It's just a weird point to be making. I haven't seen anybody try to say that what he was doing in his capacity as CEO was illegal.
Yes, we can and do blame him. If the law doesnt work, shooting him in the back seemed to resolve the issue.
I'm not unhappy with the outcome but using a pistol is not my favorite remedy. I WISH our legal system was more closely aligned with moral guidelines like: "profiting off sick people shouldn't be allowed" or "increasing value for the shareholders is not more important than cancer treatment", yet here we are.
Although I'd prefer a legal solution (like revising our laws), I'm not going to be holding my breath. I also reject the claim that this shooter is the first of many, as I don't see this becoming a huge pattern. If I was an unethical health insurance CEO, I'd be sleeping fine now.
(edit: forgot the 'not' in the cancer treatment quote)
I don't like him, but I don't blame him. The insurance company dangled out a high-paying job doing something he found morally acceptable, and he took the job. What's the logical issue there?
It is what it is
And it's gonna stay that way, with that attitude
I'm honest enough to say I'm not going to change the world. If you are, more power to you. I'm looking at the history of greed in our country and projecting forward. It may not be a happy projection, but it is one.
The realism is fine, but the pessimism just seems pointlessly demoralising for anyone who is capable of acting.
Oh wow, disorderly conduct huh? Famously straight to the execution chamber that? We have a criminal charge for "oops I didn't mean to kill him". You don't get to attack someone and then just say oopsie daisy.
You don’t get to attack someone and then just say oopsie daisy.
... and he didn't. He had to go to court to defend his actions.
How was being upset in public a direct threat?
About six years later, he boarded a subway under Manhattan on May 1, 2023, hurled his jacket onto the floor, and declared that he was hungry and thirsty and didn’t care if he died or went to jail, witnesses said. Some told 911 operators that he tried to attack people or indicated he’d harm riders, and several testified that they were nervous or outright feared for their lives.
He wasn't just upset... he was threatening people.
What's your source? That is not in op according to Ctrl+F
Apologies, this was from separate coverage:
Neely was unarmed, with nothing but a muffin in his pocket, and didn’t touch any passengers on the train. Multiple riders testified that he didn’t even approach anybody.
This makes it sound like the "threat" was flimsy at best. The next line indicates the mother of a 5 year old shielded their kid from him but...like that's just a mom move. Shed probably also shield the kid from a homeless guy shitting on the BART.
You're right. But it does not force someone to be a scumbag that takes advantage of less privileged people.
It is a choice.
100% and it's a sad fact this country (and others) contain people for which that is a very easy choice.
Don't forget that one case has already reached its conclusion while the second hasn't even begun trial.
There's still a lot than can happen that might prevent a guilty verdict.
Hoo boy. There was plenty of video footage of the accused. He had the motive. When he was caught, he still had evidence on him. He had the means, the motive and the opportunity. By all means, he should be afforded a full and fair trial. However, if his lawyer is able to get the case thrown out or dismissed somehow, it'll be a legal miracle. I honestly have no clue what his defense will be. So far it seems to be "the cops planted the evidence" which I do not think will buy him the sympathy of a jury.
I believe that CEO was a fucking scumbag, but I'd also be inclined to pass a guilty verdict (assuming his defense attorney fails to change my mind). As much as I hate what that health insurance company did, I also would hate to live in a country where vigilante justice is meted out. I would have preferred the shooter pursue health care reform in a more democratic way, as I believe that is the civilized way to enact change. I can simultaneously sympathize with the shooter and condemn him.
Certainly does look a lot like first degree murder at first sight but from what I've seen even the whole story about the circumstance of his apprehension seems rather odd.
Also (and yes I know it's a long shot but still), the jury could simply refuse to indict him because they hate the victim far more than the crime.
Also (and yes I know it’s a long shot but still), the jury could simply refuse to indict him because they hate the victim far more than the crime.
This'll be on the prosecution to try to impanel people that will follow the law instead of their hearts. The target aside, I think most people will rule harshly on murder, especially someone shot in the back.
It's certainly rare, but it wouldn't be the first time.