What we know about CEO shooting suspect

2024-12-0921:176792076www.bbc.com

Police said they arrested a 26-year-old on firearms charges in connection to the New York killing.

NYPD A photo of a man smiling NYPD

Police have named a "strong person of interest" in the slaying of the chief executive of United Healthcare in New York City following a nearly week-long manhunt.

Police said on Monday that they arrested Luigi Mangione, 26, on firearms charges after he was recognised by an employee at a McDonald's restaurant in Altoona, Pennsylvania, according to New York officials.

He was carrying a weapon and "multiple fraudulent IDs", including a New Jersey ID that matched the identity the suspect used to check into a New York City hostel before the shooting.

He also had a three-page handwritten manifesto that included grievances with the US healthcare system, a document that spoke to the suspect's "motivation and mindset", officials said.

What do we know about his background?

Mr Mangione was born and raised in Maryland and has ties to San Francisco, California, according to New York Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny.

He has no prior arrests in New York and his last previous address was in Honolulu, Hawaii, police said.

He attended a private, all-boys high school in Baltimore, Maryland, called the Gilman School, according to school officials. Mr Mangione was named as the valedictorian.

"This is deeply distressing news on top of an already awful situation. Our hearts go out to everyone affected," the school wrote in an email.

He is also a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, where he received a bachelor's and master's degree in computer science, according to the school, and founded a video game development club.

A friend who attended the university at the same time as Mr Mangione described him as a "super normal" and "smart person".

"I would never have expected this," the friend said.

Mr Mangione worked as a data engineer for TrueCar, a digital retailing website for new and used cars, according to his social media profiles. The BBC has contacted TrueCar for comment.

According to the LinkedIn profile, Mr Mangione previously worked as a programming intern for Fixarixis, a video game developer.

Mr Mangione comes from a prominent family in the Baltimore area whose businesses include a country club and nursing homes, according to local media. He is the cousin of Republican state lawmaker Nino Mangione, according to media reports.

How was he arrested?

Authorities planned to interview Mr Mangione while he is being held in Pennsylvania.

He was taken into custody at a McDonald's after an employee spotted him and alerted police.

Mr Mangione was in possession of a so-called ghost gun, a largely untraceable firearm that can be assembled at home using kits, that was likely manufactured on a 3D printer, according to police officials. He also had a suppressor.

Police said he was carrying several IDs, including one with his real identity and another that was fake. These IDs include a US passport and a fraudulent New Jersey ID that was used to check into the New York City hostel, where the suspect was spotted before the shooting

Police also say he was found with handwritten documents - also described as a "three-page manifesto". The documents showed that he seemed to have "ill will towards corporate America", officials said.

Police revealed that finding the 26-year-old was a complete surprise, and that they did not have his name on a list of suspects prior to today

What do his social media profiles tell us?

Social media profiles provide some possible clues about Mr Mangione's thinking. A person matching his name and photo had an account on Goodreads, a user-generated book review site, where he gave four stars to a text called Industrial Society and Its Future by Theodore Kaczynski – more popularly known as the Unabomber manifesto.

Starting in 1978, Kaczynski carried out a bombing campaign that killed three people and injured dozens of others, until he was arrested in 1996.

In his review, Mr Mangione wrote: "When all other forms of communication fail, violence is necessary to survive. You may not like his methods, but to see things from his perspective, it's not terrorism, it's war and revolution."

"Violence never solved anything' is a statement uttered by cowards and predators."

Police say a document written by Luigi Mangione include specific threats to other people, "but it does seem he has some ill will towards corporate America".


Read the original article

Comments

  • By xyst 2024-12-107:0521 reply

    A couple of theories:

    - person clearly had meticulously planned the execution of the hit and exfiltration. Even leaving red herrings on his way out of the city (backpack full of Monopoly money). Yet clumsily keeps _all_ of the evidence that would implicate himself in this murder. Not to mention he is wandering about in public while a multi-state manhunt is underway with the full weight of alphabet soup agencies, and state and local LEOs? To me, this suggests it was part of his plan to get caught. There was no escape to a non-extradition country. The “shaking” mentioned while talking with police could just be a massive surge of adrenaline as he sees his plan unfold before his eyes. Then use the live streamed and televised court to spread his message. Then live out the rest of his life as a political figure as the media continue to analyze this persons life and motivations. Just like Ted.

    - Or the internet, media really over-estimated this persons competence. It was really just dumb luck that he even escaped NYC. At that point, he was just improvising after leaving NYC. His arrogance to keep the evidence as some sick mementos or trophies ultimately did him in. Likely try to plead insanity with the manifesto. Probably fail to do so, then eventually get convicted on all charges and end up in a supermax penitentiary for life.

    • By nostrademons 2024-12-1014:435 reply

      This looks like a case of "suicide by revolution". Various media reports (including this one) suggest that he had a back injury in 2023, has not worked since 2023, started losing touch with friends in 2023, has been reading books about back injuries and chronic pain, etc. If you've ever known someone dealing with chronic pain, it can easily make you decide that you're better off dead than continuing to live. Likely he's been seeking medical treatment for his injury, his insurer is United Health, they've done nothing but "delay, deny, defend", he's already decided that he's better off dead, and he might as well take the CEO of the health insurer with him.

      • By ceejayoz 2024-12-1015:09

        When I heard about the Monopoly money I wondered if it matched up with the amount of a specific denied claim.

      • By y-c-o-m-b 2024-12-1019:253 reply

        > If you've ever known someone dealing with chronic pain, it can easily make you decide that you're better off dead than continuing to live

        I'll confirm it for you right now. For me it's not just the back, it's areas along the entire spine. I've had spinal cord compression on my thoracic spine since late 2017 and nobody will touch it. My lumbar spine has many herniations and "schmorl's nodes" (where it's chipping away at the actual vertebrae) in addition to clamping my nerve roots shut. I had emergency surgery in my neck in early 2018. Prior to the thoracic spine injury, I was in the best shape of my life; very muscular and healthy with a 6-pack like you see in Luigi's pictures.

        It's been an absolute miserable experience for the last 8 years. Being gaslighted by doctors before and after my surgery didn't help. Insurance tried to deny my emergency surgery at first despite the fact I lost all sensation from the neck down almost overnight. When you're dealing with trauma and the system works against you, very dark thoughts start to form. I'm not going to say I condone what Luigi did, but if you think people go through these events and don't think those thoughts on many occasions, you're so very wrong. There's a HUGE range of emotions that comes with it all. Suicide was definitely one of them for a long time as well. I have a wife and kids though and do not wish to burden them further by adding to the list of problems. They're the only things that's kept me going strong this whole time.

        • By nradov 2024-12-1019:501 reply

          I'm sorry you've gone through that and I hope your condition improves. While I don't know the specifics of your case, in general there aren't a lot of real solid evidence-based medicine guidelines for treating back pain or injuries. Ask 10 different physicians and you'll get 10 different treatment plans. Surgery has made many patients worse in the long run. Obviously there are some traumatic injuries where emergency surgery is medically necessary, but for most patients the standard of care should be physical therapy first with surgery being a high-risk last resort.

          https://peterattiamd.com/stuartmcgill/

          • By y-c-o-m-b 2024-12-1022:321 reply

            You can't get approved for surgery without PT in many cases anyway, so by default, most people will have to undergo PT regardless. In a lot of cases, you still can't get surgery; insurance will request pain management via injections and stuff before approving surgery. In my case, I had to go through 6 weeks of PT, then insurance asked me to do another 6 weeks after the first 6 failed to produce benefits. PT accelerated my decline because they didn't understand the mechanics in my case, so it's not always beneficial either. Also some of those conservative treatments (injections) are still being denied by insurance. My dad recently went to get another series of injections and was denied because they didn't think it would be medically beneficial despite the fact that he improved significantly from the first set and it lasted over 6 months.

            • By nradov 2024-12-1023:10

              Unfortunately there's a huge variance in PT quality and skill levels, so just because 6 weeks of PT doesn't produce results doesn't necessarily mean that a different approach to PT wouldn't be better than surgery. Seriously, have you tried visiting a McGill Method Master Clinician? I would certainly try that before letting a surgeon cut on me. Watch the video I linked above and see if it might be relevant.

              What sort of injections are you referring to? Corticosteroid injections can sometimes be helpful in the short term but clinical practice guidelines discourage prolonged use due to the risk of bone damage and other severe side effects. So insurers aren't necessarily wrong to deny payment for those.

        • By MichaelRo 2024-12-1020:512 reply

          Spinal problems are definitely on the list why seemingly "not terminally ill" people might want to take the option of euthanasia. Healthy imbeciles will scream with outrage "it's a sin, one must keep them alive at all costs" but that's because it's not them tortured 24/7 but other guy. And people are able to do monstrous things to other people without as much as loosing a night sleep.

          Overall, the options for severe chronic pain are: heavy painkillers, physical therapy, wait-and-see (hope they improve) and if not ... dignified exit.

          If they improve it takes years. And painkillers are ABSOLUTELY a must during that time but the innocent monsters (largely the rest of the population that is) will cry out "opioid addiction!!!", cut them off and sadistically (in their mind, gently) advise to get over it.

          I have no words how much I despise this world. It's all fine and dandy until you lose your health, afterwards you really see it for how it is.

          • By joquarky 2024-12-1021:261 reply

            "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

            As I get older, I understand this phrase more and more.

            • By vacuity 2024-12-1022:02

              I've learned that most people don't consider themselves to be "bad" or "malicious" overall. People will earnestly espouse opinions of arbitrary quality, with unknown justification and intent, and expect others to agree with them. They don't consider that they may be speaking out of severe lack of empathy or knowledge (Gell-Mann amnesia!). We're extremely limited and oftentimes we don't even recognize it.

          • By neycoda 2024-12-1023:51

            I mean, prison might help take care of his back problem more than a health insurance company would.

        • By seattle_spring 2024-12-112:12

          > I've had spinal cord compression on my thoracic spine since late 2017 and nobody will touch it

          Same here, except I’ve had it since ~2000 (mid-teenager). Anytime a suggested treatment makes it to insurance, they deny it because “it’s extremely uncommon for back problems of someone your age to be in the thoracic spine.” They’ll gladly pay for unnecessary surgeries on the lumbar, but refuse even many diagnostic attempts in the thoracic area.

      • By xyst 2024-12-1018:32

        I can understand the symbolism here between the backpack of game money then.

        I haven’t gotten all the details, but something like this makes sense. It was a personal vendetta from a person out of desperation/frustration.

        I guess as more details come out we will know

      • By cedws 2024-12-1015:316 reply

        But he’s not dead, he’s going to prison. Does he plan to commit suicide behind bars? He’ll probably be on tighter watch than Epstein - that’s what happens when you mess with the ruling class.

        • By ceejayoz 2024-12-1015:383 reply

          Life in prison is just a delayed death sentence.

          • By s1artibartfast 2024-12-1016:371 reply

            A "delayed death sentence" is awful if you if you have chronic pain and are seeking suicide by revolution.

            I dont think the two are equivalent

            • By ceejayoz 2024-12-1016:411 reply

              Death by suicide is entirely attainable in prison, if desired.

          • By ARandomerDude 2024-12-1016:092 reply

            Life outside prison is also a delayed death sentence.

            • By ceejayoz 2024-12-1016:19

              The difference between life-in-prison and a death sentence is pretty minimal, given the length of time it takes in the US to get through the death row process. Decades, typically. Many are never actually executed. In either case, you are expected to die in a jail cell after many, many years of incarceration.

              The difference between those two and a non-imprisoned life is... significant.

            • By tshaddox 2024-12-1017:401 reply

              But not as bad of a sentence, since you're not in prison.

          • By wutwutwat 2024-12-1021:32

            life anywhere is just a delayed death sentence...

        • By User23 2024-12-1015:376 reply

          I wouldn't be shocked if he walks. There is something crazy in the air and I could see a jury nullification happening here. It only takes one. Where are you going to find a jury where nobody on it has the same grudge for more or less the same reasons?

          • By nostrademons 2024-12-1015:481 reply

            Maybe, or the country collapses before he goes to trial.

            I'm reminded of the trial of John Brown. For those who aren't history buffs, John Brown led a raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, VA in October 1859, hoping to steal weapons to arm the slaves and fuel a slave revolt. He was caught and executed in December 1859. The country collapsed into civil war 17 months later, at Lincoln's inauguration. Historians wryly note that John Brown was executed for doing, on a small scale, the same thing that Lincoln did on a large scale 2 years later.

            • By giardini 2024-12-1017:351 reply

              nostrademons says >"Maybe, or the country collapses before he goes to trial."<

              which seems pretty far-fetched to me.

              But poster ablation earlier spoke of the:

              "toxic stew of stupidity and sub-4chan conspiracy theorising." on ZeroHedge."

              Is HN immune to what happened to Zerohedge? Some of the posts here are pretty speculative, to put it mildly.

          • By bityard 2024-12-1016:395 reply

            > Where are you going to find a jury where nobody on it has the same grudge for more or less the same reasons?

            Jurors are screened for bias, likely questions from the prosecutors will include, "Have you ever been denied a medical insurance claim?" Those who answer yes will definitely not make the jury. Lots of people can answer with a "no" quite truthfully, myself included.

            (Note also that I am not making a comment on whether or not I approve of how juries are selected, this is simply how it works.)

            • By dragonwriter 2024-12-1018:12

              > “Have you ever been denied a medical insurance claim?” Those who answer yes will definitely not make the jury.

              That’s not a sufficient basis for a dismissal for cause, most people who have ever had insurance would answer “Yes” to that question, and prosecutors don’t have an infinite number of peremptory challenges.

              So, they probably won’t dismiss on the basis of that answer alone, but do some followup if the answer is “Yes”.

            • By zippothrowaway 2024-12-1017:391 reply

              Counterpoint: I don't know anyone who could answer "no" truthfully. Maybe it's because I am in an older age group?

              You're right there are lots of people who can answer "no". However, it's also possible that such a cohort is not a true jury of peers, and remember that juries skew older.

              It's possible that screening everyone out who answers "yes" would not be allowed by the judge for this reason. Then, the prosecution would only have a small number of "no reason" exclusions.

            • By doubled112 2024-12-1019:521 reply

              A lot would say "yes" though. It doesn't have to be something major.

              My wife's eye exam was scheduled a day early. Denied, though I'm not that annoyed over $250.

            • By jjav 2024-12-112:15

              > Jurors are screened for bias, likely questions from the prosecutors will include, "Have you ever been denied a medical insurance claim?" Those who answer yes will definitely not make the jury.

              In the US, it will be very difficult to find people who can say no to that.

            • By capybaraStorm 2024-12-1018:411 reply

              The best question is "do you think wealthy CEOs disproportionately evade justice."

              One of the more sympathetic views towards the murderer is that there was no legal avenue to pursue the CEO for mass fraud under which the plaintiffs would get a fair shake. Vigilantism is more welcome by the public when it appears to be the only recourse.

          • By diggan 2024-12-1015:482 reply

            > I wouldn't be shocked if he walks.

            Just for curiosities sake, who did you think would win the latest US presidential election?

            I feel like many (most?) people on the internet are kind of disconnected from people's everyday life outside of the internet. I'm guessing that most of the average folks (people outside the internet zeitgeist) never even heard about this assassination, even less cares about the assassin going free if they did.

            • By ecshafer 2024-12-1015:571 reply

              I guessed correctly on the last 6 elections personally.

              I was at a party over the weekend. I asked a room of 30 people what they thought of the assassin and the overwhelming consensus was hero, they wouldn't say anything if they saw him, and if they were on the jury they would acquit. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a replay of OJ Simpson where one of the jurors gave OJ a power fist as he walked out for the verdict. It only takes 1 person to get onto the jury and acquit. Americans love a robin hood.

            • By sigmar 2024-12-1016:30

              >internet are kind of disconnected from people's everyday life outside of the internet.

              Are insurance companies more liked among internet users or less liked among internet users (than the population at large)? I presume that internet users tend to be wealthier (due to more free/leisure time, better browsing technology) and less angry with their insurance than non-users, but could be wrong.

          • By dragonwriter 2024-12-1018:111 reply

            > Where are you going to find a jury where nobody on it has the same grudge for more or less the same reasons?

            By having a filtering process before the jury is empanelled to identify that.

            • By coldtea 2024-12-1021:32

              Good luck with that...

          • By gosub100 2024-12-1016:162 reply

            They will ensure the selection of the absolute dumbest and most docile jurors possible to prevent this outcome.

            • By coldtea 2024-12-1021:33

              Doesn't the defense also get a say on the juror selection?

            • By Supermancho 2024-12-1019:19

              I was thinking suckers, but I guess it's the same thing.

          • By echoangle 2024-12-1017:521 reply

            > ... I could see a jury nullification happening here. It only takes one.

            Does a hung jury not just lead to a retrial?

            • By dragonwriter 2024-12-1018:09

              > Does a hung jury not just lead to a retrial?

              A hung jury leads to a mistrial. After a mistrial, the prosecution has the option of trying the case again, but it gets harder (you’ve got more time from the events, a more-tainted jury pool, etc.)

              Also, if there are multiple charges, and the jury reaches a not guilty verdict on any charges, that may impact the ability to refile other charges, or make it harder to try them if they can be refiled, because any fact that the jury necessarily rejected in an acquittal is finally decided by that acquittal.

        • By alsetmusic 2024-12-1016:54

          He could have planned to have a shootout and suicide-by-cop but that didn't happen. I was genuinely surprised that they took him alive.

        • By Libcat99 2024-12-1016:552 reply

          Where he'll get treatment on the taxpayer dime?

          • By LinuxBender 2024-12-1018:19

            For what it's worth there have been a number of cases of elderly patients holding up a bank for $1 and then sitting in the waiting area to be arrested with the stated goal to get medical treatment. I have no idea how many of them actually end up in jail or get the treatment they desired.

          • By coldtea 2024-12-1021:262 reply

            Oh, the precious taxpayer dime! Given to overspending public works, bureucracy, foreign wars, and other bullshit, as well as all kinds of private companies who sculp him!

            But god forbid it's also used to treat sick people! Or prisoners.

            • By Libcat99 2024-12-122:39

              Don't misunderstand me, I think it's fine he gets the treatment he needs to resolve his pain.

              It should have happened without death, is all.

            • By throwaway48476 2024-12-1023:03

              In this case it's the specific irony of not being able to afford healthcare unless separated from society.

        • By ConcernedCoder 2024-12-1015:471 reply

          my money's on him being "suicided" with the cameras off before a public trial can take place...

          • By Supermancho 2024-12-1019:20

            I dont think so, but it wouldn't surprise me.

        • By listless 2024-12-1016:402 reply

          That’s what happens when you commit a crime. It doesn’t matter who you kill or who you are when you do it. If the CEO had killed this guy in the same manner, he’d be facing the same consequences.

          • By Wytwwww 2024-12-1018:151 reply

            I'd be surprised if they NYPD and the FBI spent anything even remotely close to e.g. 10% of what they did in this cases to investigate any random average murder.

            If he just shot someone randomly in a poorer neighbourhood he likely would still be free.

            • By listless 2024-12-1020:23

              Your point is well made. If someone shoots you in a trailer park or the hood, nobody is launching a nationwide manhunt.

              I redact my previous comment but leave it for posterity.

          • By ceejayoz 2024-12-1016:58

            This is generally true for something like gunning down someone in the street.

            (Even then: being a cop or the President helps...)

            For almost all other crimes, no, probably not.

            Even for murder, it's not entirely true; https://nypost.com/2024/12/05/us-news/teen-killed-another-wo... happened on the same day, but certainly didn't see the level of police resources involved in finding the killer. Teams of cops with drones weren't searching large swathes of NYC for those perps.

      • By neycoda 2024-12-1023:49

        Honestly, if he were me, I may feel the same way.

    • By lm28469 2024-12-108:063 reply

      It wouldn't be the first time the police/three letters agencies lie about how they identified/located a suspect to not leak potentially illegal surveillance processes

        • By lazystar 2024-12-1015:20

          and its looking like they jumped the gun on brian kohberger. they keep delaying the trial; i would not be surprised if he goes free.

      • By __alexs 2024-12-109:013 reply

        Agree but doesn't explain why he would be carrying so much incriminating stuff around with him.

        • By CPLX 2024-12-1011:451 reply

          My theory is that he wasn’t done assassinating CEOs.

          It’s the obvious answer as to why he still had the gun on him.

        • By Cumpiler69 2024-12-1010:33

          Maybe because he wanted to get caught? Or at least expected it and knew there was no way he'd get away with it.

        • By throw_a_grenade 2024-12-1010:504 reply

          [flagged]

          • By lukan 2024-12-1011:023 reply

            "it's equally possible that he didn't have this stuff on him, but it was planted by the police themselves."

            That would mean, there is a 50% chance that in general all the evidence has a 50% chance of being fake. And this is likely a bit of a exxageration.

            • By benterix 2024-12-1011:35

              > there is a 50% chance that in general all the evidence has a 50% chance of being fake

              No, not all evidence - only the one needed for the Parallel Construction.

            • By DonnyV 2024-12-1016:451 reply

              Imagine believing that cops don't plant evidence. LOL

            • By dartos 2024-12-1012:071 reply

              Just because there are 2 possibilities doesn’t mean they’re both equally probable.

          • By Tiktaalik 2024-12-1016:57

            There's already been a suggestion from Luigi that the money was planted.

          • By wil421 2024-12-1011:082 reply

            Not it’s not. If they planted his back pack then surely his high profile pro bono lawyers are going to get him out of it.

            • By throw_a_grenade 2024-12-1014:272 reply

              How exactly do you propose to prove something (planting evidence) didn't happen?

              Maybe I have too low expectation about USA interface between law enforcement and judiciary, but here in Poland there were many high-profile cases of misconduct of public prosecutors that colluded with the police. The only "proven" cases were about purposefuly destroying evidence: breaking CDs that held incriminating recordings, wiping weapons to remove fingerprints, agreeing to single version of testimony etc. They used procedural quirks to prevent defence from challenging those "mishaps" (like in one high-profile case with broken CD, they argued defence-held copy cannot be submitted, because of continuous custody requirements). Cases with planted evidence were always he-said-she-said, because when police writes a search report where they said you had something, then you have no way to challenge that.

              May I add, fraud around those arrest/search reports (however they're called it English) is rampant. It starts with simple things, like notifying the subject about right to attorney. They just tick a box that you declined to summon attorney, and you have no way to challenge that, other than refusing to sign the paper, act of which carries no value.

            • By mkmk 2024-12-1013:202 reply

              Why would they be pro bono? He comes from a very wealthy family.

          • By LynchDems 2024-12-1011:05

            [dead]

      • By hnbad 2024-12-109:034 reply

        It seems far more likely to be a case of incompetence. Law enforcement actually has an extremely low rate of "solving" cases, especially if you exclude all the "solved" cases where the suspect is caught on scene or that end in a plea bargain (i.e. did not have to establish sufficient evidence in the first place).

        Ever since he got "caught" (if you can call someone literally telling the police where he is "the police catching him"), all I've been hearing about is how the police wants to use DNA evidence and bullet "fingerpints" (i.e. attempting to demonstrate that a bullet was not only fired from a given type of gun but a specific singular gun of that type) and other CSI woo to now tie the actual crime to him. They might actually be lucky and produce matches in this case as they have the actual suspect and murder weapon (assuming this wasn't an extremely unlikely 5D chess move of using a body double fall guy and/or different gun) but both of these types of evidence are extremely unreliable and rarely help actually finding the suspect even if they make for good television when they work. As I understand it the police even walked back on the mayor's initial claim about "having a name" to "having a list of names" - not to mention that you don't call in the FBI when you already have good leads yourself (if only for optics/political reasons).

        He seems to have been mentally unstable for a while before engaging in this killing and the fact he wrote a manifesto strongly suggests he had an intention of being caught or at least considered it highly likely. The monopoly money bag wasn't necessarily a "red herring" as everyone I heard talk about it interpreted it as intending to send a message, which seems to agree with the apparent contents of his manifesto (based on what news reports have cited from it). The water bottle the police now wants to use for DNA evidence may have been deliberately left there for this purpose, too.

        Based on what I've heard of his manifesto, he may have intended to kill other people too but have realized the difficulty involved given that his very public first killing likely spooked the other people on his list. I think it's more likely he didn't fully plan out an entire sequence of killings or didn't account for these complications and essentially gave up, settling on being caught sooner rather than later. People generally don't write manifestos when they don't also want to take credit for their actions.

        • By kiba 2024-12-1011:141 reply

          People can have contradictory motives. People in real life aren't driven by carefully considered system of beliefs. Only in fiction are people required to make sense.

          We just make enough sense to mostly get by in the world.

          • By hnbad 2024-12-1317:28

            Sure but people rarely write manifestos.

            That said, apparently his manifesto is fairly short and honestly sounds more like a confession than an actual political manifesto.

            My point is more that usually when you hear about a killer having a manifesto you expect a lenghty diatribe about what they think is wrong with society and why they think what they did helps fix it - whether it's early 20th century "propaganda of the deed" anarchists, late 20th century "fall of the West" primitivists or early 21st century "race war" white supremacists and "new crusade" Christian nationalists. Of course for e.g. Islamist terrorists you don't even need a manifesto because everyone knows the cliff notes version already (Western imperialism, Islamic caliphate, blasphemy, etc). Instead this guy seems to have largely been upset with privatized healthcare, which is a common sentiment but rarely enough to motivate someone to pull off such an elaborate stunt.

            That his manifesto is pretty rushed and incomplete does support the idea that he's more mentally unstable than genuinely "politically radicalized" though. The Christchurch shooter's manifesto for example was fairly incoherent and seemed more like an elaborate trolling attempt than a sophisticated political tract but clearly some effort went into it. Luigi's almost feels like a half-hearted homework assignment. I wouldn't be surprised if he quickly wrote it after the killing on a whim and didn't give it much thought before, which again would fit with my impression that he really focused on the first killing and didn't plan out much beyond that. As someone struggling with ADHD and autistic hyperfixation (not saying either of those apply to him), I can relate.

        • By lazide 2024-12-1010:352 reply

          They don’t even need to actually tie him to the killing to put him in jail for a long time - possession of an illegal suppressor is a slam dunk here, and that’s major jail time.

          • By InfiniteLoup 2024-12-1013:451 reply

            Would this also apply if he were no longer in possession of the suppressor? Keep the gun, but ditch the suppressor?

            • By lazide 2024-12-1014:18

              It wouldn’t help him with any of the rest of this mess, but possessing the illegal suppressor is an easy ‘we can keep him in jail until we figure out the rest of this’ situation.

          • By brokenmachine 2024-12-1023:01

            Was there a picture of the suppressor?

        • By michaelt 2024-12-1016:191 reply

          > all I've been hearing about is how the police wants to use DNA evidence and bullet "fingerpints" [...] and other CSI woo to now tie the actual crime to him

          I don't know about your country, but in my country if you look like the person shown on CCTV committing a crime, you're wearing the same jacket, you're carrying the same illegal gun, and you're carrying a handwritten manifesto justifying the crime?

          That's enough evidence for a normal jury of normal people to convict. The cops don't really need to add any DNA or CSI woo, juries are capable of exercising common sense.

          Only way there's reasonable doubt here is if the guy's carrying the first place trophy for the CEO shooter lookalike contest.

          • By hnbad 2024-12-129:38

            Yeah, that's why I'm pointing it out. It's like the police is trying to oversell their investigative work in the public image, which strongly suggests that they had very little hand in actually catching him and now try to compensate - whether it's because they really were tipped off by a McDonald's employee or because the FBI found him doing something fishier. But the fact he had everything on him strongly suggests that the McDonald's story is at least credible.

            It's pretty humiliating if you have a big militarized police force and can't catch a guy who killed a big important CEO in public and then went on wearing the murder suit in public until a random McDonald's guy calls you up and literally tells you where to find him, in public.

        • By liontwist 2024-12-1015:191 reply

          Remember all those movies that show the government tracking people on satellites and using phone echolocation, etc?

          Where is that shit now for a guy they have VIDEOS of?

          Remember when osama bin Laden was staying a relatives house and not in a secret underground cave network?

          This CSI/Navy seal messaging is compliance propaganda.

          • By hnbad 2024-12-1317:28

            Remember when hundreds of militants crossed the most secure border wall in any "Western" country ever both on foot, in vehicles and on paragliders and went on to massacre literally over a thousand people including hundreds of reservists before the second most overfunded military in the world was able to put a stop to them and stupidly ended up killing civvies and friendlies in the crossfire because it has a doctrine of preventing hostage taking at any cost?

            Remember when the US spy agencies prevented a credible terrorist plot by accidentally catching a guy in the Middle East carrying a thumb drive with terrorist plans on it?

            Surveillance exists to maintain control, it can't help establish it. Dragnet surveillance exists to reconstruct events, not to prevent them. And most importantly, it all exists to suppress, not to protect. It's about dominance, not security.

    • By lr1970 2024-12-1011:457 reply

      Neither of your theories answer the question -- how did he know that the CEO was staying in a hotel other than Hilton (conference venue) and would arrive by foot 1 hour and 15 minutes before conference opens at 8am (CEOs do not typically arrive so early in advance). The shooter was caught on camera talking on a burner phone 15 minutes before shooting. Who did he talk to? Was he acting alone or received some help? The shooter only had to wait for 15 minutes or so before his target arrives. Pure "luck" or help from inside?

      • By potato3732842 2024-12-1015:361 reply

        Find when CEO is going to speak at conference, work backward from there.

        Conference probably had a hotel block they were booking and a link to book so you know which hotel to camp.

        Not rocket science at all, just basic OSint

        Waiting 15min instead of 1hr 15min was probably luck though.

        • By lr1970 2024-12-1020:34

          > Conference probably had a hotel block they were booking and a link to book so you know which hotel to camp.

          In this case it was Hilton. And if the CEO stayed at Hilton he had no reason to be on the street outside the hotel where the killer was waiting for him. Somehow the shooter knew that the target is not staying at the Hilton and will be walking to the front entrance. BTW, the normal practice for high profile individuals to arrive in a car to a service entrance hidden from the public.

      • By jimbob45 2024-12-1011:553 reply

        This is my sticking point as well. The bullet messages only made sense for this specific guy and that’s a whole lot of work to engrave bullets, take a multi-state bus ride, camp out in a hostel, etc if you’re not 100% sure the guy is going to be there.

        I’d feel more confident if he’d staked the route out for multiple days or if there was a plausible backup plan like breaking in to the CEO’s hotel or the conference.

        • By brookst 2024-12-1012:531 reply

          Isn’t this just selection bias? If he had been wrong and not seen the CEO, we would never have heard about him.

          For all we know he made 15 attempts before this.

          • By notahacker 2024-12-1013:24

            Yep. Also, if you're trying to surprise someone at their arrival to an event, you absolutely do arrive super early to wait for them rather than try to guess their exact arrival time. If the target had arrived in mid morning after missing the opening speech instead, his killer would have waited. If the target had made a late decision not to attend, we'd have probably found out about the killer via the next event or next target

        • By ceejayoz 2024-12-1015:58

          > that’s a whole lot of work to engrave bullets

          They weren't engraved. It was just Sharpie. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-healthcare-ceo-brian-tho... "A source briefed on the investigation said each word was meticulously written, not etched, onto the casings in Sharpie."

          > 100% sure the guy is going to be there.

          One can be 100% sure the guy is gonna at least be at the conference, and humans tend to be predictable. He was also fairly likely to be at the venue the day before getting prepared.

        • By dev-ns8 2024-12-1016:26

          This is exactly what us hunters do year after year, time and time again. Drive for hours, hike for miles. Gathering what information we can. Then at some point we have to make assumptions and commit to some scenario in hopes it pans out the way you assume.

          A tremendous amount of time and effort is spent with it all riding on a few, hopefully, well placed assumptions. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Usually your acquaintances only hear about the times the hunt works out. Same with this. We only hear about it, because it worked out for the hunter

      • By ceejayoz 2024-12-1015:41

        > how did he know that the CEO was staying in a hotel other than Hilton

        Because someone paid that much money stays at a fancier place, like one of the Conrads or Waldorf Astorias. Hilton's a mid-level brand.

        Or, you follow him from the conference center the day before.

      • By JeremyNT 2024-12-1015:10

        There are plenty of plausible explanations, but it probably wouldn't have been a huge lift to get Thompson's itinerary from his secretary by spearfishing or some other form of social engineering.

      • By Symbiote 2024-12-1015:49

        > CEOs do not typically arrive so early in advance

        But they may well have arranged other, small meetings with people also attending the same annual meeting. It's then convenient to have them all in the same hotel.

      • By sizzle 2024-12-1013:491 reply

        Also I read it was a 3D printed gun and silencer which is hard to believe just printed it and never practiced or is he trained at shooting?

        • By sroussey 2024-12-1015:311 reply

          It does explain the malfunction though.

          • By chasd00 2024-12-1016:351 reply

            Yeah if a 3d printed silencer works at all it will only work once. It will be deformed by the heat and obstruct the bullet on the next shot.

            • By dole 2024-12-1017:361 reply

              No, it won't. It's possible to 3d print suppressors that withstand multiple shots, even mag dumps if they're made robustly enough.

              He needed a Neilsen device or piston in the suppressor to assist with cycling on the action, which he didn't have.

              He's not surprised that he has to rack the slide after every shot, he knows that it most likely will not cycle and he'll have to work it manually and he reaches immediately to do it.

              edit: i'll speculate and say the suppressor still worked after the shooting because he still had it on him. if it was melted or broken, he may have been more apt to toss it.

      • By Supermancho 2024-12-1019:22

        Was this the first time he tried it? Probably not.

    • By llm_nerd 2024-12-1012:243 reply

      >media really over-estimated this persons competence

      It is a bit of psychological blindness where we convince ourselves that random murders aren't as easy as they really are. The truth is that almost anyone -- including people with lots of security theater -- can be nullified by random people. This is quadruply true in the era of drones.

      • By mordymoop 2024-12-1015:031 reply

        We came within a literal inch of witnessing the assassination of a presidential candidate earlier this year, by a kid with no particular skills and an easily obtained rifle. We are lucky that people are mostly nonviolent.

      • By ethbr1 2024-12-1013:132 reply

        There's very little in America to stop a person who is willing to die (or spend life in prison) from killing others.

        Most normal people just have a healthy self preservation instinct, so aren't willing to accept those consequences.

        • By ANewFormation 2024-12-1014:071 reply

          It's not just America. Shinzo Abe was assassinated, with security and at a public event, by somebody using a homemade gun with homemade ammo.

          As tech advances over time, this will all only become even more true.

          • By hedora 2024-12-1014:253 reply

            Mass shootings in the US don’t even make the news any more. I don’t think that’s true in most countries:

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...

            547 so far this year. If we had equal justice for all in this country, this CEO shooting would have barely made local news, maybe.

            • By potato3732842 2024-12-1016:041 reply

              >547 so far this year. If we had equal justice for all in this country, this CEO shooting would have barely made local news, maybe.

              Don't lie at us with statistics like that. The bulk of those so called "mass shootings", normal crimes gone off the rails and other things that are nowhere near what people think when you use the words "mass shooting", which is almost certainly the slight of hand you're going for.

              2+ victims is a mass shooting per the FBI definition. While what you say and like you reference is technically true it's also a particularly evil way to mislead the reader to portray it as you did. The typical mass shooting on that list consists of 2-4 people shot over the course of an otherwise normal crime (usually a crime for profit gone off the rails or the drug industry DIYing dispute resolution) wheres the colloquial definition of "mass shooting" is more along the lines of a crazy suicidal person killing as many others as they can.

              Pretty much every mass shooting by the colloquial definition makes the national news. I am unaware of any one that has not.

            • By wat10000 2024-12-1014:291 reply

              The disparity is laid bare by the fact that this wasn’t even the only murder in lower Manhattan on that day. One gets a multi-state manhunt and the top spot on national news for days. The other got a shrug.

            • By seanw444 2024-12-1014:551 reply

              Only two of those sources exclude gang and organized crime-related shootings, which have made up a large portion of the statistic in the past.

        • By wat10000 2024-12-1014:272 reply

          Most normal people have a healthy aversion to killing. That’s what stops it, not fear of consequences.

          • By cal85 2024-12-1015:224 reply

            We all agree most normal people have an aversion to killing. You're saying that having an aversion to killing stops people killing, which is a tautology. And then you say it's not about consequences. What's your explanation then?

            It seems intuitive to me that the awareness of consequences plays a central role in preventing anger from turning into violence, every day, everywhere. Have you never seen a fight/argument on the street suddenly diffuse when a cop appears? Or eg, a guy drunk at a bar, starting to raise his voice in anger at someone, only to simmer down when he sees the bartender walking over because he doesn't want to be kicked out?

            Awareness of consequences is a necessary precondition for people to course-correct. That's an essential feature of people: we are able to notice when we're on course toward a bad outcome (whether that's harm to oneself, or harm to someone/something we care about, or any undesirable situation), and so take responsibility for our actions in advance so we can change course. Without that we'd be amoral creatures. This is what makes us moral beings – that we can take responsibility for the outcomes of our actions. This is a good thing. It's what makes us people, and it's the basis of having a civilisation that is mostly peaceful.

            • By wat10000 2024-12-1015:451 reply

              It’s not a tautology. The aversion to killing is an inherent psychological thing. Some things are just fundamental to a person’s psychology. Some people have such a strong aversion to spiders that they can’t go near one, even when they know for certain that it’s harmless and there would be no consequences. And psychologically healthy people have that sort of aversion to killing another person. It’s inherent programming.

              How often do fights end without police intervention? How many times do people get angry and decide not to escalate it to the point of murder even when they could get away with it? People do sometimes end up in situations where they could get away with killing. They rarely take advantage.

              You’re probably familiar with _The Lord of the Flies_. We need order and authority, otherwise we’ll descend into savagery, right? Except this scenario has actually happened, and in real life the boys worked together peacefully to survive until help came.

              When you mention “a bad outcome” you include harm to someone we care about. The vast majority of people consider a person’s death to be a bad outcome even if they don’t care about that person in particular.

              I think you’re conflating two very separate ideas here. There’s the idea of the natural consequences of an action, and then there’s the idea of consequences imposed by some authority. The original comment I replied to was talking entirely about the latter. Here you discuss both but you treat them the same. But someone who refrains from killing because they don’t like the consequence of someone being dead is very different from someone who refrains from killing because they don’t want to go to prison.

              There are really three different things here: 1) people don’t kill because of the legal or physical consequences to themselves 2) people don’t kill because they don’t like the outcome of a dead person 3) people don’t kill because they fundamentally don’t want to. There are examples of all 3. The vast majority of people aren’t in category 1. I think they’re almost all in 3, but there’s no practical difference between 2 and 3.

            • By GuB-42 2024-12-1018:13

              There is a difference between a bar fight and killing someone with intent. A bar fight is a fight for dominance, like you see in animals, the outcome is rarely fatal as the point is just to establish who is stronger and who should submit.

              We have an aversion to killing that goes further than the fear of consequences. It can be seen in the military, where soldiers naturally don't want to kill their enemies, even when they have incentives to do so. To be effective, soldiers have to be desensitized to killing through their training. Enemies are dehumanized, they train on human shaped targets, etc... And even with all that training, after a few years of active service, many start questioning their life choices. It is common for military pilots, who enlist for the love of flying, until they realize what they are really doing, i.e. killing people. When that happens, it is time to retire to a noncombatant job.

              Punishing crime is not useless, but I think saying that consequences are the cause of aversion for killing is backwards. We have a natural aversion for killing, especially when we are in a prosperous situation like we (the first world) are now in. And that's why we take murder so seriously.

              And speaking of murder, our natural aversion for killing shows when we see how we treat the death penalty nowadays. The death penalty is (generally) for the worst people humanity has to offer, their killing have been approved by the highest authority, and there is still opposition. We even have rituals to offload the responsibility of killing from the executioners. For example by having a random person in a firing squad fire a blank round.

            • By bumby 2024-12-1015:54

              >You're saying that having an aversion to killing stops people killing, which is a tautology. And then you say it's not about consequences. What's your explanation then?

              It's a fairly straightforward understanding. If I said I have an aversion to the taste of steak, would you require additional information to why I don't eat steak? Or, to put it in your terms, eating steak causes a negative internal state for me and doesn't require any external consequence to make me avoid it.

              >It seems intuitive to me that the awareness of consequences plays a central role in preventing anger from turning into violence

              There's a problem with relying on "intuitive" understandings in some cases, especially when there is contradictory evidence. I think the term for your stance is "deterrence theory/effect." In this case, I believe there are plenty of studies that show harsher consequences do not reduce crimes rates (or at least have marginal effects). People are not rational actors, especially in highly agitated emotional states.

            • By heyjamesknight 2024-12-1015:41

              One can have an aversion to the act itself without considering the consequences. People who have never gotten in a real fight before don't understand that its actually quite difficult to throw a full-strength punch at someone if you've never done so before. It's not the consequences that you're considering in that moment, but an aversion to the violence itself.

          • By DontchaKnowit 2024-12-1015:021 reply

            Eh honestly I think its both but probably suprising amounts of the latter

            • By wat10000 2024-12-1015:14

              People sometimes end up in situations where there would be no consequences, and killing rarely ensues.

      • By goatlover 2024-12-1015:582 reply

        How rulers like Putin survive so long though?

        • By clarionbell 2024-12-1016:22

          By making it appear, and actually, much harder. More surveillance, more body guards, stronger loyalty checks can get you a lot of security.

          And let's be honest. Who would take a bullet for this CEO of one of the most despised corporations in USA (that's saying something).

          I honestly think, that the general distaste for this particular industry, is why the law enforcement had such a hard time catching him.

        • By llm_nerd 2024-12-1021:09

          I did say almost. Putin is kind of the extreme example.

          If someone is willing to live like an absolute hermit in basically a police state, hiding behind layers and layers of security apparatus, engaging lookalikes and only allowing the loyalty-tested anywhere near him, survival odds improve quite a bit.

          But for anyone trying to live anything remotely approaching a normal life, or with any real freedom, your continued survival is completely due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in your world have a personal breaker against murder.

    • By lamontcg 2024-12-1017:281 reply

      > Or the internet, media really over-estimated this persons competence.

      definitely this one. there was a lot of projection of competency onto him, wanting him to be some kind of superhero assassin that would disappear. when in reality, he wasn't using that welrod pistol clone, and his gun was jamming with every shot.

      but also he was self-destructive and definitely wasn't trying hard enough to not get caught. and that comes with the territory because you're not going to be well-adjusted and decide to assassinate someone in broad daylight. and i would pick self-destructive over arrogant. and he may just have not realized how distinct his facial features were.

      • By dole 2024-12-1017:33

        He knew it was going to jam because he didn't have a proper device on his suppressor. He's not surprised that he has to rack the slide after every shot, he knows that it most likely will not cycle and he'll have to work it manually and he reaches immediately to do it.

    • By russellbeattie 2024-12-109:082 reply

      It never made sense to me why he was wandering around the city in the same exact clothes he used during the murder. If he had simply worn another jacket, he may never have been identified. How could he not have realized he'd be on camera or described by witnesses?

      Now he gets caught with all the incriminating evidence you could ask for? I'd say Occam's Razor points to your second theory: He's not playing some sort of 4D chess. He just decided to go kill this guy for some reason and went and did it. Dumb luck and a dense population easily explains how he was able to escape the city.

      • By dexterdog 2024-12-1012:312 reply

        That's the part that baffles me. Whenever something like this happens I re-engineer the planning as a mental exercise. I have never had any interest in offing anybody, but I never understand not having a plan and a basic disguise. The guy had IDs, but he also did nothing to hide his p[articular characteristics. If he had thinned his eyebrows and worn fake glasses and kept his mask on he'd likely still be at large. I would have ditched or reversed the jacket right away and thrown on a hat at the very least.

        • By 542354234235 2024-12-1015:51

          I think it is more informative to think of a time you planned a big trip, especially if things went really wrong on the trip or there was a significant problem. Looking back with hindsight, I can see how I may have failed to see and adapt to an issue before it got bigger or that I act irrationally because I’m stressed and I haven’t let go of a preconceived notion and accepted the new situation. I have wondered why I didn’t investigate something beforehand that now seems obvious and important. There have been cases where sheer dumb luck saved me or screwed me. Afterwards I could say I should have had a backup X or should have planned Y ahead of time, but I didn’t see or do those things.

          There are so many moving parts in a situation like this that it is impossible to think of everything, and the things you don’t think of will look obvious to people after the fact. The dumb luck situations that save you or screw you can be interpreted as inside knowledge. His bumbling actions afterward from the outside might seem like a “why wouldn’t he just do this instead” without thinking about how the mental toll, stress, and panic of being hunted by the whole country could degrade your judgement.

        • By bryan_w 2024-12-1019:30

          I think he might have expected private security guards to tackle him as soon as he did it.

      • By chasd00 2024-12-1013:131 reply

        My guess is he didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about his emotional state after pulling the trigger. He probably immediately regretted the decision and half heartedly followed some sort of escape plan.

        • By danudey 2024-12-1017:15

          Or he realized that he'd become a folk hero and wanted to try his chances in the court of public opinion, try to inspire others, etc.

    • By jjallen 2024-12-107:545 reply

      If you wanted to get caught then why not just stay at the crime scene or surrender a few days later?

      But maybe he knew it was inevitable so he spent his last few days living life normally.

      • By rob74 2024-12-108:331 reply

        I imagine a person who stays at the crime scene after shooting someone several times is in much higher danger of being shot himself than if he flees and is captured later.

        • By ithkuil 2024-12-108:44

          Another option is to flee and shortly after turn yourself in into a police station unarmed

      • By troyvit 2024-12-1015:59

        I don't know if it was intentional but he certainly drummed up the hype over the murder by staying free as long as he did.

      • By bbqfog 2024-12-1014:53

        He probably didn’t want to get caught until he saw millions of people were on his side, then he changed his mind. Smart move imho. He started a movement he probably didn’t anticipate.

      • By 4gotunameagain 2024-12-108:161 reply

        Maybe to create clout ? (assuming he really intended to get caught eventually)

        Reportedly he is smart, so he probably knows the value of a good mystery.

        • By mdanger007 2024-12-1010:451 reply

          We amateur criminologist assume intent in every clue. But Luigi, just like Roskalnikov, probably was a mixture of guilt, incompetence, and mental breakdown, as the reality of his situation and its hopelessness took over his thoughts.

          • By karmakurtisaani 2024-12-1013:22

            Anyone speculating too far should think how well they would sleep after shooting someone on the street and fleeing the biggest manhunt in recent history. Then ask themselves what kind of decisions they could make after 2 days of no sleep and immense stress.

            People watch too many movies.

    • By IncreasePosts 2024-12-1016:13

      If he wanted to get caught, he didn't need to wear a disguise all the way from Georgia or wherever he came from. He didn't need to use a fake ID. He didn't need to flee the scene - at least, flee outside the city.

      Why would he do all that if he wanted to get caught?

    • By likeabatterycar 2024-12-108:074 reply

      Educated people tend to overestimate their abilities outside their domain. We've all known someone with an "I can do anything" complex. Anyone can do anything... poorly. He likely deluded himself into believing he already outsmarted the cops so why even bother. Having two degrees doesn't make one a competent plumber, electrician, or in this case, criminal.

      • By Cumpiler69 2024-12-108:175 reply

        >Educated people tend to overestimate their abilities outside their domain.

        This. And HN is the perfect example to observe this phenomenon.

        I lost track how many highly confident but incorrect takes I read here on semiconductor topics from people who assumed they know everything about any tech topic because they earn sich figures from writing crud web software.

        • By smgit 2024-12-108:367 reply

          Go one step further. Why does that happen?

          • By lores 2024-12-1011:335 reply

            People on HN skew young, smart (in one domain), and tend to live in a bubble of similar people. If you know you're smart, the smart people you talk to validate your smartness (in one domain), society validates it some more by paying you massive amounts, and you're not experienced enough to know better, you're bound to overestimate your abilities and knowledge.

            It needn't be most, or even many on HN, and people of all kinds vastly overestimate their abilities. It's just that on HN it's overestimating with great ambition.

            (I say this very confidently, don't I?)

            • By beepbooptheory 2024-12-1016:35

              So funny to jump to the "they're just kids" explanation for this when we are literally talking on a forum hosted by a VC incubator.

              Is it not Occam's razor that people are like this because this world of startups, "cutting edge tech", "move fast and break things", etc. gives quite clear incentives to be like this? The entire of financial world of tech is quite significantly propped up by the inertia of unearned confidence!

            • By danudey 2024-12-1017:16

              > If you know you're smart, the smart people you talk to validate your smartness (in one domain), society validates it some more by paying you massive amounts, and you're not experienced enough to know better, you're bound to overestimate your abilities and knowledge.

              And then you become the richest man in the world and buy Twitter and show everyone that you're kind of just clueless outside of your area of expertise, but putting up with you is profitable enough that people just go with it.

            • By s1artibartfast 2024-12-1017:01

              Also, lets not discount the fact that people can have a lot of success stepping out of their core domain.

              People can do this repeatedly with positive feedback and increasing scope until eventually it doesn't work.

            • By ethbr1 2024-12-1013:161 reply

              You sound like an expert in psychology.

            • By abnry 2024-12-1015:001 reply

              See, you put the caveat at the bottom, but I think you are just having a normal discussion. You aren't speaking "very confidently," you are just making an argument.

              What I think happens is people who are very knowledgeable about a subject are hyper-sensitive to slightly incorrect information. And to boost their egos they like to diminish the people making the incorrect statements as not just incorrect, but confidently incorrect, a la Dunning Kruger.

              See how confidently I made the exaggerative statement above? I don't necessarily mean it to be completely true, but I am making an argument. I think an assessment of confidence requires more than seeing no mollifying qualifiers like "I think" or "it might be". There's no verbal tone on the web.

          • By hennell 2024-12-109:03

            Probably because people on the internet like to hear opinions on things like psychological and sociological factors from people who have simply stated an expertise in semiconductors...

          • By bmitc 2024-12-109:29

            Institutionalization of engineers and physicists thinking they are smarter than others.

          • By rkachowski 2024-12-109:571 reply

            overconfidence leads to participation which results in measurable statements and artefacts, under confidence does not. people are loud and (mostly) incorrect or silent.

            • By bumby 2024-12-1015:37

              But why would those "measurable statements and artefacts" lead one to believe they are competent? Presumably, wouldn't they also provide evidence of one's ignorance if they were evaluated objectively?

              (If it wasn't clear, I'm poking at the idea that we have numerous biases that prevent objective evaluation)

          • By nyarlathotep_ 2024-12-1020:251 reply

            My (unpopular) take--programmers have been 'gassed up' by a decade of overcompensation + title inflation.

            People think the high pay and the fancy titles* they're (often) given reflects their value or intellect*, even subconsciously, and they behave in such a manner.

            *Sorry, I don't consider web programming (which comprises a majority of modern software development) "engineering"

            *Many are some of the most intelligent people quite literally on Earth, or are otherwise exceptional.

            • By chasd00 2024-12-1022:22

              heh yeah i think we're coming up now on two generations of our brightest minds being spent on making us more isolated from each other and clicking on ads.

          • By artistic_regard 2024-12-1017:55

            [flagged]

          • By laidoffamazon 2024-12-109:032 reply

            Ivy Leaguers are trained, often from birth, that they are better than the rest of us plebs because of their “merit” and represent a superhuman caste. This guy was most likely the same way.

            If you’re told that you’re a superhuman, then why not think you can get away with it?

            • By hnbad 2024-12-109:132 reply

              Oh, it's not just Ivy League although of course that usually comes with a background of privilege and prestige that further compounds on this tendency. STEM people in general heavily demonstrate this tendency. MBA types too, although they tend to think the solution always comes down to treating everything as a business or privatization.

            • By nickserv 2024-12-1011:401 reply

              Intelligent people are not any less likely to be delusional than anyone. They are however, much better at convincing themselves and others of their delusions.

              People that have logic training such as lawyers and engineers even more so.

        • By drcongo 2024-12-1010:54

          I like coming here to remind myself how many things I know almost nothing about.

        • By computerthings 2024-12-110:48

          Or just take this story, where people who haven't even punched a CEO are making up detailed "theories" about the actions and motivations of someone who shot one dead.

          https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto

          Read his manifesto, then read this whole thread again. It's hilarious.

        • By amtc80 2024-12-1011:05

          Being educated isn't really representative of Hacker News. There are very clear dynamics here where being more knowledgeable makes the discussions irrelevant.

          There are generally two ways of doing hard things. Either you are knowledgeable enough to be aware of the challenges and work around, or overcome, them. Or you are unaware, or shameless, enough to do it anyway. The later is much easier than the former. (Then you also have those who believe they could do something but never does because they can't). (Also not entirely mutually exclusive).

          Sometimes this is a feature of education, but most of the time it is just a feature of ignorance. Being educated doesn't also prevent you from being ignorant. It is very much expected that most willing to do something hard are smart enough to do it, but not smart enough to do it well. Unless it's been made easier, but then it is no longer as hard.

          It is also perception. Knowing both software and hardware would make you a technologist, or when talking about hardware someone who knows hardware but also knows software. Not knowing hardware but talking about it would more likely make you perceived as someone who knows software. And going back to the beginning, it is easier to think you know software than to actually know it.

      • By laidoffamazon 2024-12-109:026 reply

        Looking at his tweets he looks like a perfect example of a smug “TPOT” postrationalist that identifies themselves as “gray tribe” and then mainlines figures like Bret and Eric Weinstein and has retrograde views.

        Thinking he’s smarter than the rest of us is most likely a big part of his identity.

        • By ifyoubuildit 2024-12-1013:322 reply

          I don't understand most of these terms, and I'm curious how much of that is me being a dummy, or just not consuming a generous amount of some very specific bubble's jargon.

          Edit: to clarify, when you go down the rabbit hole of certain bubbles, you come across terms that nobody will know unless they've gone down those same rabbit holes. Occasionally when you come up for air, you might find yourself using those terms as if they're broadly known.

        • By hnbad 2024-12-109:113 reply

          He's definitely fitting the cliché of "STEM graduate who thinks they have all the answers to social problems without reading any previous works on the subject". E.g. he thinks Japan's cultural problems are a bigger issue than its birth rate itself (correct) but thinks part of the solution involves banning conveyer belt sushi bars because they enforce social isolation by having machines instead of workers (incorrect). He clearly takes inspiration from the Unabomber Manifesto but seems to focus on the primitivism instead of trying to understand the underlying social dynamics and power structures (which you might expect if he were a "leftist" as many initially assumed).

          You can take a person out of his ivy league STEM background but you can't take the ivy league STEM background out of a person, or something.

          • By mschuster91 2024-12-1016:011 reply

            > but thinks part of the solution involves banning conveyer belt sushi bars because they enforce social isolation by having machines instead of workers (incorrect)

            Why are you thinking he's incorrect? I mean, a debate can be had if bans are the correct tool, but there is a massive trend in hospitality in general (both restaurants and lodging) to de-personalize the entire experience, to take the human service out of the loop and make it invisible where it still needs to take place:

            - hotel booking? no travel agents, no phone calls, anyone can just do that themselves with bookingdotcom and other aggregator service.

            - hotel on-site service? no check-in at the reception, you go to a terminal, enter your booking id, get a keycard and that's it. when you check out, you close the door, dispose of the key card, and you haven't seen or interacted with any human during the entirety of your stay.

            - food ordering? you sit alone at home, scroll through a list of restaurants that might not even exist ("ghost kitchens"), a computer orders a human to make the food, said anonymous person (and maybe some colleagues) makes your food, another anonymous person gets ordered by a computer to deliver it to your doorstep, and if you specify a non-contact delivery you didn't have to interact with a single human for anything. And I think it won't take long for the cooks to be replaced by machines as well, delivery robots are already a thing.

            - on site food eating: you don't order at a server any more, you order at a terminal, a tablet or even your own phone, the computer dispatches cooks and servers, some even don't have human servers any more but only robots or running-sushi-style conveyor belts, and in the end you pay at a machine.

            So yes, "running sushi" is definitely a good example how human to human interactions are outright eliminated from our lives.

            • By brailsafe 2024-12-1016:561 reply

              Fwiw, the conveyor belt sushi place I last went to did not feel any less personal than a typical restaurant, and did not seem to have fewer interactions with people than any place below a relatively fancy date spot

          • By Tiktaalik 2024-12-1017:05

            An Ivy League STEM background is not capable of educating him on the issues he's grappling with. Now an Ivy League Arts background might.

            Unfortunately there's just not enough time in the day to really dig into the issues he's grappling with when there's an overwelming course load of databases and physics etc.

          • By rjh29 2024-12-109:451 reply

            I hope he's not right about Japan because since covid I talk to even less people. Restaurants have automated not just ordering, but reservations and payment too now.

            • By lupusreal 2024-12-1010:262 reply

              Of course he's right. The influence of conveyor belt sushi specifically seems very dubious (isn't it just an unusual novelty?) but any social trend that has people meeting and talking to others less frequently will have people meeting potential partners less frequently. What is the advice always given to people looking for a partner? Go out and meet people. Meet as many people as you can to increase your odds. Any aspect of Japanese society that reinforces or facilitates social isolation has a share of the blame for their demographic problem.

        • By liontwist 2024-12-1015:001 reply

          > then mainlines figures like Bret and Eric Weinstein

          I’m sorry are these supposed to be extremists? These are status quo western liberals, secular humanists, and science enthusiasts.

          > retrograde

          Is this a derogatory term in the human progress narrative?

        • By brokenmachine 2024-12-1023:19

          This reads like word salad

        • By ralfd 2024-12-1011:581 reply

          TPOT?

          • By jazzyjackson 2024-12-1012:201 reply

            Yes, that part of Twitter, tpot.

            "many of those who participate were formerly part of the Rationalist and Effective Altruism movements. [...] What makes TPOT a "post-rational" community is an interest in topics that are not traditionally rationalist, such as spirituality, occultism and conspiracy theories."

            https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/tpot-postrat

            • By voidfunc 2024-12-1013:50

              Back in my day we just called these people crackpots.

        • By Melchizedek 2024-12-1011:195 reply

          This is supposed to be his ”manifesto”.

          https://x.com/SyeClops/status/1866353712148685002

          Doesn’t seem to me like he has a superiority complex. He is devastated by his mother’s illness and the actions of United Healthcare.

          • By andsoitis 2024-12-1013:17

            I don’t know that I would trust that to be his manifesto. The BBC article says it was handwritten.

            Why would someone post a typed version rather than a photo of the real thing (which they would need to have to be able to type it up)?

          • By computerthings 2024-12-110:59

            Here's the handwritten one that was found on him.

            https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto

          • By lkramer 2024-12-1013:36

            Wasn't his family incredibly wealthy? Wouldn't they be able to pay for healthcare out of pocket?

          • By dwallin 2024-12-1014:02

            All signs point to this being fake.

          • By greenie_beans 2024-12-1012:04

            i wouldn't be sharing stuff like that unless you know for sure

      • By torginus 2024-12-1010:40

        To be fair, if you are very smart / quite determined to pick up a skill / have a good mentor, you can get good enough in a lot of skills, that you can pass off your work as professional quality.

        I have seen this happen people do this with programming / CAD / 3D modeling / various crafts etc.

      • By potato3732842 2024-12-1016:35

        The reverse where people project insane complexity onto everything they don't understand is also true and common.

        You see this all the time where people on HN, Reddit, wherever, will act as though roughing in the plumbing and electrical for a home addition is comparable in complexity and fraught with similar nuances as doing all the process electrical and plumbing for an industrial facility when it very much not.

    • By jjfoooo4 2024-12-1015:51

      It seems implausible that he was competent enough to locate his target and escape the day of yet so incompetent as to hold onto the gun. I think he definitely wanted to get caught.

      I’m curious about what exactly prompted whoever called him in to become suspicious - was the profile released from photos good enough? Or was he acting suspiciously with his backpack?

    • By Mo3 2024-12-1010:04

      Plus, the release of all these unofficial pictures, and his capture being paraded by the media. They're trying to set an example.

    • By e-clinton 2024-12-1015:11

      I don’t think people are over-estimating his competence. He set himself a goal and achieved it… getting away with it simply wasn’t important so it wasn’t the thing he obsessed over.

    • By bena 2024-12-1014:00

      Although, if the evidence is damning and you don't want it found, keeping it on your person is not the worst idea. That way you know the only way they find any evidence is if they find you.

      Even if you try to destroy the evidence, evidence of you destroying the evidence works just as well for a lot of cases.

    • By bbqfog 2024-12-1014:52

      The most likely scenario is that he was planning on not getting caught, saw the massive amount of support he had, then decided to attach his name to his actions.

    • By guerrilla 2024-12-1012:47

      Well his manifesto seems to imply that he is sacraficing himself and expects to suffer but that he beleives its the honorable thing to do.

    • By dudeinhawaii 2024-12-1016:50

      Here's another option, combining the two.

      - The intelligent individual is also self-absorbed and believed that they would be able to continue to kill CEOs without getting caught. A narcissistic streak that allowed them to make no attempt at concealing their identity in public. They kept the weapon in order to move to a new target (or they 3D printed an identical if the reports of a 3D printed gun are correct). They believed they would either not get caught or that the public would not turn them in. They may have envisioned themselves the Ted of Healthcare.

    • By randyrand 2024-12-1022:53

      He was also probably watching the news.

      At some point you know you’ve already been caught.

    • By MisterTea 2024-12-1015:501 reply

      > Probably fail to do so, then eventually get convicted on all charges and end up in a supermax penitentiary for life.

      Where he will finally get decent health care for free.

      • By Sindisil 2024-12-1016:081 reply

        Decent health care? In prison? Are you serious?

        • By MisterTea 2024-12-1017:521 reply

          Re-calibrate your sarcasm detector.

          • By throwaway48476 2024-12-1023:28

            To be fair if you have the resources to continually sue the prison you can get a decent amount.

    • By FactKnower69 2024-12-107:531 reply

      [flagged]

      • By Cumpiler69 2024-12-107:561 reply

        What do you mean? How is that boomer speak?

        • By SuperNinKenDo 2024-12-107:59

          Cumpiler69 doubting FactKnower69 knowing his facts. What is the world coming to.

    • By wisty 2024-12-109:191 reply

      Disposing of evidence can sometimes be more incriminating than not.

      Let's say he shuts up and gets a lawyer. His lawyer can say that maybe the real gunman noticed he looked similar, then switched bags on a bus. It's weak, but it's something.

      If he tossed it in NYC, he leaves possible DNA at the scene. If he tosses it at home, the cops will likely find it and take his disposal as an admission of guilt.

      IANAL but while I guess it's not good to have your lawyer run the Shaggy defence ("it wasn't me!") if the police have made an effort in the investigation then there's a surprising chance they'll find the evidence anyway.

      At the very least that could be his rationale.

      He didn't know if they had a van watching his house, and if his bins were being collected by the police. He might have been too scared and paranoid to do anything.

      • By lazide 2024-12-1010:351 reply

        He could have stopped at any number of bridges along the way, filled the backpack with bricks, and tossed it into the river.

        • By prmoustache 2024-12-1010:40

          and could have been caught doing it.

          I can see someone planning meticulously the murder, the immediate fleeing thereafter but not the rest. If I remember images, he wasn't wearing gloves so he may have had to clean it before he planned to get rid of it. Plus he may have hit hiccups in the process that may have derailed part of his plans. The fact he had cash both in local and foreign money probably means he had planned to move out of the country but was kind of waiting for the dust to settle.

  • By breadwinner 2024-12-0921:5525 reply

    He was carrying all of the evidence with him, including the fake ID he used at the hostel, the gun & suppressor, mask, and even a handwritten manifesto that points to his motivation. It seems he wanted to be found.

    • By gwd 2024-12-109:486 reply

      > It seems he wanted to be found.

      I talked to someone personally who at some point had committed a series of crimes, and at some point they started doing things that were more and more likely to get them caught; they told me they thought to themselves, "What am I doing?" But they didn't stop, and eventually got caught.

      In a different story, a few years ago I dropped my wallet on the sidewalk outside my house, and someone picked it up and tried to use one of the credit cards in it. Then they got in a fight which got them arrested; and the police found my wallet (with my ID and everything) in their possession. Why get in a fight that's going to get you arrested just at the moment when you have stolen property in your pocket?

      My take is this: We present to others, and even ourselves, the illusion that there's just one unified "self"; but really inside there are a number of independent motivations within us. In both cases above, I think there was a part of those people who felt guilty and actually did want to be caught and punished.

      It's possible there was something similar going on with the guy who shot the CEO: one part of him had managed to plan everything perfectly so that he could get away; but there was a saboteur. It couldn't ahead of time prevent him from doing the shooting, but it could afterwards prevent him from disposing of the evidence and ensure that he got caught.

      • By noisy_boy 2024-12-1013:421 reply

        > My take is this: We present to others, and even ourselves, the illusion that there's just one unified "self"; but really inside there are a number of independent motivations within us. In both cases above, I think there was a part of those people who felt guilty and actually did want to be caught and punished.

        I have a different take. Assuming his crime is driven by his beliefs/mission, not being found will not further it. Logically you may argue that it would afford him more chances to carry on but given that we assume him to be driven by strong and passionate belief, he would want to be clearly and explicitly recognized for those beliefs and would want those thoughts to take center stage of public opinion. Carrying evidence also is his way of broadcasting the signal that he doesn't care about getting caught since he did the right thing and has nothing to be ashamed of.

        • By tivert 2024-12-1015:001 reply

          > I have a different take. Assuming his crime is driven by his beliefs/mission, not being found will not further it.

          I'm not so sure in this case. It would have been hard for the perpetrator to predict beforehand, but there was so little public sympathy for the victim, and there are lot of people who said they would not help the police catch him. Him getting away would have shown that insurance companies are so terrible and so hated that the public is OK with the murder of those responsible (because if they weren't, they'd help the police and he'd be caught).

          Escape would have sent a much stronger message than whatever he could hope to accomplish by grandstanding in a courtroom.

          • By noisy_boy 2024-12-112:35

            > Him getting away would have shown that insurance companies are so terrible and so hated that the public is OK with the murder of those responsible

            That is already proven to a large extent. Sure police are doing their job because of the pressure they have and someone working at McDonald's wants to collect tens of thousands of dollars, but it is pretty clear that he has significant public support based on the outpouring of support in the recent days.

            > Escape would have sent a much stronger message

            No, escape would have just shown that he is good at hiding. Effectively giving himself up gave an even bigger stage for him to place his point. And he got a lot more coverage by delaying that instead of immediate surrender.

            > than whatever he could hope to accomplish by grandstanding in a courtroom.

            What is grandstanding for you could be advocacy for another. Only time can tell whether it accomplishes anything.

      • By navane 2024-12-1010:502 reply

        There's a decent book written about exactly this, Crime and Punishment, by one of those Russians. Pretty hilarious read too.

        • By alabhyajindal 2024-12-1014:18

          I immediately thought of this when I read the parent comment.

        • By shishy 2024-12-1021:27

          one of those Russians... lol

          Fyodor Dostoyevsky

      • By kiba 2024-12-1011:32

        "Wait, this doesn't make sense", believe it or not, is not the default state of humanity, nor is it even the majority of our thoughts.

        I know I am not doing my body and health a favor. There's a tool called journaling, but I am not even using it right now. It's a very useful tool to get your mind into thinking "wait, this doesn't make sense", or "why am I behaving this way?"

        Everyday, I say to myself that I am speeding up my decline in health, and yet nothing changes(because I don't journal).

      • By raducu 2024-12-1110:55

        > I think there was a part of those people who felt guilty and actually did want to be caught and punished.

        Eric Berne in one of the pop psy books makes a claim which to me rings true -- that the real criminals don't get caught, the ones that get caught are the ones that want to play hide & seek as a trauma response from childhood -- there's a very deep drive to be sought after and found and those people, because of absent parents and lack of attention didn't get to play it out, so they really do want to be discovered in their sub-conscious mind.

      • By DamnInteresting 2024-12-1018:41

        There is a hypothesis/philosophy called Society of Mind [1] which posits that our minds are a collection of individual 'agents' that each have their own motivations, sometimes cooperating and sometimes competing.

        [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind

      • By salawat 2024-12-1015:091 reply

        Welcome to Jungian Psychology and the wonderful world of enantidromia. As humans are General Intelligences, we're capable of entertaining contradictory courses of action/thinking at the same time. At some point our conscious faculties "meet" our unconscious faculties, and the period of time when the two start to integrate into a whole individual is a bit of a wild ride that practically no modern practitioner of psychology I've met seems to even be aware of anymore, and can absolutely go awry.

    • By qzw 2024-12-0922:105 reply

      Exactly my thoughts as well. Every piece of evidence law enforcement has was basically intentionally provided by him. If he just stuffed his trash in one of his 7 pockets, or wore a pair of sunglasses, or didn't actually stare straight at the camera in the taxi like he was getting his school picture taken? I mean pretty much the only thing he failed to do was leave his business card at the crime scene.

      • By whaleofatw2022 2024-12-102:324 reply

        It would be interesting to see if he's banking on jury nullification being within the Overton window...

        • By _heimdall 2024-12-104:505 reply

          Most people don't even know what jury nullification is, and even fewer realize it is in fact legal. I'd be surprised if he was banking on that.

          • By hn_throwaway_99 2024-12-105:071 reply

            I don't think he was banking on that, but I thought it interesting that posts about jury nullification were all over the front page on Reddit today, e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1haimhk/til_... and https://old.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1haejf4...

          • By grogenaut 2024-12-105:331 reply

            In the one case I sat on the jury for the judge told us that we had to follow their directions exactly as to how to interpret the law when making a sentence. We were informed we not allowed to choose a lighter charge (options were misdemeanor assault, assault and aggravated assault).

            Jury nullification wouldn't have mattered and it was settled in an hour, but it was interesting. But I had been warned by multiple lawyer friends this might happen.

            Even more wasteful as this was the 3rd strike so the difference between assault and aggravated was 25 or 26 years, aka no difference. And the defendant had pleaded down already. Finally it was obvious it wasn't aggravated for several reasons and the prosecution was just fishing for convictions. Basically took 2 extra days of everyone's time fishing for sentence elevations.

            • By RHSeeger 2024-12-107:221 reply

              > Jury nullification wouldn't have mattered

              Why is that? Was it just the sentencing phase?

          • By tivert 2024-12-1015:061 reply

            > Most people don't even know what jury nullification is, and even fewer realize it is in fact legal. I'd be surprised if he was banking on that.

            Also, IIRC, the court system is pretty against it. The judge won't instruct the jury on it and I very much doubt he'd let the defense attorney bring it up to the jury either.

            • By _heimdall 2024-12-1018:10

              Courts can be against it all they want, it is still legal and well within a juror's rights. I'd never expect a judge or attorney to raise it as an option, but at the end of the day it is.

              Jury selection throws a wrench in the system, lawyers have a chance to ask questions under oath and get rid of jurors for most any reason. As i understand it, its pretty common for them to try to ferret out anyone that may go the nullification route.

          • By tiahura 2024-12-1014:311 reply

            Do you have a cite for it being legal for jurors to ignore jury instructions and orders from the Court?

            Is it also legal for jurors to ignore orders not to discuss the case, post about deliberations on Facebook, or decide the case based on race?

            • By _heimdall 2024-12-1018:201 reply

              I don't unfortunately, that would be buried somewhere in federal codes.

              Orders and instructions are different though. An official order by a judge may fall under contempt of court if you don't comply. Instructions are more procedural and about a judge running the process of the trial. For deliberation, that also generally means instructions that really just help guide a jury of people who may not have done it before and aren't sure of the process or general expectations.

        • By nozzlegear 2024-12-105:571 reply

          The judge, prosecution and defense get to vet each juror by asking them about their beliefs and biases. They can reject jurors if they believe the juror is unable to hear a case without being impartial. Jurors (often) won't be told the details of the case they'll be hearing while they're being vetted, only the basic details (e.g. defendant is a white male accused of murdering another white male).

          In extremely high profile cases like the ones featuring Donald Trump, courts focus on selecting jurors who can remain fair and impartial despite their knowledge of the case or their own personal opinions. They'll go through extensive vetting which can include written questionnaires, interviews, oral questioning about their media consumption, their political beliefs and potential biases, and so on.

          • By throwaway48476 2024-12-109:151 reply

            They don't actually verify any of this and you can just lie. One of the chauvin jurors lied about being an activist.

            • By nozzlegear 2024-12-1013:551 reply

              That sounds more like a failure of the prosecution in the Chauvin trial, rather than an assumption we can make about all trials.

        • By tomcam 2024-12-107:401 reply

          It’s not. American judges, generally speaking, hate jury nullification with the strength of a thousand suns. They are petty little tyrants.

          • By bayarearefugee 2024-12-107:59

            Judges generally hate it but there's also nothing they can do about it if it happens.

            That said its a very far leap to assume (either as the suspect or as a third party) that because this suspect has a lot of online sympathy that that will translate to a jury both willing and knowledgeable enough to nullify. Certainly wouldn't bet my life or freedom on that myself.

            Personally I lean toward doubting that getting caught was part of some master plan. People have this binary view of things where he's either got to be a criminal mastermind who thought of everything or a complete fool, and the reality is probably that he's a better than average premeditated murderer (given all of what is stacked against him) who still got caught due to a combination of bad luck and being a little bit careless. Considering how extensive the current surveillance state is he got closer to getting away with it than the vast majority of people would have, but also combined that with some stupid but perfectly naturally human oversights.

        • By MichaelZuo 2024-12-103:08

          Or maybe he’s just not that smart… it’s pretty much expected some number will lose their marbles and become semi-deranged or fully deranged every year.

          I’d guess at least 1 in ten thousand per annum. Which would equate to hundreds of newly deranged developers per year in the US.

      • By tdeck 2024-12-101:41

        The Identity Killer strikes again

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CiVFn1vEIiM

      • By Smar 2024-12-100:233 reply

        But the calling card needs to be left the previous day.

        • By aorloff 2024-12-101:322 reply

          Version 2.0 of this crime will feature the shooter having the forethought to have put a bitcoin wallet address on the front of his mask as he traipsed around in front of the cameras.

          And boy howdy, the sparks will fly then

          • By evoke4908 2024-12-102:22

            As bad ideas go, this has to be one of the best.

          • By ALittleLight 2024-12-104:182 reply

            Before releasing the pictures authorities would redact the address.

        • By kaladin-jasnah 2024-12-108:30

          My lack of socialization really shows when I first thought this to be a reference to the Persona video game.

        • By JesseTG 2024-12-101:13

          They'll never see it coming!

      • By cpill 2024-12-100:282 reply

        I guess the next one can learn from this one and they will iteratively get better at not getting caught.

        • By qzw 2024-12-100:372 reply

          In the movie "Wag the Dog", Dustin Hoffman plays a Hollywood producer who is hired by the President to create a fake war to take attention away from another scandal. Spoiler alert Near the end, Hoffman's character is upset that the President's re-election is credited to something else instead of his handiwork. Even when told he's risking his life if he says anything, he yells "I want the credit!". I think a similar psychology may be at work in this and other crimes that become (in)famous.

          • By elliotec 2024-12-101:291 reply

            I _think_ what you're getting at is saying the suspect wants the credit, in response to the parent saying the next one will be better at evasion by learning from his mistakes, right? And implying the next one might not want to evade either? I have no speculation here just looking for clarification on the movie reference.

            • By qzw 2024-12-102:46

              Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. Obviously anybody who goes to the trouble of penning a manifesto is a hero/protagonist in their own narrative. When they see that their acts have captured the attention or even admiration of a significant portion of the public, the urge to stand up and say "I'm the one who did this great deed, and here's why" will often overpower the instinct for self preservation.

          • By ZeroGravitas 2024-12-1010:50

            This is the topic of the wonderfully named Edgar Allan Poe short story, The Imp of the Perverse:

            https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/edgar-allan-poe/short-fict...

        • By EdwardDiego 2024-12-102:22

          I look forward to the retro on this.

      • By zxcvbnm69 2024-12-108:16

        [dead]

    • By K0balt 2024-12-101:461 reply

      It’s all very convenient and airtight, very nicely packaged.

      I’m not saying it’s not exactly what it looks like, just kinda makes me think huh. Either the perp really wanted to be caught, or someone really wants to close this case. I’m going with he wanted to be caught, since he’s apparently not an actual idiot.

      So just a relatively smart privileged dude swept away by dark ideology? It wouldn’t be the first time. If there’s any more to it, we won’t likely know.

    • By xivzgrev 2024-12-102:034 reply

      I don’t think so, per article:

      He "became quiet and started to shake" when asked if he had recently been to New York, according to the criminal complaint filed in Pennsylvania.

      Being smart can lead to arrogance, which leads to stumbles. like carrying evidence, dining in public, etc.

      • By justanotherjoe 2024-12-106:30

        I am reading 'The Man Who Fell To Earth" and it's about this supposedly very smart martian who makes very basic mistakes that led to his capture. There is a quote, something to the effect, 'it's amazing the number of things you just don't think about'. Which I think is true and why people got caught. Truth is, he had a lot on his mind and that can make you very clumsy.

      • By nashashmi 2024-12-102:283 reply

        I doubt he was arrogant. I think he was on the run and didn’t have any place to put away the evidence. Probably homeless this whole time. And had to go to get food at some point.

        • By RajT88 2024-12-107:031 reply

          Probably hadn't really thought through the specifics of tossing evidence.

          Bodies of water are popular for disposing of things, because it's a huge PITA to find things there. Imagine how hard it might be in a large local pond, and then multiply that in complexity for a rather big river. Or an inland sea like the Great Lakes. Don't even multiply for those; it's a stupidly big irrelevant number.

          • By throwaway48476 2024-12-109:19

            It's hard to find cars 20 ft from the shore and a huge number of missing persons disappear that way accidentally driving in.

        • By anigbrowl 2024-12-106:09

          It's been several days, he had plenty of time to wipe stuff down and dump it. I don't think this is arrogance necessarily, perhaps isolation and paranoia.

        • By tivert 2024-12-116:13

          > I doubt he was arrogant. I think he was on the run and didn’t have any place to put away the evidence. Probably homeless this whole time. And had to go to get food at some point.

          He totally did. Find a trash can, and put it in (though maybe disassemble the gun first, and dispose of it in pieces in multiple locations).

      • By garrettgarcia 2024-12-104:141 reply

        He says in the manifesto that they won't take him alive. He planned to go out shooting, then wimped out.

        • By thatwasunusual 2024-12-105:231 reply

          _Alleged_ manifesto. We still don't know if it's real.

          • By Cumpiler69 2024-12-106:12

            This. I expect a lot of fake/AI generated scams will be banking on this media hype to make some money while the iron is hot.

      • By djent 2024-12-1016:48

        Ah yes, stupid people, famously never arrogant

    • By prawn 2024-12-1011:121 reply

      My guess is that he assumed he'd be caught early, wasn't, and then got a bit overwhelmed with the reality of staying on the loose. That would've been overwhelming: finding places to sleep, transport, eating, etc. A gun and ID might've felt like tools that still had use, so he was yet to discard them.

      Why you'd eat-in at a fast food place rather than just go via some low level Chinese takeaway though!

      • By Cumpiler69 2024-12-1013:34

        >A gun and ID might've felt like tools that still had use

        Exactly. A gun, even without ammo, still allows you to get out of hairy situations: steal a car, force someone to drive you somewhere, etc

        >Why you'd eat-in at a fast food place rather than just go via some low level Chinese takeaway though!

        Maybe he though he'd be more anonymous in a major fast food chain, and you stand out more in a Chinese place.

    • By JKCalhoun 2024-12-0923:433 reply

      If that's the case, you make a call to a reporter — and then walk into a police station to surrender to authorities.

      • By BurningFrog 2024-12-100:561 reply

        Only if you have no sense for drama.

        That's not this guy.

        • By JKCalhoun 2024-12-101:162 reply

          Drama has too often allowed the suspect to be shot on sight.

          • By autoexec 2024-12-101:28

            He killed a CEO not a cop. If he'd gone after the police they'd likely have burned that McDonald's to the ground with him inside (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner)

          • By gymbeaux 2024-12-101:251 reply

            I’m sure the police have orders to “take him alive.”

            • By thephyber 2024-12-102:522 reply

              It doesn’t matter what the brass say when giving orders. If the officer says the magic words during debriefing (after the shooting), he gets off scott free.

              What are the magic words? I don’t know them, but I know that the lawyers who work for police unions know them and the trainers who train police officers drill those into the heads of officers.

              The core problem with the jurisprudence: if a reasonable officer had a fear for themself or for members of the public, then fatal shootings in the line of duty are usually justified. The objective facts at the scene don’t matter; only the officer’s perception. If only all citizens were given the same rights…

      • By cellwebb 2024-12-100:111 reply

        I mean if he's giving himself up, why not gift a mcdonald's employee 60k?

    • By qingcharles 2024-12-107:503 reply

      A lot of people who commit crimes are suffering from a range of untreated mental illnesses. They are not always firing on all cylinders all of the time, leading to weirdness like this.

      • By jajko 2024-12-108:321 reply

        Most folks with mental illnesses live among us, not in mental institutions. If on a scale 1-10 you have something like bipolar on 1 or 2, you can sort of function with some meds. Sort of, until SHTF and emotions go haywire. Keeping relationships is hard, be it personal or professional, so folks struggle but from outside they often just appear 'weird'.

        Wife is a GP doctor, maybe 1/3rd of her patients have some form of this.

        • By qingcharles 2024-12-1016:39

          100% this. I've seen stats saying 20% of people in jail have untreated mental illness. I've spent a lot of time in jails and I would say it has be 80%+ because a lot of people can function enough to live in society and hide their symptoms until the point where they do something criminal.

      • By throwaway48476 2024-12-109:172 reply

        This guy had bad back problems and got surgery but it was probably ongoing. He got kicked off his parents insurance at 26 and ran out of money.

        • By shalmanese 2024-12-1011:32

          He was working for TrueCar as a data engineer, he had employee provided health insurance.

        • By zusammen 2024-12-1011:22

          [dead]

      • By another2another 2024-12-1010:461 reply

        Also (I'm hoping) the trauma of taking another person's life must be hugely upsetting. I'm hoping it's not something you do lightly, and is not without personal consequences (guilt,shame, shock,.. dunno).

        • By torified 2024-12-111:19

          Why would you hope that?

          Can you really not think of anyone where it would be better if they were... not there anymore?

    • By anothernewdude 2024-12-100:47

      1. This guy has a tight alibi and the shooter is elsewhere.

      2. This guy has a terminal illness.

      3. This guy is bankrupt after healthcare debt + buying backpacks.

    • By bufferoverflow 2024-12-103:021 reply

      Or the most obvious case of setup ever.

      • By NooneAtAll3 2024-12-106:59

        can be both killer's and police's setup too

    • By jjallen 2024-12-107:54

      He could be taking lots of medication for his back pain which could cause him to think not so rationally

    • By 77pt77 2024-12-102:393 reply

      > including the fake ID he used at the hostel

      I've stayed at that place multiple times, though years ago.

      They did check ID, but never copied it.

      I wonder how they knew it was fake.

      • By wildzzz 2024-12-103:131 reply

        Do they record names of guests? It would take two seconds to ask the NJ DMV if someone by that name exists. If they don't, then the ID was probably fake. If there is someone by that name, showing the real ID photos to the hostel receptionist would quickly clear up whether the ID is fake or not. The receptionist flirted with him and got him to show his face so there's a good chance she'd be able to look at some photos and say whether any of them look like the guy.

        • By 77pt77 2024-12-1012:071 reply

          Last time I was there they wouldn't even record NJ.

          They recorded name on reservation and maybe DOB.

          The place had cameras everywhere apart from inside rooms and bathrooms.

          I can't believe that was the only time they got him on camera.

          • By gruez 2024-12-1017:42

            >Last time I was there they wouldn't even record NJ.

            >They recorded name on reservation and maybe DOB.

            I'm sure the cops can run the same name/DOB combination through the databases of all 50 states + DC, and rule out any that don't match the surveillance footage.

      • By 77pt77 2024-12-1017:59

        So, according to this:

        https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian...

        “I was informed... that defendant presented a forged New Jersey Driver’s License with the name of Mark Rosario as his identification, which based on the number on it was the same identification defendant presented at the hostel,"

        So the hostel saved at least the number.

        This was not the case at least 2 years ago. I'm absolutely certain.

      • By mmooss 2024-12-106:331 reply

        Once the police traced the suspect to the hostel, wouldn't they check the relevant IDs?

    • By aorloff 2024-12-100:323 reply

      The only part I don't get now is the cell phone

      I assumed he had some help with the timing via the burner phone

      But this all looks very lone wolfish now

      • By two27 2024-12-104:04

        https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/360037870412-...

        If real, he scheduled a post to be released everyday at ~6pm EST. If he wasn't caught that day he would delete the scheduled post, and reschedule for the next day at 6pm.

        I say 6 because it was the earliest snapshot of the site. Looks like the post just got taken down off sub stack and I can't view the exact time of post.

        That's likely how it happened

      • By hughesjj 2024-12-102:402 reply

        I still don't get how he knew where the guy would be

        • By throwaway48476 2024-12-106:011 reply

          If you're a shareholder you get a postcard in the mail with the time and address of public meetings.

          • By shoooooooooota 2024-12-108:101 reply

            But not "he will leave the building at this 30 second interval. As needed for a walk up on a busy city street that is well policed.

        • By hawski 2024-12-1010:02

          He had 10 days to find out on site.

      • By griffzhowl 2024-12-102:471 reply

        Yeah, the timing is a question I still have. At first it sounded like he was only there a few minutes before the CEO appeared. Later information sounds like he might have been hanging around outside for longer. I haven't seen a knowledgable evaluation of how plausible it is that he would have known where Thompson was going to be based only on public information.

        • By eastbound 2024-12-108:452 reply

          Yes, how do you know the whereabouts of a CEO?

          • By InfiniteLoup 2024-12-1010:12

            > Yes, how do you know the whereabouts of a CEO?

            You might know about their public appearances such as for shareholder meetings but how would you know which hotel they're staying at and that they would leave said hotel at 6:45 AM(!) and walk(!!) to the meeting venue?

            Either massive luck on the shooter's side or there is a source of information that hasn't been discovered yet.

    • By pmontra 2024-12-104:39

      If this is a vendetta, the goal was achieved and there was nothing more to do. He had to give himself two goals, the vendetta and not get caught, which is more difficult than one goal. A hired killer would pursue both goals routinely as a mean to stay in business but not an amateur and anyway not as effectively.

    • By pcblues 2024-12-101:572 reply

      Agreed. He seems to be smart enough to never be caught. Could just be the need to be liked/famous/known. On the other hand, he might not have expected to be noticed by someone who knew him. That's a real 0.01% you can't predict in your perfect planning.

      • By garrettgarcia 2024-12-104:163 reply

        He doesn't seem smart at all... He took off his mask in front of a camera to flirt with a receptionist. He left a long extensive trail of evidence. He manifesto sounds like it was written by a 14 year old. It only took him four days to get caught. Like most criminals, he is not smart.

        • By tbrownaw 2024-12-104:37

          Is having bugs in your code proof that you're not smart, or is it more likely momentary carelessness or even just that humans always have a non-zero error rate?

        • By hsavit1 2024-12-104:341 reply

          It’s very difficult to not get caught in a total over militarized surveillance state. He is not stupid

        • By Vampiero 2024-12-104:25

          Like most criminals who get caught*

      • By kadoban 2024-12-104:15

        How many similar crimes go unsolved? It can't be common. I doubt it's a matter of just being smart.

    • By JumpCrisscross 2024-12-106:171 reply

      > seems he wanted to be found

      He was presumably en route somewhere. Disposing of a fake ID such that forensics can’t get anything useful off it isn’t easily done on the run / incognito. (And if his inspiration is the Unabomber, he presumably had more targets.)

      • By someotherperson 2024-12-106:321 reply

        Surely you recognize that all you need to do is to rub it on some concrete for a couple of minutes to completely destroy it right? Not to mention if you owned a pair of scissors or a lighter or something…

        • By JumpCrisscross 2024-12-106:373 reply

          > you recognize that all you need to do is to rub it on some concrete for a couple of minutes to completely destroy it right

          You're going to take time away from your actual escape to make yourself less incriminating in case you are caught? Should he have been grinding up IDs at the Greyhound bus terminal in New York? Right after the whole city heard about the shooting? Or should he have waited until after the FBI plastered the nation with his face?

          > if you owned a pair of scissors or a lighter or something

          Scissors won't take care of fingerprints, let alone DNA. As for the lighter, again, where do you propose he do this without attracting attention?

          Actually, I could see him having thought this would be easy to do, maybe even packing a lighter and scissors, only to realise in execution that you can't start burning IDs on a bus without someone noticing.

          • By someotherperson 2024-12-107:261 reply

            Respectfully, none of what you’re describing is real life. Police don’t go around fingerprinting random pieces of plastic.

            You can just deface it in any way and throw it out the window on a highway or into any trash can and it will quite literally never be found.

          • By hawski 2024-12-109:58

            I would think that getting rid of the evidence is the integral part of planning a crime. Otherwise it is sloppiness. There is a lot of ways to do such things I am sure, but you have to thought it through before. He didn't or the adrenaline was too much for him.

          • By brokenmachine 2024-12-112:55

            He had four days to come up with a way to get rid of a few pieces of plastic.

            Now I'm not a valedictorian, but I'd like to think I could achieve that.

    • By bbqfog 2024-12-0923:252 reply

      Maybe he saw how the world basically thought he was an amazing hero and he wanted to let people know who he really is.

      • By Melatonic 2024-12-100:172 reply

        I think this might actually be it - he may have been motivated in some part by fame (but planned to be anonymous and get away with it) and after the hugely positive online response decided to purposely get caught.

        Trial for this could be hugely publicized

        • By prawn 2024-12-1011:14

          If you wanted to get the message out, you could go to a media org for interview and then call police in.

          I wonder if cops were monitoring major news offices because of this.

        • By evoke4908 2024-12-102:262 reply

          I'm real interested in how a trial goes. Can you even find enough people in America who haven't been bent over by insurance to form an unbiased jury? I find it hard to imagine any jury would convict him.

          • By furyofantares 2024-12-102:403 reply

            This is wildly unrealistic.

            Many people have not been bent over by insurance, but that's the less confusing part of this post.

            Almost everyone who has been bent over by insurance will still find someone who assassinated another dude guilty.

          • By senordevnyc 2024-12-102:361 reply

            I keep seeing this take, and it seems pretty bizarre to me. Most Americans rate their health insurance as excellent or good [1], and even of the ones that don't, most probably don't support murdering health insurance executives on the street.

            They won't have trouble seating a jury, and he'll be convicted of 1st degree homicide and spend the rest of his adult life in prison.

            1. https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/poll-finding/kff-surve...

      • By analog31 2024-12-0923:512 reply

        Indeed, when the alternative was to be a nobody, on the lam, for the rest of his life.

        • By fooqux 2024-12-100:054 reply

          How so? All he had to do was continue to fly under the radar for a few more weeks until everyone forgot about it. Being on the lam implies they knew his identity; they did not.

          • By krisoft 2024-12-101:09

            > All he had to do was continue to fly under the radar for a few more weeks until everyone forgot about it.

            That is seriously underestimating the attention span of law enforcement. I’m not saying that they would have caught him for sure, but they have motivation and means to keep looking far longer than a few weeks.

            > Being on the lam implies they knew his identity; they did not.

            At the minimum they had a picture of his face. That stuff will stay in databases indefinietly and face recognition is only getting better. They might have had his DNA from objects he interacted with or things he discarded. They could have traced his burner phone to locations he previously frequented, or where he bought it from. They could have traced him via video surveilance further along his escape and tied him to a location or a car.

            None of this is guaranteed to work. There is a certain amount of luck involved. But just because after a few days they didn’t know who he is, doesn’t mean they could not have found him months or years down the road.

          • By relaxing 2024-12-100:171 reply

            The rich don’t just let go of murder investigations.

          • By groos 2024-12-100:153 reply

            Murder is hard on your soul. He wouldn't be able to go back to life as usual.

        • By dyauspitr 2024-12-101:14

          They know what his face looks like and had a bunch of information about his whereabouts prior to visiting the city. It was only a matter of time until they found him. His one bet might have been to cross the border in Mexico.

    • By nadermx 2024-12-106:58

      What about those eye brows though?

    • By lgrapenthin 2024-12-102:21

      Could as well have walked into a police station or uploaded the manifesto on his GitHub.

    • By tomlockwood 2024-12-101:511 reply

      Maybe he was planning to do another.

    • By xwrzz 2024-12-103:15

      He didn't want to be found but thought it was a non-zero possibility is being ruled out why?

    • By soygem 2024-12-119:04

      Yup, looks like a CIA glowop.

    • By fsckboy 2024-12-102:45

      or, he didn't think he would get caught and his plan to was move on to victim #2.

    • By doctorpangloss 2024-12-102:19

      [flagged]

    • By ProAm 2024-12-104:381 reply

      Jury nullification!

      • By ProAm 2024-12-122:49

        Jury Nullification!

    • By vFunct 2024-12-102:01

      And he really could have gotten away with it if he wanted to. Im sure he noticed online the vast population of people willing to hide him or provide an alibi.

  • By munksbeer 2024-12-1011:2724 reply

    Usually I don't tend to get caught up in stories like this. But one thing has me completely fascinated, is how far off the deep end the internet went over the last few days. A murderer became a cult hero online. I saw many posts even suggesting "the snitch" should be hunted down and get what's coming to him/her.

    I try not to overreact to stuff online, but this took me a bit by surprise. Things really feel like a melting pot at the moment, with so much pent up anger amongst people who actually lead pretty decent lives.

    • By benterix 2024-12-1011:337 reply

      > who actually lead pretty decent lives.

      It's because the whole image is fake. In theory everything is fine but you know there is something very bad about the healthcare system, and the power of an institution to decide about someone else's life or death is just one aspect of it; prices inflated beyond imagination is another one (these two are related). So we pretend to live normal lives but in the back of our head we pray we don't ever need to become a victim of this system. But on the outside yes, it looks like everything is fine and we have decent lives.

      • By noisy_boy 2024-12-1013:31

        Its because the generally applicable standard way globally to know if things are bad for someone, doesn't work in US. Most people have homes, there is a car standing outside, they have clothes to wear, people are generally private (due to high focus on individualism) and unless you try, you can't really overhear your neighbour - so these issues hide behind closed doors.

      • By blantonl 2024-12-1013:513 reply

        The problem is I don't see any "easy" solution to this issue, simply because there will always be an institution in place to decide about someone else's life our death.

        Be it a privately run for profit insurance system that runs on perverse incentives, or a government agency that runs on power and influence and corruption.

        • By bendauphinee 2024-12-1013:595 reply

          The “easy” solution is to try and remove profit as much as possible from the equation. Pretty much every other high GDP country in the world has single payer healthcare.

          Guess how many people get told their anaesthesia won’t be covered for their full surgery. That shouldn’t even be a question, and yet the US system makes it one.

          • By Thorrez 2024-12-1014:285 reply

            Two people I know who moved to the US from countries with single payer healthcare said that in their previous countries they would have to wait a long time for certain operations, but in the US can get them almost immediately.

          • By Ajedi32 2024-12-1016:111 reply

            When you remove profit from the equation, you also remove the incentive to increase supply. That's fundamentally what profit is: a reward for fulfilling the needs of consumers. If you can fulfill those needs better or more efficiently or at a larger scale than your competitors, you get more profit.

          • By ChadNauseam 2024-12-1015:182 reply

            > Pretty much every other high GDP country in the world has single payer healthcare.

            This is just completely not true. Take France and Germany for example.

            > Guess how many people get told their anaesthesia won’t be covered for their full surgery. That shouldn’t even be a question, and yet the US system makes it one.

            So anesthesiologists should be able to ask for any amount their heart desires and the insurance is the bad guy if they don’t want to pay it? Anesthesiologists have a profit motive too, you know.

          • By SideQuark 2024-12-114:351 reply

            And pretty much every one of those countries also has widely used private insurance because the public one most definitely has price caps, longer waits, and lesser service.

            No system could afford to spend unlimited amounts for anyone wanting it. You get triaged since resources are not infinite.

            Pick your favorite system, say the UK, and google UK healthcare rationing to find state policy on what limits people face.

        • By barbazoo 2024-12-1016:47

          A first step could be to look at health care outcomes across the globe and see if the ones at the top have anything in common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_o...

        • By bgnn 2024-12-1023:55

          There is a huge difference between US and pretty much the rest of the world. The most corrupt healthcare system is US, hands down.

      • By jml78 2024-12-1011:519 reply

        I can explain my perspective which echos kinda what you say.

        I am in my 40s, I make pretty good money. My life is good.

        My mom died last year. The medical system and her medicare "advantage" plan killed her. She had a stroke. However, within a day, she was up and walking around with assistance.

        However, the hospital was understaffed so two things happened. She fell going to the bathroom AND after that happened, they did not get her moving enough and she got a huge bed sore.

        The huge bed sore would not have happened if her medicare advantage plan hadn't denied denied denied having her moved to get physical, occupation, and speech theray. If she had just good ole medicare, they would have approved it the day of request (it was requested the day after the stroke, I was warned that her plan was going to deny because they always do where medicare always approves). Instead, she rotted in an understaffed wing of the hospital for a week while I fought to get shit approved.

        After getting approval to be moved, she was making slow slow progress due to the bed sore. It is hard when your body needs to recover and you have a huge wound on your back.

        Once again her medicare "advantage" plan denied giving her more time in therapy. Guess what? Medicare would have just approved. Her advantage plan said the "community" could care for her and she could just get better over time. Do you know what that means? They wanted me to quit working and care for my mom 24/7. That is what they meant by community care. I am an only child with no other family except my wife and kids.

        The hospital social worker was great and refused to discharge my mom because she knew I couldn't physically move my mom around or give her the care she required. That started a month battle where her insurance was refusing to pay anymore hospital bills, refused to get her more therapy, and essentially killed my mom. If the social worker had allowed my mom to be discharged, I would have been fucked.

        She slowly got worse and died. The american medical system with its private "advantage" plans took what would have been a recoverable bad health incident and allowed it to kill my mom for greed.

        BTW, after a month of fighting, emails to the insurance board of directors and CEO, I got more therapy approved for my mom but it was too late by then. She died a few days later.

        You can probably guess how I feel about the CEO's murder........

        • By fazeirony 2024-12-1012:392 reply

          this right here. all the people in this thread acting like "everything is fine" and things aren't so bad for most people...i sincerely hope they get the reality check they deserve but not like this. to see a loved one - who did nothing wrong other than existing - to be murdered by the system? i've witnessed this first hand and to say one's blood boils is understatement of the century. all preventable but when profits are always always always always the most important thing...you're nothing but a cost; an expense to others' egregious profit motives. and as such....expendable.

          • By jml78 2024-12-1013:021 reply

            I will freely admit, I didn't know shit about medicare advantage plans prior to this shit show happening. Most people don't have a clue. But if you talk to a social worker at a hospital, they see it every single day. They are beat down trying to fight for their patients while watching them get fucked by insurance.

          • By rifty 2024-12-1019:56

            I'm not sure all of this is profit seeking caused given their small margins. It feels like it could be a down stream effect of business sustainability and competition. The bag is necessarily covered by those who have less long running health complications, and so you need to provide a competitive price to them so they pay in with you. The price offered when you don't need care becomes lower than the amount needed to cover everyone when you do. Which would incentive denials out of necessity as well.

        • By fireflash38 2024-12-1012:411 reply

          It's bureaucratic violence. Slow. With maximum kafkaesque torture to draw it out.

          How many people die for greed? Is that not violence?

          • By gen220 2024-12-1015:24

            "The noble person that goes to work and pray like they s'posed to? Slaughter people too, your murder's just a bit slower."

            - Kendrick Lamar

        • By sizzle 2024-12-1014:00

          Medicare Advantage is HMO right? I just switch my folks to BCBS PPO with Medicare and a “medigap” supplemental plan to cover things that Medicare won’t. My head is still spinning up to my neck in paperwork for the cancer and hemorrhagic stroke bills from out of network physician groups billing, truly 24/7 job. Sorry for your loss. You did a lot to help I can tell after going through this myself. Be kind to yourself. They denied my mom’s chemo drugs it’s absurd. She paid into the system for decades without incident.

        • By mattw2121 2024-12-1013:43

          This is my story, just replacing "mom" with "dad". Thanks for telling it and sorry for your loss.

        • By galimaufry 2024-12-1012:456 reply

          I wonder if there is a niche to ameliorate this sort of thing by offering payday loans on insurance payouts.

          The incentives are pro-social: insurance companies have an incentive to delay payouts, because their profits come from interest (they pay out more money than they take in) so the longer they can hold onto money the better. But that's reversed for this hypothetical loan issuer - they want to make the payout as fast as possible in order to earn as much interest as possible as quickly as possible.

          And if there's a systematic tendency for medicaid advantage plans to deny claims that eventually get approved, and if you could predict which ones will get approved 'just' by really understanding what medicaid would approve, then this might be self-sustaining or even profitable?

          • By intended 2024-12-1014:05

            There is no niche, that makes a fundamentally inefficient system, more efficient.

            If any such niche existed, for any system, then this niche would be the system.

          • By jml78 2024-12-1013:001 reply

            The solution is disallow private insurance being the middle man between medicare and the patient.

            What possible benefit to the patient is having a whole bureaucracy sit between the gov't insurance and the person in need of medical care? It only exists to make money off the backs of the people they are harming.

            Now, if you don't know why people sign up for them, you don't understand what they are doing. My mom, like many others, was on a fixed income. If you sign up for a medicare advantage plan, they will do things like give you an extra $100 a month to you directly. Why would insurance be willing to PAY you? Because they make all their money billing medicare and denying you coverage.

            18 billion in profits last year running a middle man between patients and medicare

          • By lenerdenator 2024-12-1013:23

            Or, I don’t know, maybe we do what every other Western nation has done and just present a public option for healthcare coverage to the average person?

            Nah, better to have millionaires lying to the sick and dying about the company not having the money to pay for the coverage that the sick person paid a hefty monthly premium to provide.

          • By sofixa 2024-12-1014:51

            Nice, a hyper capitalistic solution to a problem which only exists because of a hyper capitalistic system. Why not add another middleman with a financial incentive to a system overburdened by middlemen with financial incentives?

            The solution would be to remove useless leeches providing no value or benefit to anyone other than shareholders, not add more of them.

            And what do you know, most of the rest of the developed world has managed to do that. And even the parts that have private healthcare have managed to put strict rules controlling it, and costs and outcomes are much better.

          • By soysandwhich 2024-12-163:47

            [dead]

        • By greenie_beans 2024-12-1012:081 reply

          that sounds like a true nightmare. i'm sorry that happened.

          • By jml78 2024-12-1012:143 reply

            Yep, and it is preventable. The one thing I can say is NEVER let your parents sign up for a "medicare" advantage plan. There is no advantage. The company my mom was with is one of the largest and profited something like 18 BILLION off medicare last year. How do you think that is possible? Because they overcharge medicare and deny coverage.

        • By andrelaszlo 2024-12-1013:19

          I'm so sorry about what happened to your mom. I'd be furious, too. It sounds like you did everything you possibly could and really fought for her.

          It really makes me sad, but thank you for sharing your story.

        • By flerchin 2024-12-1012:18

          It makes me want to commit a murder just reading this.

        • By svara 2024-12-1019:381 reply

          I'm genuinely amazed by the distribution of opinions in this thread.

          If y'all feel that way, why don't you vote for a "socialist" healthcare system like we have over here in communist Europe?

          I mean, I'm over here in Germany and I'm not going to claim the system is that great, but it's really not half bad either, and it does seem to prevent the most extreme tragedies.

      • By jajko 2024-12-1016:02

        You just described one of quite a few reasons (higher education falls into same category, overall security could be mentioned in such topic too) that I consider some parts of western Europe a better place to live and raise kids than anything US can provide. Despite having much lower numbers on paychecks alone.

        I get that system needs to push folks into working hard and motivate exceptional efforts (and luck), but sometimes this goes into properly bad directions where few gain and majority loses. In any functional society, all this is never isolated and it has ripple effects.

      • By dennis_jeeves2 2024-12-1016:33

        >In theory everything is fine but you know there is something very bad about the healthcare system,

        No merely healthcare, but employment, housing etc. It's easy to single out healthcare for obvious reasons.

      • By BLKNSLVR 2024-12-1012:30

        Your description reminds me of the opening scene of Blue Velvet.

      • By benced 2024-12-1017:062 reply

        You can leave! Nothing is stopping you from staying in the US. Particularly if you're on this website, you probably have talents other countries would like to acquire. The fact that you haven't says you don't believe what you say.

        • By dudeinhawaii 2024-12-1018:261 reply

          The "America, love it or leave it" tactic? It's intellectually dishonest and shortcuts any kind of debate or thoughtful discussion. Or is this more of the "you haven't left your wife beating husband so you must like it" tactic? That's also philosophically bereft and avoids anything substantive.

          Suffice it to say, constructive criticism is vital for democratic improvement.

          • By benced 2024-12-1019:535 reply

            If your belief is the United States is so bad that it justifies murder, you should leave. If you're more reasonable, I would not recommend leaving.

        • By feoren 2024-12-1022:37

          > Don't like it? GTFO out loser! Uproot your family, move away from everything you know, all your friends, and go take a chance in a completely different country. Just change everything about your life and stop trying to make anything ever better. Otherwise STFU about it!

          - You

    • By wat10000 2024-12-1014:444 reply

      It’s funny how we treat these things. Kill a bunch of people by putting lead in their drinking water and it’s a shrug. Occasionally you might lose your job over it. In extremely rare and egregious cases you might end up with a minor criminal conviction.

      Kill one person by putting lead in their heart at high speed and now it’s a serious crime. If the victim is Important then you get a massive manhunt and national news coverage.

      • By throwaway48476 2024-12-1023:371 reply

        Accidentally kill someone with your car because you're distracted, no problem. But if you're drunk? Crime.

        • By wat10000 2024-12-1113:35

          Good example, distracted driving that ends in death should be treated much more harshly than it is.

      • By dennis_jeeves2 2024-12-1017:241 reply

        >putting lead in their drinking water

        Flint, Michigan

        • By wat10000 2024-12-1017:34

          Yep. Guess how many people went to prison for that one.

      • By hollerith 2024-12-1014:481 reply

        >Kill one person by putting lead in their heart at high speed and now it’s a serious crime.

        I wish this was an attempt at a joke.

        • By wat10000 2024-12-1014:552 reply

          Me too. I’m describing it flippantly for effect, but I’m deadly serious. There are ways to kill people that get the attention of law enforcement, and ways to kill people that are de facto (and often de jure) legal. And wouldn’t you know, the latter category tends to include the methods used by the rich and powerful.

      • By edanm 2024-12-1014:591 reply

        That's not funny; that's just not how things actually work.

        • By wat10000 2024-12-1015:091 reply

          It’s not?

          Air pollution alone kills tens of thousands of Americans a year. More die from air pollution than die from what’s legally defined as murder, by a substantial margin. How many people are in prison for it? Most of that pollution it outright legal. The illegal parts are rarely punished and never on the level meted out to “murderers.” And that’s just one example.

          It’s totally legal to deliberately kill innocent people, as long as you do it in certain ways.

          • By edanm 2024-12-1015:561 reply

            You're using the word "deliberately" wrong when talking about things like air pollution. Pointing a gun and shooting at someone is quiet a different thing than is causing air pollution.

            Are people who smoked next to other people deliberately killing them? After all, second hand smoke was quite dangerous.

    • By harimau777 2024-12-1014:341 reply

      I'm not sure people are actually leading pretty decent lives. The people I know are working stressful dead end jobs and living with roommates in order to barely make ends meet. They don't have much prospect of improving their lot because doing so requires capital that they don't have (e.g. to start a business or go to college). Even though they have health insurance, they avoid going to the doctor unless absolutely necessary because they can't afford the co-pay. In some cases the states that they live in actively seek to discriminate against them.

      • By lotsoweiners 2024-12-1016:061 reply

        The people I know are pretty much exactly the opposite of you so I think it comes down to age/experience, location, and other factors.

        • By juunpp 2024-12-112:52

          Yeah, you're quite literally in a bubble.

    • By pyrale 2024-12-1014:331 reply

      It seems that people are increasingly convinced that “in this country it is necessary, now and then, to put one health insurance exec to death in order to inspire the others to pay”.

      That is a sign that people believe they can't obtain redress through widely available legal means.

      • By potato3732842 2024-12-1016:48

        What you are looking at is the people checking the power of the institutions they tasked with providing legal recourse who have mostly been sitting on their hands and/or serving parties other than the people.

        If the state, courts and other systems don't get people justice or something you can squint at and call justice when they are wronged some fraction of those wronged will go outside the systems and seek to get even instead.

        Public sympathy for the (rare, perhaps crazy) people who shoot CEOs or armor bulldozers are what gives the parts of the institutions that want to do what the people want the political capital to something other than the status quo.

    • By torified 2024-12-110:15

      Everyone is walking a tightrope.

      I, and probably a lot of people reading this on HN, are outwardly very comfortable.

      I have cash/assets that would be life changing for most people (especially when I read comments on reddit where people say that $10k would be life changing for them) - and a "good" white-collar job.

      I'm also lucky enough to be old enough to have not been 100% screwed like our even younger generation has (I only got 90% screwed).

      I've been very lucky in life, but when I see the level of wealth inequality and how corporations have completely captured our government, and our two-tiered justice system, it makes me feel sick and angry.

      I still feel like I'm being held hostage by the 0.1%, under pressure to keep working to line other's pockets for much longer than I would otherwise have to, and like the whole thing could all come crashing down in a week's time given some improbable but far-from-impossible set of circumstances.

      I also don't feel like I would be supported by my government, corporations, or society in general if those circumstances actually occurred.

      So I definitely sympathize with the frustration of people who feel unsupported by society and unrepresented by government - especially those who happened to be unluckier in life than I.

      And with the current state of affairs, there must be a LOT of them around.

      I sympathize with that frustration a hell of a lot more than I sympathize for a dead CEO who made a career out of systematically denying treatment to people who paid him for coverage.

      In fact, I'm happy he died as a reminder that nobody is untouchable, no matter how much lobbying your corporation has done to make social murder legal, and no matter how much you've tried to isolate yourself from the consequences of your terrible actions.

      I read a reddit comment about the alleged shooter's arrest before:

      "murder is such a strong word, can't we just call it removing a cancer?"

    • By mbesto 2024-12-1014:082 reply

      > how far off the deep end the internet went over the last few days.

      Side note - the "internet" is very likely a mix of bots and real humans nowadays. What might seem initially like a real person saying "hunt the snitch down" could very likely be a bot that is meant to sow and influence discord. That bot's followers could very likely be real people who then say "ya i agree with this account! get your pitchfork!"

      • By iambateman 2024-12-1014:112 reply

        This is generally true but I've never seen clear evidence of bot activity on HN – have you? I think it's very likely that those reactions on Twitter are 50/50 bot, but I've seen HN people posting their own version of "wow, what a guy" in ways that were convincingly human and very surprising.

        • By Aerbil313 2024-12-1015:232 reply

          Huge disagree - there's no convincingly human anymore for internet text, especially for short internet text. Since the coming of LLMs, when I read HN, Reddit or even blog posts, I always keep it in the back of my mind that whatever I'm reading can very well be written by a bot. Fine-tune/prompt an LLM the right way and you'll get content indistinguishable from human text even for highly specific niche topics/contexts.

          • By itchyouch 2024-12-1017:56

            This is a random reply to a different comment Aerbil313 made for their benefit as their email in hackernews seems expired.

            ----

            I have a family member suffering from multiple exposures to fluoroquinolone (FQ) antibiotics. While the research doesn't understand the root-cause reason for how FQs cause trouble, my journey with dealing with my personal family-history of diabetes and my family's chronic illness has gotten me to go down a road of understanding how to solve some issues.

            From what I understand, mitochondrial dysfunction appears to be at the core of many issues like I said. However, to expand on what I've found useful in my n=1-2 experiments, juxtaposed against much of the Phd/MD health podcast sphere information, most interventions like exercise and nutrition fundamentally are there to improve metabolic health. Many markers like VO2 Max or A1c are integral that gives a snapshot of one aspect of one's metabolic health.

            In my family's and my specific journey, I've put together a variety of molecules/supplements we've found useful in their journey and framed it in such a way as to be actionable, but also presentable enough to the public.

            https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fo2F851i0OE4tIQb0hQ7...

            It's a lot of information, but hopefully it would be useful for you and others. Feel free to ask any questions on my rationale, thinking, or reasoning behind why certain things are useful, and how I came to certain conclusions.

          • By iambateman 2024-12-1120:07

            I read your comment history and I’m 99.9% sure you’re a human.

            =D

            For what it’s worth, I am also human. Hi.

        • By sitzpinkler 2024-12-1019:32

          > convincingly human

          We are long past that being a means of distinguishing a bot for anything other than obvious crypto scams. I have no doubt at all that a substantial number of HN posts, especially on divisive topics such as this one, are made by foreign agents. HN is an ideal means of targeting the types of people driving Western economies, and so I am certain that it is one of the top targets for such operations.

      • By kmeisthax 2024-12-1017:291 reply

        Bots don't independently invent opinions separate from the people running them. Not even with LLMs. "Bots" are just sock puppets - people creating multiple identities for themselves so they can ballot-stuff the Court of Public Opinion.

        So it's not so much that there are no real people who want to hunt down the snitch, but that there's a very loud minority of performative extremists with an army of sock puppet accounts who want to hunt down the snitch.

        • By userabchn 2024-12-1018:15

          > there's a very loud minority of performative extremists with an army of sock puppet accounts who want to hunt down the snitch

          The people running the bot armies for foreign influence operations probably do not care about hunting down the snitch, they are simply following orders to spread that message.

    • By spl757 2024-12-116:59

      Unfortunately, sometimes the law allows for the legal murder of people by pen. More people are killed by keyboards and pens, and I don't mean like John Wick, than are killed by guns because we have "for-profit healthcare". That means that the motive of the company is not determined by whether their decisions will kill people by the policies they create, but whether the decisions they make will be profitable. As long as those decisions don't run afoul of the law, they can kill at will. If that sounds fucked up, it is because it is fucked up.

    • By markus_zhang 2024-12-1014:45

      Back in the 19th century a lot of Russian Revolutionaries came from families of well being, or are even aristocrats.

    • By gosub100 2024-12-1017:06

      > so much pent up anger

      And one reason it's pent-up, as opposed to released, is due to corporations taking over our society and ruining human lives. All within the confines of the law and democracy. That's what this is about. There is no recourse or effective vehicle to be heard.

    • By game_the0ry 2024-12-1016:06

      > ...so much pent up anger amongst people who actually lead pretty decent lives.

      This is the part of the story that must be discussed more, lest there will be more killings like this one.

    • By Havoc 2024-12-1012:56

      Yeah was wild to see that.

      I take it as a reaction to the wider public feeling that the US medical system is broken and the appropriate channel to fix it (voting & politics) being broken too thanks to lobbying.

      Under circumstances like this people’s perception shifts to a more relativistic perspective. A bit like perception of a rioter throwing a stone at riot police depends on whether the viewer agrees with the movements goals even if in isolation they wouldn’t normally approve of throwing rocks at people faces.

    • By gambiting 2024-12-119:381 reply

      I imagine that's what the start of the French revolution felt like too - one day you could walk down the streets of Paris as a noble minding your own business, the next day you had your head chopped off because people got fed up. Not saying that this is what's happening in the US right now, but I imagine the societal feelings of anger against "the elite" are similar.

      • By bloomingkales 2024-12-1113:35

        Americans burned down a police station over George Floyd, stormed the capitol, and there were two assassination attempts on Trump last year.

        Basically, we’ve begun normalizing events that fit a timeline of domestic turmoil.

    • By kypro 2024-12-1011:387 reply

      I thought it was a joke when I saw the posts on the Reddit homepage celebrating the murder and even the murderer. Partly because I thought Redditors were above that type of thing, but also because I thought it was against their TOS.

      It's a real reminder of how little sympathy people can have about people who they consider the enemy or the "other". I'm almost certain nearly all of the people celebrating the murder believe that they're good people and believe in justice too. Humans are so flawed. And I'm not suggesting for a moment I'm above it. I've often noticed how I don't care as much as I should when someone I dislike is harmed or suffers injustice.

      • By wongarsu 2024-12-1012:104 reply

        A lot of people feel that he as the CEO of the health insurance with the highest rate of denied claims is indirectly responsible for the death of a large number of people. Thus killing him is justified as vigilante justice. And vigilante justice is frequently seen in a positive light when the justice system is unable or unwilling to act.

        • By BoxFour 2024-12-1013:577 reply

          That may feel acceptable, but I hope those people remember it when someone controversial they admire meets a similar fate, greeted by applause from the other side.

          Once we start tacitly approving of extrajudicial killings, it doesn’t stop with just those you dislike or even just the outspoken figures. Consider how many completely innocent civilians died during the Troubles or the French Revolution, or how easy it would’ve been for someone completely innocent to get harmed here.

          It’s easy to approve of this in a vacuum, it’s just a path full of extreme cognitive dissonance.

          • By wongarsu 2024-12-1014:113 reply

            One of the many purposes of the justice system is to serve "justice" so people don't feel the need to take it in their own hands. The fact that so many people feel this murder is justified shows a clear breakdown of the justice system. Which should give everyone pause because that path does lead to the terrors you describe.

            But the path to solving that has to involve adjustments to the system that address this mismatch, not just condemning the act or creating some huge diversion in the hope people will forget about it.

          • By wat10000 2024-12-1014:351 reply

            What do you mean, “once we start”? It has always been. The only really unusual thing about this instance is that the target was not the sort of person who’s traditionally been seen as deserving it.

          • By fakedang 2024-12-1014:492 reply

            > greeted by applause from the other side.

            Considering the other side is a minority of top-level executives and media outlets, I wouldn't bank much on that.

            People are going to celebrate killers regardless, as they always have, when the perpetrator shares the viewpoint of the majority. It happened with Jesus and Barabbas, it happened with Cromwell and Charles I, it happened with Louis XVI and the French revolutionaries.

            In fact, I'm not surprised that Luigi has a bigger fanbase than the Trump shooter. The majority then were in awe of Trump, if not openly cheering him. Here, they're cheering Luigi, with some even insinuating that it was his plan to get caught (something which might as well be true).

          • By narski 2024-12-1017:22

            It's similar to war heroes. Yes, Abraham Lincoln killed people. Yes, we could avoid glamorizing him and empathize with the poor southerners. But generally, war heroes are idolized. This guy is like a war hero who killed someone on the other side.

          • By harimau777 2024-12-1014:412 reply

            That's already happening. Just yesterday someone got acquitted of murdering a homeless person in NYC. The only thing that's different here is that it was a CEO who got killed instead of one of the peasants.

          • By intended 2024-12-1014:111 reply

            I mean, we’re already there. There wasn’t a shared reality in the past few years, and now we even have the generative tools to ensure there is even less shared reality.

          • By mountainriver 2024-12-1015:421 reply

            Thankfully don’t admire anyone that kills people to boost profits

        • By toxik 2024-12-1012:42

          These CEOs have found a way to game the system, but the system presupposes mutual respect. If one side reneges on this contract and says that technically they're following the rules, well, the other side will just disregard the rules. It's like the kid at the playground who won't play fair but insists that technically they follow the rules, ignoring completely the outcome -- kids just don't want to play with them anymore, and will probably be mean to the `cheater'.

        • By liontwist 2024-12-1015:022 reply

          A CEO like this is an employee. He didn’t invent private insurance. He doesn’t get the 50 billion a year. He is a symbolic scapegoat.

          Every person with a 401k probably owns UHC somewhere, and they expect it to increase every year. He is merely part of the system to help make that happen.

          Try going into work tomorrow and saying “boss I think our VP’s initiatives are wrong and I’m going to take us in a different direction”.

        • By troyvit 2024-12-1016:171 reply

          This just occurred to me though. Is UHC going to have a hard time finding a CEO that continues this practice? Have they actually been given any reason to change? Any reason to believe they won't just double down?

          If this murder doesn't change anything, was it justified? I just don't know.

          • By kbelder 2024-12-1018:00

            Ironically, the net result may be an increase in CEO compensation.

      • By oneeyedpigeon 2024-12-1011:531 reply

        I was even more surprised by the response on Bluesky because I naively expected it to be 'better' than that. But I saw vitriol and hatred directed at people for daring to suggest that other, unrelated CEOs shouldn't be shot. It was like a reflection of the worst elements of X, even though these people claim to be the 'good' side.

      • By greenie_beans 2024-12-1012:11

        some people believe the CEO's death is justice. engels called what insurance companies do "social murder" where these institutions and the state commits violence against individuals or kills them through policy or profit motives. and it's perfectly legal. it's only when an individual uses self defense against this social violence that it is considered wrong.

      • By that_guy_iain 2024-12-1012:194 reply

        Honest question, do you think there is a point where someone has earned death? For example, was the mission to kill Bin Laden wrong? Was the mission to kill the Iranian General in Iraq wrong? Is it wrong to kill someone via the death penalty for the rape and murder of a child? Many people fundamentally believe those things are good examples of killing other humans. And realistically, those people are responsible for less harm and suffering , not to mention deaths, that CEOs of healthcare providers being investigated by the DoJ.

        It’s not that there. Is a lack of sympathy, it’s overwhelmed by the feeling of justice. And not the injustice you think occurred.

        • By 542354234235 2024-12-1016:29

          There is a difference between “earning a death” as some sort of justice, and killing being justified to prevent further harm. The death penalty is more of an example of earning death, as it is a punishment more than it is to prevent the person doing harm. Whereas a police shooting is a “justified” killing to prevent harm to others. In the former the goal is killing, in the latter the goal is to stop a threat and the outcome is killing.

          The killing of Bin Laden and Soleimani were justified, in my opinion, as declared enemy combatants and leaders of hostile State and non-State military forces. They didn’t “deserve” to die for justice. They were taken off the battlefield. Whether I agree with that decision or not, I understand the justification.

          Killing a rapist and murderer via the death penalty is wrong, in my opinion. It is killing in cold blood as a punishment, not to protect others or prevent harm. I do not think government should engage in retributive killing. But that is just me.

          As for the United CEO, I don’t think he deserved to die or earned a death. I do think that a compelling argument can be made that government institutions have failed to act to protect human life at the hands of the American healthcare system, and that an individual could see his killing as a justified means to force change and protect American lives. It is the eternal question of when is someone a terrorist and when are they a freedom fighter?

        • By abnry 2024-12-1015:301 reply

          There's martial law and there is civil law. Martial law applies to enemies and in wartime. In this case, killing enemies like Bin Laden is acceptable.

          However, in civil law, for the state to kill someone it has to be done through the courts. There is evidence given on each side. Killing someone without this is not justice.

          People talk as if it is so obvious UHC CEO was responsible for the deaths of many people but he never got to make his case. That's not justice at all.

          • By that_guy_iain 2024-12-1015:561 reply

            I‘m talking about justice and what is legal and what is just are two different things.

            Is it just a child rapist, who there is video evidence commuting the crime, gets to walk free because they can’t find the victim to testify in court? And yes, that is the law in some countries. The uk had to wait for someone to come back to the uk because they could convict without the victims but the country he committed the crime couldn’t.

            And it’s only not obvious that he‘s responsible for a lot of pain and suffering when you ignore the facts. The accused doesn’t need to give their side of the story for people to know what happened.

        • By oneeyedpigeon 2024-12-1013:291 reply

          Only about a quarter of the world's countries have the death penalty so even if "many people believe that's a good example of killing other humans", most do not. While I abhor the nature of privatised healthcare in the US, I think judging—and, certainly, killing—people based on potential indirect harm they've caused is a very slippery slope.

          • By that_guy_iain 2024-12-1013:361 reply

            I don’t know of a single country without a military nor a country that doesn’t allow law enforcement to use lethal force. So your statement that most people don’t think they are valid examples of a good killing of someone is disingenuous.

        • By bud_davis 2024-12-1219:11

          Bin Laden should have been arrested and processed by a court. Killing the Iranian General was wrong. (this is a place for covert action, perhaps)

          Same with everyone else the US has killed by drone.

          Sentenced by a court to die, given the rule of law, is OK.

          (note my personal belief is that the death penalty is wrong. today, it is legal).

      • By NoGravitas 2024-12-1015:552 reply

        > I'm almost certain nearly all of the people celebrating the murder believe that they're good people and believe in justice too.

        It's because they believe in justice that they are celebrating the murder.

        • By goatlover 2024-12-1019:001 reply

          A kind of justice that hasn't ben particularly just in the past, which is why vigilante justice isn't legal. The point is to not have citizens deciding to carry out their own idea of justice. That's for the state, which in a democratic society, we vote on, they pass laws which judges interpret and so on.

          Because we can't trust everyone to deal out their own idea of justice without it turning into endless blood feuds and partisan killings. Not to mention all the lynchings and witch hunts. This doesn't even bring up the fact that most individuals don't have the resources or motivation to carry out a proper independent investigation. So then the wrong person gets hung by an angry mob, or beat to death by a family member of the victim.

          • By Tryk 2024-12-1021:351 reply

            Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a successful healthcare insurance CEO.

        • By AnimalMuppet 2024-12-1015:57

          For some definition of justice. Maybe not the same definition the rest of us are using, though.

      • By mft_ 2024-12-1012:561 reply

        The actions of his company —which he led and dictated policy for— can be considered evil by a reasonably dispassionate measure - they deliberately caused undue suffering or shortened the life of countless thousands of vulnerable people.

        I (obviously) don’t support vigilante justice, and felt somewhat sad when Hussein and Gadaffi were hanged/lynched because despite their evil, I’d rather we don’t treat human beings like that.

        But I don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider the actions of this CEO and his company in the same breath as such evil tyrants; and as such, I can understand why many might be happy about what took place, especially if they had personal animus with the company.

        • By abnry 2024-12-1015:253 reply

          > But I don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider the actions of this CEO and his company in the same breath as such evil tyrants

          But it is. Tyrants round up women and children and execute them. Healthcare is more complicated because you have multiple causes at play: the health conditions of patients, the hospitals and what they bill, and the insurance companies.

          Money is a big factor here. People talk as if insurance companies should spend unlimited resources on every person. I understand the resentment over wealth inequality, but someone recently calculated that the top 4 billionaires could only support healthcare for everyone for 3 months. Money is not an infinite resource. Rationing is unavoidable.

          But I get that there is a problem. Automatic denials and denials over treatments that have clear and significant benefits are a problem, absolutely. And the system could run more efficiently. But we also can't avoid death due to old age or sickness. Nor painless death.

          But we can avoid murdering people in the streets in cold blood.

          • By jplusequalt 2024-12-1020:46

            When people are tired of a system and the powers that be, they take action into their own hands. I'd rather a few dead CEO's and a renewed zeal among the populace to address these issues, then roll over like a dog.

          • By Tryk 2024-12-1021:33

            What about deploying an AI that automatically denies 90% of appeals incorrectly? Is that Tyrannical or is that "complicated"?

            https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/unitedhealthcare-used-...

            There is no reason why you need middlemen between the people and healthcare, beyond enriching the rent-seeking middlemen.

          • By mft_ 2024-12-1023:54

            > But it is. Tyrants round up women and children and execute them.

            That's just a difference in methods.

            > People talk as if insurance companies should spend unlimited resources on every person.

            You're right that US healthcare is a total mess (that's a much bigger area for discussion) but that doesn't mean that it's therefore okay for insurance companies to deliberately trade people for profits. That's literally what they do. Seriously, they could choose to make less profit, or pay lower salaries, and treat patients proportionally better. (And of course, as we all know from the reporting in the past week, UnitedHealth is the worst of all in the US for treatment denials.)

            > But we can avoid murdering people in the streets in cold blood.

            I totally agree; but that wasn't the argument I was making.

      • By UniverseHacker 2024-12-1014:151 reply

        This overall dynamic has become very concerning to me- people have sorted themselves into echo chambers online that dehumanize anyone not in their group- to the point of justifying murder for just for not being in their specific group. This has happened universally across the political and ideological spectrum. Parts of Reddit for example has a seething hatred for anyone elderly “boomers” and/or well off “billionaires and landlords” with lots of extreme essays on why people in these groups should be systematically harmed or even executed becoming well liked. Anyone adding nuance to the discussion is attacked- empathy and nuance are labeled as themselves evil. Everything is based on a cartoonishly oversimplified model of the world with pure good and evil actors- not understanding that unfair outcomes are most often simply the banal result of bad planning and locked in structures that appear organically and can persist even when everyone involved wants them to change but can’t coordinate well. This dynamic is repeated everywhere and not unique to just the right or left. Nothing good will come off this.

        • By CrimsonCape 2024-12-1022:231 reply

          This is a spot-on description. The locked-in banality seems to be the source of fuel for many issues people are taking offense with. Housing cost too much? Oh well. Food costs too much? Oh well. Medical costs too much? Oh well, etc. etc.

          There doesn't seem to be many release valves other than "accept your fate" especially when you have seemingly little control over your own fate.

          • By UniverseHacker 2024-12-1120:08

            When you have a complex locked in problem that most people genuinely already want to solve, it can be solved with good leadership- someone needs to have a clear and workable vision and get all of the players organized to collectively act at the same time.

            One doesn't need to be a politician to do this, but just as an example Obama was able to do this to make some improvements to the US healthcare situation.

            Unfortunately, the people most affected by these problems are probably not in a position to acquire the knowledge and skills to lead the entire field to a better solution like this.

    • By hedora 2024-12-1014:42

      On the one side you have a mass murderer that’s part of the politically untouchable class, and on the other, one of his permanently injured victims managed to survive and deal out frontier-style justice.

      It makes for a good story. We’ve all seen that movie 100 times.

      I wonder if the shooter will survive long enough to make it to jury trial. That’s when the real circus will begin.

      (All I know about this story is that United Health has one of the highest incorrect claim rejection rates in the industry. I know nothing about the CEO, but we’re way past 140 characters at this point, so these things don’t matter to social media.)

    • By guerrilla 2024-12-1012:193 reply

      > melting pot

      Did you mean tipping point?

      • By munksbeer 2024-12-1012:521 reply

        Yes, probably. But I don't think we're at an actual tipping point. I don't think we're about to see a breakdown or anything like that, soon, but we're certainly heading in that general direction.

        What is the euphemism I'm actually looking for? Knife edge? No.

      • By hansifer 2024-12-1014:38

        Maybe powder keg

    • By gruez 2024-12-1017:331 reply

      It's not surprising. Most people don't comment. The tiny minority that comment likely have extreme views. Sorting algorithms that drive engagement makes this worse.

      https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...

      • By computerthings 2024-12-119:231 reply

        So everybody online can be dismissed, except the people posting online that everyone who posts something online can be dismissed? How does that work?

        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371412

        It's everywhere. You're simply wrong. Sort by date, sort by score, look on any broader news story and check out the comments. They're not "extreme", either. Even if their content was, which it isn't, it still wouldn't be extreme by definition at this point.

        • By gruez 2024-12-1114:331 reply

          The point isn't to dismiss everything outright, it's simply cautioning that online commenters are a tiny minority of the overall population, and if you see a surprising opinion showing up in the top comments, you shouldn't extrapolate that everyone holds those views.

          This only holds for opinions. If someone posts a link to a survey that says out of a representative sample of Americans, 70% of them support abortion or whatever, you should believe that (assuming there are no issues with the organization conducting the survey). Same with other forms of argumentation. You shouldn't distrust the top answer on stackoverflow just because it's from 1% of the population, although you probably not think the average person is some sort of expert on every programming question either.

          • By computerthings 2024-12-1117:18

            Sort by date, no difference. And FWIW so far I only heard the idea that this CEO deserves empathy online

    • By lend000 2024-12-114:11

      It's kind of sad. But I think that most people are fundamentally good -- they're just reactive and understand our broken healthcare system so little that they actually consider the victim to have actually earned a death sentence. When really, he was still a cog in the machine, not much closer to harming people than a software developer whose code ends up being used in military drones.

      The problems with US healthcare boil down to there being more demand for healthcare than supply, and a fat bureaucracy sprouting up to partition that limited healthcare, often screwing over people who need exceptionally special care or who can't afford insurance in the first place. Who is to blame? You could reasonably apply some blame to the shortage of doctors created by the AMA, the FDA's guidance and the sugar industry's lobbying resulting in people being less healthy, lack of consumer protection laws around opaque medical pricing/gouging, and private insurance.

      Would changing any one of these alone fix healthcare in the US? Maybe the first 2, if given a long time to materialize. But do any of these people deserve to die? It says a lot about you if you automatically dehumanize these people and say yes.

    • By intended 2024-12-1014:033 reply

      > Things really feel like a melting pot at the moment, with so much pent up anger amongst people who actually lead pretty decent lives.

      One of the reasons that many people voted for Trump, is nihilism. The real belief that Trump is the one most likely to burn the ‘system’ to the ground. That is the brightest hope some voters have.

      • By uoaei 2024-12-1016:141 reply

        Please put more effort into understanding people's issues with the system as it stands today.

        And please understand that virtually no one wants to leave a burned-out wreckage on a desolate hellscape. Everyone fancies themselves Shiva, or a phoenix, or whatever cultural imagery makes sense to you.

        • By intended 2024-12-1020:101 reply

          I know this is a sensitive topic. I am sorry it bothers you.

          The sadder truth is, that I say what I say - AFTER having already applied your advice. I have spoken to strangers, reached out to see what they think. I spend the time to understand the many subcultures people are not parts of.

          Go look at what is showing up in streamer feeds.

          Talk to people, and when a 20 year old tells you “yeah bitcoin is great, because I have no hopes. So even if it goes to the shitter, how much worse can I be.”, you will see that people are truly happy to see things go to hell.

          I do wish I had seen other things and had different interactions. But there is a substantial level of nihilism.

          If you wish not to believe me - we’re in a thread where an insurance CEO was assassinated and the perpetrator is being hailed as a hero.

          • By uoaei 2024-12-1021:181 reply

            This conversation won't last much longer unless you actually listen.

            People are hailing the shooter because of the resulting society they want to grow out of this, not because of some shallow death-drive diagnosis by an aspiring armchair psychologist.

    • By rrix2 2024-12-1023:15

      i think its because the accused dude is just as online as the average social media user who has latched on to this.

    • By ahazred8ta 2024-12-124:34

      Given the number of people who think that Oswald did not shoot three people, that James Earl Ray did not shoot anyone, that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot anyone, the mental gymnastics are not surprising. It's always been like this; the internet just allows us to know about it in real time. There are still people to this day who will tell you that the Yippies really DID levitate the Pentagon.

    • By avmich 2024-12-1119:23

      Imagine modern Russia. You can't have much of an opinion on pressing subjects of today unless that opinion is sanctioned by Russia's authorities - otherwise you're dead, or incarcerated or at best left the country. The propaganda machine is working 24/7. Now, Russia is a young country - counting from the last big turmoil in 1991, it's only 30+ years old - but some of the people there lived through USSR times. And some 100- years ago USSR was going through grim times itself, with millions suffering in purges, and even more millions and tens of millions learning to conform. And, as some prized artists and writers said there, the country killed a lot of progressive and inspired and very many of who're left are those who did purges, participated in them or from their families. So now the Russia's population - many involuntarily - support the war which was started for, frankly, really wrong reasons. And the future the Russia is perhaps looking towards is grim, hard and thankless no matter how things will progress. Can you imagine the scale of the task of getting back from the proverbial pit towards what we'd see as a more normal way of a country, what's going on in the heads of those people trying to live a normal life there?

      Now, you might be surprised but America also has problems under the surface. America likes to project the good impression, but certain problems exist, aren't addressed enough for some time, got accumulated and it's harder to gloss them over. And since those problems are decades old, you have some parts of generations quite familiar with them. And we have Trump - first winning in 2016 and then even more triumphantly winning in 2024 - and those "normal", "good" sort of decidedly lost this November to those who's combined message might well be "things aren't well". Maybe we need to look at what's normal, as in if we have that state? Should we consider normal something only 40% think? 50%? 70%? That is, if 30% have long running reasons to think things aren't normal - is it enough for you to pause?

      To the melting pot. What would you think if, looking into the pot, at the extreme you'd see the whole pot is full of that pent up anger, and nothing - or almost nothing - of what's "normal" here? Do numbers matter here? And, if they are suddenly too large, what you're going to do with lots and lots of those who'd think, figuratively, that lynching is still a good idea? Or in other somewhat known words, what would you do the good from, if the only thing you can do that is from evil?

    • By thomond 2024-12-1012:272 reply

      [flagged]

      • By sumeno 2024-12-1014:09

        There were tons of articles before he was identified talking about how this was a truly bipartisan issue. The left and right were celebrating pretty equally and I don't think that has significantly changed

      • By nemomarx 2024-12-1012:47

        in my left leaning circles there's still general support. maybe he was a bit of a median voter, listened to Rogan a few times, but he seems to have radicalized on a few issues in the end and I'm not seeing a lot of anger about what's basically centrist right stuff. it's not like the guy seems racist or anything.

    • By brodouevencode 2024-12-1015:16

      [flagged]

HackerNews