UnitedHealth CEO shot

[Saintman2884]

I don't understand the peril clutching in this thread.

This was psychopath on psychopath crime.

One kind, guns down a guy in the middle of a major American city. The other kills thousands to make a bigger bonus.

Who cares about any of these dudes.

Oh, some of these kinds of psychopaths are classified as serial killers, who kill at random in sprees, ritualistically or in a very disorganized manner. Forensic criminal studies have discovered that due to their random nature of who they kill and their victims come from over-looked, unappreciative sensitive, at-risk margins of society--prostitutes, paid escorts, minorities in large, metropolitan cities, many police departments don't work to extremes to find these serial killers' early victims until he starts assaulting, raping and murdering from more "respectable backgrounds". I don't say that with any sort of prejudice or disdain towards anyone but am reporting what quite a few forensic studies have released over the years on who spree serial killers target the most and the earliest. Unlike Ted Bundy, quite a few of the Green River Killer's victims were pros

Yea, my sympathy doesn't apply to pre-existing jerks that kinda deserve it.

EDIT: So my question is, who's next? You know there will be copycats. I bet Anthem's CEO is making herself scarce.

What if starts becoming a fit-for-tat, Rick where some people see and observe some hated rich guy gets killed, they know some segments of society will condone, if not sympathize. So, it becomes vigilante justice for anybody or anyone some ______ terrible person that their deaths will make some people happy.


After a while, contexts get lost and don’t really matter. Circumstances between how bad Guy X was or Girl T really was and whether they deserve something similar won’t matter.


Oh yes, there’s a very good possibility “copycats” will occur but don’t be shocked or surprised if a few of them aren’t because victims were rich, corrupt terrible individuals. No, it becomes more centered around “I don’t like what that person stands for, and he did some terrible things 20-25 years ago, so I’m doing society a favor”.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Oh, some of these kinds of psychopaths are classified as serial killers, who kill at random in sprees, ritualistically or in a very disorganized manner. Forensic criminal studies have discovered that due to their random nature of who they kill and their victims come from over-looked, unappreciative sensitive, at-risk margins of society--prostitutes, paid escorts, minorities in large, metropolitan cities, many police departments don't work to extremes to find these serial killers' early victims until he starts assaulting, raping and murdering from more "respectable backgrounds". I don't say that with any sort of prejudice or disdain towards anyone but am reporting what quite a few forensic studies have released over the years on who spree serial killers target the most and the earliest. Unlike Ted Bundy, quite a few of the Green River Killer's victims were pros

What if starts becoming a fit-for-tat, Rick where some people see and observe some hated rich guy gets killed, they know some segments of society will condone, if not sympathize. So, it becomes vigilante justice for anybody or anyone some ______ terrible person that their deaths will make some people happy.

So yes you’re deliberately leaning into a slippery slope argument
But I think we can all agree that there have been necessary and important times that the populace revolted against tyranny

But what if there’s a crime and punishment system that is broken and corrupt - that it shields the privileged and penalizes poverty
Wouldn’t ‘vigilante justice’ just be propaganda that the privilege employ to undermine the attempt to hold bad action to consequence?

 

[superchuck500]

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Oh, some of these kinds of psychopaths are classified as serial killers, who kill at random in sprees, ritualistically or in a very disorganized manner. Forensic criminal studies have discovered that due to their random nature of who they kill and their victims come from over-looked, unappreciative sensitive, at-risk margins of society--prostitutes, paid escorts, minorities in large, metropolitan cities, many police departments don't work to extremes to find these serial killers' early victims until he starts assaulting, raping and murdering from more "respectable backgrounds". I don't say that with any sort of prejudice or disdain towards anyone but am reporting what quite a few forensic studies have released over the years on who spree serial killers target the most and the earliest. Unlike Ted Bundy, quite a few of the Green River Killer's victims were pros

What if starts becoming a fit-for-tat, Rick where some people see and observe some hated rich guy gets killed, they know some segments of society will condone, if not sympathize. So, it becomes vigilante justice for anybody or anyone some ______ terrible person that their deaths will make some people happy.

So yes you’re deliberately leaning into a slippery slope argument
But I think we can all agree that there have been necessary and important times that the populace revolted against tyranny

But what if there’s a crime and punishment system that is broken and corrupt - that it shields the privileged and penalizes poverty
Wouldn’t ‘vigilante justice’ just be propaganda that the privilege employ to undermine the attempt to hold bad action to consequence?

 

[Saintman2884]

What everybody seems to be missing is that it's a national story when a rich, white guy gets murdered in New York City.

People get murdered there every day. Just not rich ones.

Why do we care more when a rich one dies?

How many murders occur right in front of some major NYC hotel wide out there in the open as a general rule? Instead of let’s say in front of nobody or in some dark, back alley where the murderer’s ID is hard to notice? Or a drug deal gone bad or some gang-related murder?


I’ll also re-state another sad, yet all true element of how law enforcement works in most countries, not just the USA, when it comes to prostitutes, drug addicts, teenage runaways, pimps, pedophiles, sex offenders people living at the fringe, high-risk areas of society or crime-ridden areas, most homicide detectives aren’t going to exhaust major supplies to quickly solve a prostitute’s death because they or society views it as a very dangerous, potentially violent profession and there’s always a decent risk they’ll meet a freaky, dangerous, violent customer. I hate to say that but that’s the mentality a lot of law enforcement agencies have and it’s not just U.S. law enforcement, either.

 

[NewOrleansFan]

Surprise that he didn’t have a bodyguard. Maybe he didn’t get that pre-authorized and couldn’t afford paying out of pocket for something that would’ve saved his life.

 

[Saintman2884]

So yes you’re deliberately leaning into a slippery slope argument
But I think we can all agree that there have been necessary and important times that the populace revolted against tyranny

But what if there’s a crime and punishment system that is broken and corrupt - that it shields the privileged and penalizes poverty
Wouldn’t ‘vigilante justice’ just be propaganda that the privilege employ to undermine the attempt to hold bad action to consequence?

When any society breaks down, there’s are always opportunists looking to take advantage and for many revolutionaries, it’s hard to sound ethical and moral to these same people who know you’ve killed tens of thousands of people. The reasons won’t matter anymore because they view people like you as “tearing it all down” so now you’re the good guy, Guido. All of a sudden everyone’s going to get along so much better.


If you’ve watched the Purge movies, it kind of articulates these points more clearly. It’s when the ideals of a revolution get corrupted and co-opted to serve as a vengeance “release valve” on persons or individuals we don’t like for one day of a year.


And just who will be defining tyranny, Guido? Who ends up deserving the axe more than others? Maybe arrest or torture? Beatings? Every revolution has its factions, different leaders and often times after the old system falls apart, usually the ones advocating more severe, recrimination violence win out or outmaneuver more moderate factions and when disagreements pop up, they don’t end peacefully. That’s when revolutions tend to get out of control and turn into bloodbaths.


It happened with Robespierre’s Jacobins overthrew the more moderate Girondins until 1794. It happened after Lenin’s death in 1924 when someone he repeatedly told his own Politburo to get rid of ( along with Trotsky, too in his Theses) and the Great Purges, 5-year plans began.


It happened in Iran too from 1979-81 after the secular, moderate, working-class Iranian groups who deposed the Shah (People’s Mujuhadeen) were outmaneuvered and deposed by some radical, medieval Iranian Shiite Ayatollah who has proceeded to turn Iran into a homophobic, xenophobic, racist medieval Islamic fundamentalist regime.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

When any society breaks down, there’s are always opportunists looking to take advantage and for many revolutionaries, it’s hard to sound ethical and moral to these same people who know you’ve killed tens of thousands of people. The reasons won’t matter anymore because they view people like you as “tearing it all down” so now you’re the good guy, Guido. All of a sudden everyone’s going to get along so much better.


If you’ve watched the Purge movies, it kind of articulates these points more clearly. It’s when the ideals of a revolution get corrupted and co-opted to serve as a vengeance “release valve” on persons or individuals we don’t like for one day of a year.


And just who will be defining tyranny, Guido? Who ends up deserving the axe more than others? Maybe arrest or torture? Beatings? Every revolution has its factions, different leaders and often times after the old system falls apart, usually the ones advocating more severe, recrimination violence win out or outmaneuver more moderate factions and when disagreements pop up, they don’t end peacefully. That’s when revolutions tend to get out of control and turn into bloodbaths.


It happened with Robespierre’s Jacobins overthrew the more moderate Girondins until 1794. It happened after Lenin’s death in 1924 when someone he repeatedly told his own Politburo to get rid of ( along with Trotsky, too in his Theses) and the Great Purges, 5-year plans began.


It happened in Iran too from 1979-81 after the secular, moderate, working-class Iranian groups who deposed the Shah (People’s Mujuhadeen) were outmaneuvered and deposed by some radical, medieval Iranian Shiite Ayatollah who has proceeded to turn Iran into a homophobic, xenophobic, racist medieval Islamic fundamentalist regime.

Again you’re arguing that to avoid Stalin the serfs needs to keep the Tzar’s boot on their necks
I think that’s an inhumane argument

 

[Saintman2884]

Again you’re arguing that to avoid Stalin the serfs needs to keep the Tzar’s boot on their necks
I think that’s an inhumane argument

So is installing a more murderous, oppressive regime that ends up being 10-15x worse then what the czars did for over 400 years? Is Lenin, Stalin, or Mao better alternatives for you because they offer utopian ideals at the eventual cost of murdering, imprisoning, torturing tens of millions of people to create some “workers paradise” free from sexism, racism, exploitation.


All that’s required to hopefully achieve this idealistic dream is murder up to 10-15% of the world’s population?


Are you willing to be a trigger man for that, Guido?


Or is what happened in South Africa post-94 apartheid elections or the Voting and Civil Rights Acts in the 1960’s a little realistic and doesn’t involve piles of bodies everywhere and You have to end up paying the bill.

 

[Saintman2884]

Again you’re arguing that to avoid Stalin the serfs needs to keep the Tzar’s boot on their necks
I think that’s an inhumane argument

I think ending Apartheid in South Africa peacefully is a better, humane argument or the Cold War ending without our world and eco-system looking like Stormchaser or the Last of Us in some nuclear Armageddon is better than Stalin, Lenin or Mao.

 

[CapitalCitySaint]

My VP and I were texting about this yesterday & he was saying he saw a report that said this Brian guy wasn’t staying at the hotel that he was leaving when he got shot . I replied “he was leaving the side piece hotel” This post makes me feel I was probably onto something with that. lol.

 

[CapitalCitySaint]

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

So is installing a more murderous, oppressive regime that ends up being 10-15x worse then what the czars did for over 400 years? Is Lenin, Stalin, or Mao better alternatives for you because they offer utopian ideals at the eventual cost of murdering, imprisoning, torturing tens of millions of people to create some “workers paradise” free from sexism, racism, exploitation.

What you’re failing to realize is that Stalin happens BECAUSE of the Tzars not in spite of them

 

[Saintman2884]

What you’re failing to realize is that Stalin happens BECAUSE of the Tzars not in spite of them

Lenin and the Revolution occured due to the terrible mismanagement, brutal autocracy of the Romonov Dynasty since the early 18th century, along with centuries of systemic anti-semitism and conspiracy theories dating back to the early Middle Ages.

Trotsky? Sure, but no Stalin didnt play a huge, crucial role in the October Revolution despite his later NKVD propogandists, that was arguably moreso Zinoviev, Lenin and Trotsky and even Lenin saw and realized how dangerous, vile and meglomaniacal Stalin was going to be. He repeatedly advised the Politburo to disown or arrest him but by the early 20's, due to two major strokes and nearly dying due to a non-Bolshevik Marxist assassin named Fanny Kaplin shooting him, he was nothing more then a mere figure head and Stalin was already carefully selecting his handpicked henchmen who would go on to do his bidding for the next 30 years. The Soviet Union didn't necessarily have to endure a meglomaniacal tyrant 20x worse and more harsh than what Tsar Nicholas II ever could be. They didn't necessarily have to be viewed as some brutal, authoritian, imperialist (the irony, huh?) world power. Does Russia still have to be this ultra-nationalist, territorial expansionist power?

So, my answer to "Who created Who?" is kind of simple: So? Tsars created as many reformers as they did revolutionaries like Lenin, Stalin, or Trotsky and Zinoviev? Many of these 19th century/20th century reformists, or revolutionaries like the Decembrists of 1820's? Tsars also created people like Leo Tolstoy, a man who hated autocracy, repression, and secret police but wasnt someone who felt you had to create a temporary worse dictatorship to make Russia a better place?

If you want to say people like Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin were violent, despotic revolutionary thugs who despite their best efforts, really didnt know any better, Guido, I can go along with that, too. Thats why many late 19th/early 20th century European socialists, anarchists like August Bebel, Karl Leopernick, and Rosa Luxembourg saw many of their Russian contemporaries as less-educated, brutal, autocratic-prone simpletons who lived in some vast, backward, scarcely-industrialized backwater region where Marx himself argued that any future anarcho-communist regime or society was doomed to fail. You probably won't hear that on some BBC Three economics documentary but he did say it and most late 19th century socialists agreed with him.