When a fraudster who tried to overthrow democracy and rightfully convicted of 34 felonies, still gets reelected as president, it is evident that there is no justice anymore.
You reminded me of something I read from back around when that bloke got elected, regarding amongst other things, the decline in the rule of law mattering to society…
"The greatness of Rome, brilliant with repeated marks of prosperity, has gradually faded… the ancient glory of military prowess and valour has almost passed away… by the growth of wealth and luxury.
The Roman world is falling: yet we concern ourselves with trifles… We heap up riches that perish and bury our gold in the earth as if we were piling up treasures in a lifetime of prosperity.
Rome was great and could tolerate its own vices as long as they were held in check by some degree of virtue; but when our hands ceased to uphold the laws, when avarice and luxury sapped the nation’s strength, the state itself lost control and went its way.
The finest men were shut out from office by the lowest dregs of society, who, having won the favour of the mob by base means, ventured to grasp at the highest offices.
The greater her glory, the more incredible it seems that she has been brought so low.
Empires are mortal. Rome has perished. Though she was built upon such firm foundations, Rome has sunk by her own weight."
- Ammianus Marcellinus, Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, Tacitus, Aurelius Ambrosius, Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis. 56 - 430 AD.
Can you indicate which author is associated with which portion of your quoted text? I’m looking to verify the provenance of these statements. Thank you.
Alas no, I saw this a while back and saved it. I believe they’re mostly a mix of direct quotes (or as much as one can be given they weren’t speaking English), and a lot of summations from their published works. So rather than reading a whole book, you get a few sentences carrying their main points.
At least that’s what I recall :-)
My suggestion would be to look in to the authors, find their relevant works and give them a read, that’ll give you the same thoughts and opinions but with way more detail :-D
Rome fell before he was born
Yet the Roman Empire survived and thrived for about a millennium afterwards.
Id barely call the byzantines the Romans. They were a greek led empire
reaches for spatha
Unfair, there is still actual debate amongst historians and scholars about when the Roman empire ended, and if ever, it fell.
Among which historians specifically? I’m unaware of any serious debate here other than propagandists using the name second Rome, third Rome, ceaser etc. sorry buddy Roman empire collapsed when the franks, Visigoths, ostrogoths and Huns toppled the west. Wanna know why it ended then? Byzantine had split long before into a separate entity to distance itself from Rome and when it collapsed it chugged along with it’s greek orthodox ideals
That’s ignorant of modern scholarship. Here are some serious historians you might want to look into:
- Peter Heather
- Anthony Kaldellis
- Averil Cameron
- Timothy Gregory
- John Haldon
There are others, of course.
And no. By the time the Western half collapsed, the East had not drifted apart. That started happening 2-3 centuries later, definitely after Justinian. And it was not even completed as a process until after the 4th crusade at least.
Honestly you are right as someone who started his love for history with the Romans, I didn’t know this was a debate, so I did some research and to me personally the end of the Roman empire was 476ad with the last western Roman empire abdicating. Or perhaps the fall of Constantinople
It’s been evident long before Trump had anything to do with politics
Agreed.
The wealthy and powerful sadly have always and will always have a preferential justice system.
There is no justice system, it is a legal system. Justice does not exist within it.
Came here to say exactly this
/ End Thread
On Monday, 26-year-old Daniel Penny was acquitted after killing Jordan Neely, a desperate Black homeless man on the subway…
Tale as old as time.
“…on the grounds that he was trying to protect others.”
I think that’s a pretty fucking important line right there.
I think the point is, the system pushed one man to his breaking point simply for being poor, black, and mentally ill; resulting in his eventual strangulation on a subway. Not saying the the situation didn’t require intervention but acting as if the whole thing was “unavoidable” or even “justified” gladiator giving all the context is Pretty Fucking Important
It wasn’t unavoidable but also it was his aggressive behaviour towards others that directly lead to him being subdued. I’m not sure the situation would’ve been different with a white guy acting aggressive towards fellow passengers, especially a mother and her child.
The point is neither situation should ever happen in a system that puts humanity over profits. A mentally ill, homeless, and starving person should exist in our society because we have the means to house, feed, and provide Healthcare for everyone. (we just don’t have the morality)
Also, the strangle hold was applied for 5 min. I’m no expert but when someone goes limp from blood flow being blocked, you usually don’t need to continue choking them for an additional 4 min.
It shouldn’t happen but such a situation where someone becomes hostile can occur even when theoretically everyone’s every need is taken care of. It’s unfortunate that it did though.
Also, the strangle hold was applied for 5 min. I’m no expert but when someone goes limp from blood flow being blocked, you usually don’t need to continue choking them for an additional 4 min.
That’s what the court case was over. Nobody is really disagreeing about the homeless man having been aggressive and a threat and needing to be subdued, it was just about whether the person who subdued him was guilty of “criminally negligent homicide”.
Wasn’t Penny a combat vet though? Perhaps he did overreact and Neely didn’t have to die (I sure don’t think he deserved THAT even though he certainly did act like a piece of sh*t), but it’s hard to understand what’s going through someone’s mind when they’re facing a life or death situation.
It’s a regrettable outcome for sure but did Penny really deserve life in prison for trying to protect others from violence? It seems rather likely that someone would have died that night, and if it wasn’t Neely, it would have likely been someone more innocent.
Imagine if the defense pulls that line in court. My client gun down this man to save lives your honor!
The whole thing seems to have been about if the guy went too far in subduing the homeless dude who was by all accounts acting crazy and aggressive towards other passengers, including a woman with a child with her.
It’s so crazy reading different characterizations of the situation. Some are saying how the guy heroically saved other passengers by strangling an aggressive homeless dude for six minutes, even after other passengers had apparently left, others are saying how a vicious white attacker decided to murder a desperate BLACK victim of the system without any reason.
Wild shit.
Well, a judge decided to drop the charges. I don’t know all of the details of the case but I’ll hunt for them later today.
I do know that if passengers felt threatened and this dude stepped up and helped, it’s unfortunate that it ended badly, but good for him doing something.
I’m not the type to fight in a crazy situation unless I’m backed into a corner and I would be thankful to any person with the balls to step in.
I don’t know why we have to go around comparing unrelated situations or looking for anything to justify our feelings.
It’s like when George Floyd was killed and a bunch of assholes went digging for why that was ok. “He used drugs, he had a counterfeit 20, blah blah blah. What about so and so who got shot, HE WAS WHITE U NO!!!”
This dude wasn’t a police officer and if he was protecting passengers we should be holding him up as a hero too. We can feel sorry for the dude who died, but we don’t need to vilify anyone except maybe the system that failed to help a man in a mental health crisis. That is, if helping fellow passengers was his motivation and that appears to be the case.
Even the prosecution seemed to say that the initial reaction was justified because the other guy was aggressive and hostile in a crowded train, but that the measures taken to subdue him went too far
From the New Yorker article linked in the posted article:
“His initial intent was even laudable, to protect fellow subway riders from a man he perceived to be a threat.” But the law does not permit “laudable behavior” when it is also “unnecessarily reckless,” Yoran went on. Her opening statement—in which she described how Penny held Neely in a choke hold for almost six minutes, even after the train doors had opened and the other straphangers had fled to safety—concluded, “The defendant was not justified in these deadly actions. He used far too much force for far too long. He went way too far.” Later, the jury—twelve jurors and four alternates, all hailing from Manhattan—would need to decide for themselves whether the Assistant District Attorney was correct.
Yeah, I guess. I don’t think we should be parading this guy around as a villain. Even if he held the dude for too long, it’s a scary situation that he was in and who knows what will happen if you let someone go who has been aggressive. He isn’t a police officer, he didn’t have handcuffs and a taser, he was just a dude on a train.
Making decisions based on fear alone is what’s causing deaths like the one on the train. If fear hadn’t griped him he would have recognized that once the dude stopped moving he could let go.
And before anyone comes at me here, I have done almost the same thing to a guy outside a bar. He was drunk as a skunk, had been beat up and was bleeding from a head wound, and wasn’t thinking clearly. I held him in a close-to a choke hold but was still worried if I let him go he’d turn around and clock me. But I still let him go after a few minutes. He did punch me (not in the face), then left it at that.
Too many are running on fear these days, including cops, and we don’t need it. It’s useless. If I, as a woman, can understand that and still do the ‘right’ thing, why can’t I expect a dude to do the same?
It’s cool that you are you with the info you have in your head. Not everyone is you and no one deserves prison time for protecting their fellow humans.
I cannot be swayed in that view. I grew up surrounded by idiots and endured daily violence and more than one person I knew growing up is in prison for actual murder and more than one friend is currently in a grave because no one stepped up.
If you’d like, private message me and I’ll share article after article with you. I’m sure I can find them in archives at least.
I’ve seen people comparing the DOJ response to Luigi Mangioni and Kyle Shittenhouse. The fact that Rittenhouse is free should tell you everything you need to know.
Well the difference is that while both actively premeditated their murders whoever committed the crimes Mangioni has been accused of is far more of a menace because they had a specific target in mind and even worse it was someone rich instead of just anyone protesting the police tendency to murder.
Rittenhouse attacked 3 people, that’s 3x the danger. But I guess I forgot to count up their net worths.
Can we just not lie? Rittenhouse was attacked.
Sure he was attacked in the same way you attack a burglar. He shouldve been hanged for waving that fucken rifle around outside of his hometown let alone in a different state. But such mistakes can always be corrected.
oh ffs. you are clearly unaware of how laws work in the particular states where this occurred, and are trying to staple vaguely European or Canadian laws on to the situation, mostly which are considered pretty fascist by those under them.
I am simply stating that the locals of the town should’ve hanged him, this aint a legal argument on my part. I am but a simple Californian stating that I think Kyle Rittenhouse deserves death, my morality rarely aligns to law.
So if you ain’t no better than what you claim he is, why you mad, bro?
There is no Self Defense when you seek conflict.
Court entirely disagreed with your scenario, even the survivor admitted he was attacking.
The court was wrong. Anyone not blinded by ideology can see Rittenhouse crossed state lines to go cause trouble with a gun. His fig leaf of a cover blew apart and conservatives pretended it still applied.
Furthermore despite conservative judges protecting attackers this must be a tenet of self defense, otherwise there is no longer any way to convict someone of murder, except the arbitrary denial of self defense as an argument to defendants.
Was the survivor also lying, you propaganda pushing piece of shit?
You are in the wrong place for trying to say the truth. Dont even try to converse about that topic here as You’ll only get gut emotional reactions that blatantly go against the facts.
Sure looks like it huh?
Rittenhouse didn’t premediate his shooting though? Where do you guys get your information about this?
You don’t straw buy an AR then pick it up and cross state lines with it going to a known chaotic protest without premeditated “self defence”.
Yeah and you don’t get acquitted of that either. Also one of the surviving “victims” doesn’t blow the prosecution’s case by being honest in your scenario. That look of defeat photo is priceless.
It’s not “my scenario”, it was what fucking happened. Also do you people ever get tired of making sock puppets when you’re stupidity gets banned?
Why are you so dependant on the court acknowledged and recorded reality of what happened being false? Your rhetoric doesn;t work with facts, so you ignore those instead of constructing an argument that works within reality, for some reason. People like you cry about rittenhouse and that pearl guy, and then go celebrate Luigi.
Why are you so dependant on bootlicking and insisting a deranged little racist was justified in murdering people, and vilifying a person who the courts, you seem to rely on to tell you what to believe, hadn’t even tried yet. And you so haven’t answered my sock puppet question. Do you make new accounts when you’re idiocy and hate gets banned, or do you make them because you’re afraid people will check your history and realise your a sycophant for authoritarianism.
Carrying a gun is “premeditated self defence”? Are people only supposed to carry guns where it is safe? What is the purpose of that?
So many people pushing this ridiculous idea he is guilty for not staying at home, quaking in his boots. Right to self defense and to bear arms literally exist so that people don’t have to fear walking outside because of asshat violent criminals and rioters.
And even more ridiculous saying the police and prosecutors didn’t care. What do you mean? They went after him with everything they had. It was a jury of his peers that told them to f off with that shit.
But I guess lemmy only likes juries if they nullify actual murderers they like, not when they let go an innocent person they don’t like. (I don’t like Rittenhouse either, but that does not make him a murderer.)
I remember when I was a freshman in high school, I worked at a McDonald’s. For whatever reason, I owned a Burger King t shirt. As a 14 year old, I thought it would be funny to wear the Burger King shirt to work. I figured it would annoy my boss and might get a few reactions out of other people. It didn’t work, but there were no real consequences because of it.
You really can’t see how Rittenhouse did a similar thing? He went to a protest knowing he was diametrically opposite, politically, to people actually protesting and he did it with a big ass gun. Like my Burger King t shirt, this was very clearly sending a message of “I am your enemy.” And the message wasn’t on a harmless shirt, it was on a deadly big ass gun.
You really truly believe he had no intention of killing? Are you dumb?
Removed by mod
Rittenhouse was not a cop, he was a douchebag little shit stirrer with a murder fantasy, and he got exactly what he wanted — a fun murder spree killing liberals with no consequences.
I’m not going to coordinate an effort to lynch the piece of shit, but spreading bullshit about how “he’s not a murderer,” like what you’re doing, is disingenuous at best. Kindly, shut the fuck up
Everything they had? He’s still alive. That’s more than most shooters get.
Removed by mod
No? But usually shooters get shot, especially if they shoot blindly into unarmed folks. How isn’t anyone able to read any more? Did I write trial?
He absolutely did though, the whole point was he wanted to get into a fight be “forced” to defend himself.
I never saw evidence for this claim. Do you have any?
He was literally filmed that night watching Antifa Members leave a CVS, where he said “If only I had my gun on me right now”
He was also in an interview with a militia group bragging about “Never using non-lethal”
He also had various facebook posts where he talked about wanting to kill.
He also had a history of schoolyard violence against young girls.
These were disallowed from being admitted as evidence by the judge who claimed these were “irrelevant”, even though they clearly paint a motive.
There’s also the fact that you don’t travel across state lines with an illegal weapon because you love somebody else’s property that much. He had claimed he had been “Hired to protect a dealership” and that he was “Only there to provide medical assistance with the gun being purely for protection”, at one point he’d even been asked to leave by police who only allowed him to stay because he lied about being a “Trained EMT”
Which resulted in the (often played out of context) clip of the police saying “We appreciate you guys, we really do!” as they gave him bottles of water. (Yet no charges for lying to law enforcement, self-misrepresentation, or “Stolen Valor”, curious)
The fact that he wore gloves at all times while handling the weapon also shows he intended to use it for criminal purposes and took steps to hide his fingerprints.
The evidence of pre-mediation is overwhelming, had the Judge not been a MAGA-Plant and the Prosecution not been incompetent “DID THE VIDEO GAMES MAKE YOU DO IT KYLE?!!?!”
It’s pretty obvious how this would have gone
lol. is this Stephen Kings’ alt account? Clearly written after he got off the blow.
let’s just leave rittenhouse out of this. he got away, whatever.
it is divisive, focus on the topic at hand. Luigi likely did not do it and health insurance it trash that must be reformed.
Luigi likely did not do it and health insurance it trash that must be reformed.
Ah you’re right, I think that’s what matters more too. This is going to be one hell of a trial.
If the Judge were to ask me, I’d say pretty sure Luigi didn’t do it, I thought I saw Nancy Mace with the glock though.
He deliberately brandished a weapon to incite bystanders to try to defend themselves so he could kill them and call it self defense.
Did you even watch the video? He was running away each time he ended up shooting someone. First time he tried to run but got trapped between some cars and was getting rushed by a mob.
Second time he was running at a good clip and he was hit a few times, but didn’t do anything until someone hit him in the head with a skateboard and he fell over. When that person came in to hit him a second time while on the ground, he shot them.
The third was while Rittenhouse was still on the ground. The other person pulled a gun on him but when Rittenhouse pointed his gun first, the third person held his gun up and backed away. When Rittenhouse tried to stand up the other guy aimed his gun at Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse shot him.
All three times people rushed him while he was in a vulnerable position, the second person assaulted him with a deadly weapon, and the third drew a gun on him.
Rittenhouse is a dumb rightoid who put himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. That doesn’t mean that he is not allowed to defend himself from obvious threats to his life. As for anyone intending to protest without getting blasted, a quick tip: don’t fucking attack people who are running away because it makes it look like you’re trying to kill them.
“Brandishing” a weapon isn’t a crime in Wisconsin. Even if it were, it wouldn’t justify vigilantes attempting to kill him.
A hunter in the woods lays a trap. A coyote walks by and gets its foot caught in the trap. The hunter approaches and the coyote bites the hunter.
You feel the coyote was unjustified?
What exactly are you arguing for? That the coyote should avoid traps? That the hunter shouldn’t be laying traps if they don’t want to get bitten? What is it?
Fighting back against a perceived threat does not automatically grant the threat justification in their violent actions, nor does it remove legitimacy from the coyote for defending itself from a perceived threat.
Rittenhouse entered the woods, laid a trap, approached the trapped animal, was bitten, and shot the trapped animal. Then he said “It was self defense! They were hunting me!”
It’s ludicrous that this was upheld in court.
The age old source of “I made it the fuck up”.
I don’t think other commenters bothered to watch the trial.
He was acting foolish but he certainly didn’t commit pre-meditated murder.
A stark reminder of who the justice system works for. They are there to protect the rich elites.
Yup. The irony wasn’t lost on us either.
Our society ties worth to wealth.
To a capitalist, If you’re homeless, you have less moral value than someone who exploited millions of people’s need for healthcare for his own gain.
And there are a lot of capitalists.
No there aren’t. There are a lot of people who fawn over the capitalists, but there’s only a very few that can actually practice Capitalism. The rest of us are just a product and an expendable resource at the same time.
“Sen. John Fetterman is one of those who has loudly insisted that the “public execution of an innocent man and father of two is indefensible.” We are expected to ignore the fact that for 14 months straight before Thompson’s killing, Israeli forces have publicly executed thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza with the enthusiastic support of US politicians like Fetterman.”
Normally I’m not one to dig into these things, but I seriously think fetterman died and the dude we hear from now is a stand in. Just such a 180… I remember when he was first gaining national prominence, had some interview in front of a Wawa off the freeway - when I saw THAT guy, I donated to his campaign and called my wife in to say, “listen to this for a second, I think this guy could be the president one day”. That guy has ZERO DNA in common with the “Fetterman” we see and hear from today. It wasn’t a stroke, or if it was, it was fatal.
I’m think it’s from the stroke. They can cause a huge personality shift
Does this mean if I have a stroke I turn into a chud 😭
Dr: Yeah, no cap. On god, bro.
Nah if you dig into his past Fetterman has always been a conman
I don’t think these are comparable.
I think that’s the point of the article.
You both make good points so I up voted.
I think there are two primary reasons for the difference in treatment of these two killings
-
The killing of the CEO was meant to be a message to the country. It’s a different scale. Because something like this is such a spectacle, it gets national attention and the local and federal authorities are forced to deal with it quickly- otherwise they lose face.
-
Ultimately the power structure cannot tolerate these types of rebellions. It’s like a slave talking back to the master. You allow it once and you open the door for it to happen again. You have to try and shut it down as quickly as possible.
-
Matt Stone killed a homeless man?
but killing rich people is illegal!
It’s illegal to keep a sleeping donkey in a bathtub after 7 pm. in Arizona.
It’s illegal to fall asleep in a cheese factory in South Dakota.
It’s illegal to bring a kangaroo inside barber shops in Alaska.
someone has to have done that, right? what I wonder is how and when.
I suppose so. The only one I found explained was the donkey one.
A town was flooded in 1924 where they wasted a lot of time searching for a missing donkey. To avoid it happening again, they banned donkeys sleeping in bathtubs at night.
The cheese factory law is probably an interpretation of a more general law about not being allowed to sleep when working in food production.
The ban on kangaroos in barber shops also includes flamingos. I do not know the source of that, but Alaska does have a lot of strange laws about animals. Mostly moose.
B… but that’s my emotional support kangaroo
This is not a juxtaposition at all. Terrible ethics aside, the CEO operated more or less totally in compliance with USA law. Being a fucking scumbag is not illegal – indeed, our country sadly runs on this principle.
The fellow in the subway was acting to a DIRECT threat, and it’s pretty easy to draw a line from that guy flipping out to someone being threatened/hurt/killed in the subway. He was already culpable of disorderly conduct or worse, and it’s pretty clear that it wasn’t Penny’s intent to fatally injure him.
The juxtaposition some people feel is because the CEO is acting against their moral framework, but he’s operating in a legal framework. This is why our country is fucking sick, but it is is what it is at this point.
but he’s operating in a legal framework.
That defence is flimsy AF .
The US did a whole thing in Germany saying following the law was a bullshit excuse , they’ve literally set the precedent for assholes following the law being killed when they’re guilty of mass murder.
Since our courts care about case law and not about moral frameworks, I think you’ll see that defense being used quite successfully.
To be fair, our government then hired any Nazi they thought was smart enough to be useful.
“Terrible ethics aside”
Did the CEO do anything unlawful? If so, let’s talk about it. Otherwise, how can you blame him? He’s performing in a way that is sanctioned by US law. Think it’s horrible? So do I! Until the laws change, you’re going to see more of the same.
how can you blame him?
Very, very easily. Is this bait?
No, it’s not bait. There are loads of people in the USA without a conscience that will take money, even if it results in innocents dying. By not making this implicitly illegal, our government allows (and some would say condones it). The CEO is simply acting within the legal framework that our government offers. You can say it’s unethical, but it’s not illogical. It’s made possible by our laws being disjoint towards morality and being slanted towards profitability, even at the cost of human lives. It’s disgusting.
Their the ones making the laws man. Stop trying so hard to defend them and concern yourself with all the people struggling under his umbrella. If they made murder legal would you start killing people too? Draw a better line.
Their the ones making the laws man. Stop trying so hard to defend them and concern yourself with all the people struggling under his umbrella. If they made murder legal would you start killing people too? Draw a better line.
I’m not defending them. I’m just acknowledging how horrible our current system is and how unlikely it is to change. I have my own moral code and would not be comfortable taking $ as I deny terminally ill cancer patient medication that my company could easily pay for.
By the way, if the government made murder legal, I would not be a killer, but there are plenty of people that would. If we really wanted to solve the health care problem, we’d make for-profit health illegal. Since it’s highly profitable to companies and those same companies spend a lot of money lobbying to keep this legal, you ain’t gonna see this get fixed any time soon. I want to understand the system as well as I can so I may operate within it. That doesn’t mean I agree or sanction what is happening. It’s fucking horrible and as a supposed first-world country we should all be outraged. Two weeks from now that shooter will be out of the headlines and nothing will have changed.
I agree with what you are saying and it is a shame what greed is and has done to our society.
This was something I got wrong when I was younger. I didn’t understand that there were sociopaths around. I’d have seen making laws to prevent, say, “exploiting people with cancer” wouldn’t be needed. Now that I’m a bit older and wiser, I realize we need laws like that more than ever, because if such an opportunity exists in the USA (and it does) there will be a long line of people that take those jobs and sleep very well. They have little/no conscience. As long as they get theirs, fuck 'em.
There’s a quote from the Roman days: “A civilization becomes great when men plant trees of which the shade they will never sit under”. Meanwhile in present-day America I have heard this: “Who cares about global warming? I’ll be dead!” Shameful.
Did the CEO do anything unlawful?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
Everything they did was legal and yet the US decded that legal was a bullshit excuse in the face of mass murder…here we are, history rhyming.
OK, so when a new government comes in and sweeps away our current federal laws, then CEOs heads will roll. Since that’s not likely to happen, I don’t see how that’s relevant here.
If you are loosing an argument just mention the Nazis.
Don’t let your arguments loose. An argument needs to be tightly held, corralled, and directed narrowly, right at the crack in the opponent.
If the Nazis are relevant in the discussion because they acted the same, sure.
Calling someone Nazi just because it’s not, but this isn’t the case
He was being sued for insider trading for dumping his stock before an investigation went public and lowered its value. So technically, he probably was a criminal. But this is all very much beside the point.
Sorry, insider trading aside, I meant you cannot blame him for performing his function as CEO. His job is to coordinate more revenue from denying people medical treatments. You cannot blame him for performing that function would be my reasoning. The insider trading is orthogonal to the problems with the medical industry, although one could make an argument that if you offer a job that only sociopaths will take, they are likely to do other sociopathic behaviors while they are in charge, which is a danger to society as a whole.
I don’t know why you think people cannot be blamed for the role they choose to have in society. That’s very weird. And if that’s not the point you’re trying to make I’m not sure what it is.
I was answering the question you asked, which was about whether or not he had committed any crimes. And like I said it’s beside the point, which you seem to agree with.
I don’t know why you think people cannot be blamed for the role they choose to have in society. That’s very weird. And if that’s not the point you’re trying to make I’m not sure what it is.
Our society specifically allows (and maybe even facilitates) public health insurance companies that can deny terminally ill people the care they need. If someone chooses to step into that job, I can’t blame them from a legal standpoint. I can blame them from a moral one, but the laws of morality do not guide our country, sadly.
I don’t think we disagree about that at all. It’s just a weird point to be making. I haven’t seen anybody try to say that what he was doing in his capacity as CEO was illegal.
Yes, we can and do blame him. If the law doesnt work, shooting him in the back seemed to resolve the issue.
I’m not unhappy with the outcome but using a pistol is not my favorite remedy. I WISH our legal system was more closely aligned with moral guidelines like: “profiting off sick people shouldn’t be allowed” or “increasing value for the shareholders is not more important than cancer treatment”, yet here we are.
Although I’d prefer a legal solution (like revising our laws), I’m not going to be holding my breath. I also reject the claim that this shooter is the first of many, as I don’t see this becoming a huge pattern. If I was an unethical health insurance CEO, I’d be sleeping fine now.
(edit: forgot the ‘not’ in the cancer treatment quote)
I don’t like him, but I don’t blame him. The insurance company dangled out a high-paying job doing something he found morally acceptable, and he took the job. What’s the logical issue there?
How was being upset in public a direct threat?
About six years later, he boarded a subway under Manhattan on May 1, 2023, hurled his jacket onto the floor, and declared that he was hungry and thirsty and didn’t care if he died or went to jail, witnesses said. Some told 911 operators that he tried to attack people or indicated he’d harm riders, and several testified that they were nervous or outright feared for their lives.
He wasn’t just upset… he was threatening people.
What’s your source? That is not in op according to Ctrl+F
Apologies, this was from separate coverage:
Neely was unarmed, with nothing but a muffin in his pocket, and didn’t touch any passengers on the train. Multiple riders testified that he didn’t even approach anybody.
This makes it sound like the “threat” was flimsy at best. The next line indicates the mother of a 5 year old shielded their kid from him but…like that’s just a mom move. Shed probably also shield the kid from a homeless guy shitting on the BART.
Oh wow, disorderly conduct huh? Famously straight to the execution chamber that? We have a criminal charge for “oops I didn’t mean to kill him”. You don’t get to attack someone and then just say oopsie daisy.
You don’t get to attack someone and then just say oopsie daisy.
… and he didn’t. He had to go to court to defend his actions.
It is what it is
And it’s gonna stay that way, with that attitude
I’m honest enough to say I’m not going to change the world. If you are, more power to you. I’m looking at the history of greed in our country and projecting forward. It may not be a happy projection, but it is one.
The realism is fine, but the pessimism just seems pointlessly demoralising for anyone who is capable of acting.
You’re right. But it does not force someone to be a scumbag that takes advantage of less privileged people.
It is a choice.
100% and it’s a sad fact this country (and others) contain people for which that is a very easy choice.
Don’t forget that one case has already reached its conclusion while the second hasn’t even begun trial.
There’s still a lot than can happen that might prevent a guilty verdict.
Hoo boy. There was plenty of video footage of the accused. He had the motive. When he was caught, he still had evidence on him. He had the means, the motive and the opportunity. By all means, he should be afforded a full and fair trial. However, if his lawyer is able to get the case thrown out or dismissed somehow, it’ll be a legal miracle. I honestly have no clue what his defense will be. So far it seems to be “the cops planted the evidence” which I do not think will buy him the sympathy of a jury.
I believe that CEO was a fucking scumbag, but I’d also be inclined to pass a guilty verdict (assuming his defense attorney fails to change my mind). As much as I hate what that health insurance company did, I also would hate to live in a country where vigilante justice is meted out. I would have preferred the shooter pursue health care reform in a more democratic way, as I believe that is the civilized way to enact change. I can simultaneously sympathize with the shooter and condemn him.
Certainly does look a lot like first degree murder at first sight but from what I’ve seen even the whole story about the circumstance of his apprehension seems rather odd.
Also (and yes I know it’s a long shot but still), the jury could simply refuse to indict him because they hate the victim far more than the crime.
Also (and yes I know it’s a long shot but still), the jury could simply refuse to indict him because they hate the victim far more than the crime.
This’ll be on the prosecution to try to impanel people that will follow the law instead of their hearts. The target aside, I think most people will rule harshly on murder, especially someone shot in the back.
It’s certainly rare, but it wouldn’t be the first time.
I don’t understand who is the guy on the right?
I could waste my effort answering you straight away, but I’d rather waste it telling you to read at least the fucking description.
Whoosh mate
haha oh man you got me, that was funny and certainly very intentional of you
Actually I’m sorry it wasn’t intentional but you did get a proper whoosh there happens to everyone
The bad one looks a fair bit older than 26. Weird hair, too.
It’s uh pretty normal hair?
We can attack the guys shit character, without having to insult how people look.
