It must be vindicating regardless. People don’t want to help the cops. They’re laughing at the CEOs. Jury nullification and how to pass jury selection is being memed to hell.
I wonder… jury nullification is a thing… and when the jury is selected, i wonder if the prosecutors will aim for low aged people… because what are the odds that the elderly general public didn’t get screwed over by their health care provider? Yet the younger crowd is all for that eating the rich thing… i guess they will have to fill the jury with CEO’s
My friend made a good point…it’s better for United health and the ownership class if he doesn’t get caught
The media is trying hard to spin this one - how are they going to spin his story to make it not look justified? Was it his wife? His child? Himself? All of the above?
If he gets to tell his story, I’m certain it’s going to make this look even more justified. People who get their news mostly from mainstream media might have sympathy for the victim now, but letting him tell his story, or even becoming a martyr
I don’t see that working even if the court system hadn’t evolved into an apparatus solely for the enforcement of class strata. His peers are the general public.
I don’t think evilness defines whether he would allow himself a giggle-kicking fit.
His biggest concern is likely the concern that investigators are on his tail, that his file is open and hot, and that he’s surveillance aware but knows he can’t be perfect, so his freedom and how long it lasts depends a good part on luck. While this stressor might be crushing (it would me) he may be able to manage it and push it out of the way long enough to enjoy his newfound notoriety, and even express some energetic glee over it.
Another concern (which is where we wonder about evil) is coming to terms with recognizing he took another human life with planning and malice. He committed murder. The capacity to commit murder doesn’t come to everyone, and many people can’t. But then we also have a robust military in which a lot of people do kill, or find at least they have the capacity to suppress their empathy enough to kill. Our assassin didn’t hesitate. It doesn’t make him evil (which is a judgement usually appointed to fictional persons by the author or readers) but it does put him in the same category as all whodunnit culprits, someone with the capacity to kill if circumstances warrant it.
But again, it’s a matter of whether he’s able to manage his moral concerns, or is already good with it. Then it’s a matter of whether it’s in character for him to indulge in a giggle and a kick. (I would.)
If he’s truly evil and did the killing for shits and giggles, then yes.
His obvious motive was out of frustration of the insurance company.
I think he’s nervous and out of his mind scared that he’ll eventually get caught.
It must be vindicating regardless. People don’t want to help the cops. They’re laughing at the CEOs. Jury nullification and how to pass jury selection is being memed to hell.
I wonder… jury nullification is a thing… and when the jury is selected, i wonder if the prosecutors will aim for low aged people… because what are the odds that the elderly general public didn’t get screwed over by their health care provider? Yet the younger crowd is all for that eating the rich thing… i guess they will have to fill the jury with CEO’s
My friend made a good point…it’s better for United health and the ownership class if he doesn’t get caught
The media is trying hard to spin this one - how are they going to spin his story to make it not look justified? Was it his wife? His child? Himself? All of the above?
If he gets to tell his story, I’m certain it’s going to make this look even more justified. People who get their news mostly from mainstream media might have sympathy for the victim now, but letting him tell his story, or even becoming a martyr
I’ll bet they’re waiting to name a new CEO until he gets caught. Nobody is going to want that job until he is.
Yes gather them all in one place. Maybe we get a second trial afterwards
I wonder if a good lawyer could argue that any jury that finds him guilty are, by definition, not his peers.
I don’t see that working even if the court system hadn’t evolved into an apparatus solely for the enforcement of class strata. His peers are the general public.
I don’t think evilness defines whether he would allow himself a giggle-kicking fit.
His biggest concern is likely the concern that investigators are on his tail, that his file is open and hot, and that he’s surveillance aware but knows he can’t be perfect, so his freedom and how long it lasts depends a good part on luck. While this stressor might be crushing (it would me) he may be able to manage it and push it out of the way long enough to enjoy his newfound notoriety, and even express some energetic glee over it.
Another concern (which is where we wonder about evil) is coming to terms with recognizing he took another human life with planning and malice. He committed murder. The capacity to commit murder doesn’t come to everyone, and many people can’t. But then we also have a robust military in which a lot of people do kill, or find at least they have the capacity to suppress their empathy enough to kill. Our assassin didn’t hesitate. It doesn’t make him evil (which is a judgement usually appointed to fictional persons by the author or readers) but it does put him in the same category as all whodunnit culprits, someone with the capacity to kill if circumstances warrant it.
But again, it’s a matter of whether he’s able to manage his moral concerns, or is already good with it. Then it’s a matter of whether it’s in character for him to indulge in a giggle and a kick. (I would.)