Who’s gonna be our crazy guy in a bathtub demanding the execution of scores of enemies?

Things are going to get crazy with drone tech. The stuff that’s been cooked up in the conflict in Ukraine will inevitably find its way into civilian hands. After all, a lot of it was designed specifically to be built off of easily available parts and built off of commonly available tools like 3D printers. Imagine a situation like Luigi’s except using drones. Maybe a whole swarm of them unleashed on a corporate gathering, each with facial recognition tech. Drones in Ukraine are already built with small explosives, designed to target single individuals; they just fly right up to their targets and explode.

And it goes beyond that. I’m particularly worried about incendiary drones. Assassination drones require good facial recognition tech, and they usually rely on having access to the target in an outdoor area. But destruction of property via incendiary drones? All such a drone has to do is to be able to fly to a fixed GPS position, land, and activate a thermite or other charge to start a huge fire.

My inner anti-corporatist smiles at the idea of such things being wielded against evil CEOs, but the knife cuts both ways. This tech can be use by a Luigi, but it can also be used by a McVeigh or Bin Ladin. Imagine someone or a group releasing thousands of cheap 3D printed incendiary drones on a city. Imagine a small fire starting on the roof of every building in a city simultaneously - and the fire stations are hit with dozens. A city could be burned to ashes for maybe a few hundred thousand dollars, or the cost of a single home in that city.

Technology is reaching the point where a single depraved individual may be able to recreate the firebombing of Dresden. While I smile at the idea of some evil corporate killer getting their just desserts, I’m a lot more worried about the negative potential of this technology. We are literally reaching a point where a single individual can cause an amount of destruction equivalent to a modest nuclear explosion, using tools they build in their basement.

We should have a law that if an insurance company denies a claim, and upon external appeal it is found to clearly be medically necessary and covered, the insurance company should have to both pay for the procedure AND hand the customer a check equal to the full value of the procedure. Wrongfully deny a claim? Be prepared to pay double.

It’s not just a consequence, it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. Do you honestly think 12 random untrained people can judge if someone violated a law better than a traines judge holding a bench trial? Juries are always going to be inferior at applying the letter of the law than any trained judge.

The only value of a jury is that it protects against unjust laws. The original idea was that, regardless of what laws the wealthy write, you still need to be able to convince 12 ordinary people that a crime worthy of punishment has taken place.

Jury nullification isn’t just some quirky consequence of the jury system; it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. We’ve just collectively forgotten that fact.

I’m partial to “The Adjuster.”

They don’t know the Adjuster’s secret identity. They’re lying to distract from their own incompetence.

I’m for one hoping they never catch The Adjuster.

Are you the NYPD? If so, yes. The guy who shot that CEO? I actually saw him. With my own eyes, I saw him abducted by a flying saucer! It scooped him up in a beam of light and zipped away. No need to bother looking for him, he’s long gone. Light years away by now.

They voted for Trump, but not because they actually wanted a bunch of asshole CEOs in power. The electorate wanted real transformative change; they’re looking for anyone who can offer even a hope of some bold transformative change. The only party offering real change right now is the Republicans. Democrats just want to offer a few piddly means-tested tax credits like they usually do, while doing absolutely nothing to actually rein in corporate wealth and power. Kamala’s flagship domestic policy was a $25k home tax credit that only a sliver of the populace would be eligible for; and it would only serve to bid up housing prices.

Like it or not, the Republicans did actually have answers for people. They aren’t good or noble answers, but they were answers. Democrats were too chickenshit to run on a platform of “CEOS are ruining your life, we need to come down like the hammer of God on the greedy oligarchs.” The Republicans in turn ran on a platform of, “the reason your life sucks is a bunch of DEI programs are putting unqualified people ahead of you. We’ll end that. Illegal immigrants are taking your job opportunities, and we’ll deport them all. House prices are too high, so we’ll deport 20 million immigrants and lower them!”

Those are abominable answers to the problems we face, but they actually had an answer, however evil and ultimately unproductive. Yes, obviously deporting millions of immigrants won’t actually help people, but it doesn’t matter. The Republicans actually had an answer to the question, “what transformative change will you do to improve the lives of Americans?”

Democrats had no answer. And for that, they lost.

People are hungry for dramatic change. They feel the system is rigged, and they are right. Democrats were too cowardly to take up that message and push for change against the corporate class, and that left Republicans as the only party offering any real change.

You don’t need to radically transform society to want change; the country already clearly wants change. The fundamental problem is the only ones offering change are the Republicans.

I wouldn’t rely on nullification. I instead think this guy deserves a full pardon. We pardon domestic abuse victims who kill their abusers, is this situation really so different?

He should walk naked into a major TV studio carrying nothing, ask them to call the cops. Force them to accept a surrender.

Removed by mod

The example I prefer is Bin Ladin. The United CEO killed more people than Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin was just a drama queen and made his killings a lot flashier. Does someone care so much for the rule of law, on such a deep principled level, that they objected to Bin Ladin’s extrajudicial execution? If there is such a rare and gentle soul that they were willing to be offended that even Bin Ladin didn’t get a fair trial, then I will be willing to listen to that person’s objections to celebrating a murderous CEO’s death.

Personally, I am not that good a person. And I am glad that both Bin Ladin and this CEO are out of the picture.

What I’ve been asking people is - “did you weep for Bin Ladin?” If anyone is hand wringing about people mocking the insurance CEO, you should ask them if they wept for Bin Ladin.

This CEO killed far more people than Bin Ladin. And he didn’t even do it out of some misguided religion - at least Bin Ladin thought he was making the world a better place. This guy just killed thousands of people for the money. Yes, the insurance guy never got a fair trial in court, but neither did Bin Ladin - OBL was killed in an extrajudicial assassination by armed US government agents. Now, in Bin Ladin’s case, capture wasn’t really an option. But with the UHC CEO, it’s not like there was any other way to bring him to justice either.

If someone really just is that principled that they actually wept for Bin Ladin being killed without trial, then I will take their hand wringing about this guy being shot seriously. Otherwise, I’ll have to believe that the person only objects because it was a wealthy and powerful American that was killed.

Or course. He’s Ebaneezer Scrooge without the redemption arc.

I hope we never find out who did it. The killer just becomes this DB Cooper-esque legend who came out of nowhere, kill a CEO, and disappear never to be seen again. And even better, proving the complete and utter incompence of the NYPD, when they can’t manage to catch someone who killed in broad daylight in a city of cameras.

My God. We really are speed running “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” aren’t we? I always thought of it more in the sense of political and social decay. But we even have the god-damned lead pipes!

I mean they’ll do an investigation. The most likely thing is a protest/revenge killing, but there are other possibilities. One I thought of - what if someone actually wanted him killed for reasons completely unrelated to him being an insurance executive? For a hypothetical example (which I have zero evidence to believe to be true), what if the wife wanted him killed for the insurance money? Maybe he was as cruel to her as he was to his customers. Maybe the wife hires a hit man to take the guy out. That hit sure looked pretty professional. Again, I have no evidence to suspect this is true. But what if? Anyone who had a motive to have the guy killed could easily try to make it look like a protest killing. And you rarely get to that level of corporate power without having a few skeletons in the closet.

deleted by creator

This could just be someone that practiced their firearms skills for quite awhile before making their move. Sure, they don’t seem to have left an explicit message, but that may not be necessary. If they are someone who was cheated by United, well that’s what people will assume anyway. So an explicit note/confession would serve only to provide authorities another method to track them down.