• Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    2362·
    21 days ago

    How hated must you be when suddenly leftists, tankies, fascists, conservatives and liberals find themselves in quiet agreement about their feelings on your murder. Even the silence from gun control advocates is deafening.

    • Walican132@lemmy.todayEnglish
      1211·
      21 days ago

      It’s the thing the people who are CEOs don’t want us to think about. It’s not leftists, tankies, fascists, conservatives against each other. It’s them against everyone else.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      683·
      21 days ago

      To be fair, this isn’t really a “gun control” type situation. A single, targeted, killing, would have been just a successful if it were done with a knife instead. The gun control arguments are more applicable to spree killings.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        28·
        21 days ago

        I mean, the guy would have been able to write their whole message on one knife rather than needing three bullet casings to get it across.

        So I guess environmentalists and the metal industry (Big Metal?) would probably care a bit?

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        21·
        21 days ago

        Absolutely not. We simply have to deal with those killing sprees and just feel bad when it happens because the alternative is the state doing the killing sprees and nobody having any answer.

    • Ænima@lemm.ee
      461·
      21 days ago

      That’s why the ruling class pushes all the wedge issues and divisiveness they do. If we could talk to each other, we’d find we had more in common than otherwise expected. I thought the recent surge in union activity could have continued to a general strike across the nation. The rich know what unites us and actively seems to keep us fractured so we don’t realize our combined power.

      Maybe this dude will be a catalyst in a revolution that sets these disgusting, wealthy leeches in their place.

      • Infynis@midwest.socialEnglish
        14·
        21 days ago

        Maybe this dude will be a catalyst in a revolution that sets these disgusting, wealthy leeches in their place.

        Even if this isn’t the one, the accelerated pace at which we’re having moments that might should scare the oligarchs

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          5·
          21 days ago

          Everyone has been feeling the pressure of “something is about to happen” for the better part of a decade. That pressure has to vent somewhere.

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        15·
        21 days ago

        The quiet part is the agreement with others you completely disagree with almost always, and even often despise.

      • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
        351·
        21 days ago

        The only person in the whole country using the second amendment correctly (successfully, anyway)

        • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
          9·
          21 days ago

          Eh, going off solo and only taking out a single target is not exactly a wave of citizens applying their rights.

          Now, if this solo guy keeps going and only targets similar people, then we’ve got a solid case that the goal is actually to fight tyranny and exert the will of the people.

          One CEO down is murder. A hundred is a movement. All of them is revolution.

          • AVincentInSpace@pawb.socialEnglish
            2·
            20 days ago

            Yeah, people actually doing what the second amendment was explicitly written to allow them to do looks like, uhhh… January 6, 2021.

            • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
              2·
              20 days ago

              Well, yeah.

              Just because they were idiots, with the goal of putting an even bigger idiot on a throne doesn’t mean they didn’t have a right to revolution.

              Thing is, a failed revolution, insurrection, or coup has a different name: treason.

              It’s not a game. You either take action and succeed, or you’re a criminal. Doesn’t matter who’s in charge, what the political landscape is, what the principles being fought for are. You fail, you’re fucked.

              We don’t have to like the January 6th morons, or the core individuals that used the bigger crowd as cover for the actual attempted coup and killings. But the 2nd is, in part, about the populace having the means you overthrow, resist, or otherwise exert their ownership of their own nation. I’m glad they failed, but I don’t object to them exerting a core human right.

              But they also have to understand that they failed, and that (barring trump pulling some pardons out of his ass) they’ll have to do the time if/when convicted.

              Had they succeeded, they’d be heroes to their supporters, and the rest of us would have had to decide whether or not to take similar steps, whether or not to take up arms and retake the nation.

              • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                1·
                20 days ago

                Not an American here so, asking for clarification, but isn’t the 2nd Amendment purely and solely about the right to organize into militias and not about what such militias are for? So, it guarantees you can have your gun but not that you can just up and use it to upend Human Rights because “lol someone wrote it in 1776”?

                • AVincentInSpace@pawb.socialEnglish
                  21·
                  20 days ago

                  The more-or-less stated goal of the second amendment is that the people have the tools needed to overthrow the government if they need to.

                • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
                  1·
                  20 days ago

                  Nah, that’s a pretty common misconception.

                  A militia is an army of the people. In order to be that army, the people must be armed.

                  When you go back and look at everything else documented at the time of the framing of the constitution, and later the bill of rights, a huge portion of the 2nd was specifically about making sure that an unjust government could be taken down by the populace. It wasn’t the only reason, but it was a big one.

                  Remember, these were a bunch of British subjects overthrowing their legal ruler and claiming self governance.

                  There is a fundamental concept that all power is vested in the people, and anything that stands against that is subject to revolt.

                  That’s a core human right. It is not one to be used lightly, but it is fundamental to the whole country as it is directly enumerated in the bill of rights, second only to the three core freedoms that are/were considered big enough to list first.

                  There is debate about what is called the individual mandate, but if you go back to the concepts the framers discussed, and the way they overturned British rule, it kinda stops making sense to say it wasn’t an individual mandate. Most of the arguments made against it are completely misrepresenting what militia and (more importantly) “well regulated” mean.

                  See, a revolution isn’t an upending of human rights, it’s the ultimate expression of one of them. Access to arms (it isn’t just guns, at all) is necessary for people to express a right to self governance in the face of an established government. In theory, any arms would be allowed, but once you get beyond man portable weaponry, you run into enough resistance that trying to argue for that is pointless.

                  Besides, one of the first steps in any sustained revolution is seizing the arms of the rulers, so (again in theory) having arms sufficient to take police and/or national guard level armories, that’s good enough. So it isn’t worth trying to fight for things to be expanded when there’s already a fight to just keep things as they are regarding firearm access in specific.

                  The language has shifted over two plus centuries, in other words. Militia isn’t a big, organized thing at all, or it wasn’t then. It was a group of the people called up, or self organizing, to take action as needed. At the time, a standing army was (among some of the founders) something to be prevented. The term wel regulated would have meant more well supplied, maybe well trained or ready, depending on who you ask. Which in turn means that the 2nd is primarily about every person being armed and ready if needed, so that all that was necessary is the need being known.

                  There’s a meme about the idea that goes “something, something, tree of liberty needs watering”. It refers to something said by Thomas Jefferson, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Which is an out of context statement that comes from a Letter he wrote, which is excerpted in that link, and which links to the full letter in turn.

                  The states were built on the blood of tyrants and patriots. It’s too dear to the core ethos of us, the descendants of those that shed that blood to ever be totally erased.

        • Mango@lemmy.world
          5·
          21 days ago

          I appreciate the sentiment, but there’s a while cult of people dedicated to using it correctly that you never hear of because they never shoot anyone.

    • Venia Silente@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      20 days ago

      Finally, some American (I assume here he is) shows they know how to use a gun!

      Now, where was he for the Olympics…

      (hopefully, training for this masterful moment)

  • itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml
    1471·
    21 days ago

    People aren’t happy someone was murdered. People are happy that the physical representation of an industry that should prioritize health and treatment but only prioritizes profit got what it probably had coming to it.

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    1001·
    21 days ago

    Been saying it since 🔔Limbaugh🔔. The idea that we need to pretend it isn’t a good thing when evil people die is some Disney channel bullshit

        • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
          9·
          21 days ago

          I’m still upset we didn’t get anything about snokes back story. Why did he even exist if he was going to do nothing and then die

          • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzEnglish
            91·
            21 days ago

            He existed purely to develop Kylo. He got fridged.

            Also, what he did do was create the First Order and challenge the whole galaxy, as well as coming up with the idea for Starkiller Base. He did the most out of anyone in the sequels but it was all offscreen. They told, not showed.

          • EvilZ@thelemmy.clubEnglish
            6·
            21 days ago

            It shows how little they actually put effort in character building…

            How can you declare that Snot or Snort or whatever his name is the master of an important character and then boom he’s dead…

            It was so pointless…

            Obi wan kenobi death was purposeful as you see he became stronger in death…

            Stork… Or wait was it snork? Anyway that character didn’t even need to be in the movie…

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      18·
      21 days ago

      I was thinking earlier… maybe all the lessons in the saturday morning cartoons were really intended to keep the masses from fighting back. I mean, no, the good guys don’t always win in the end. And cheating sure as hell does payoff. They want the masses to take the high road. While they tunnel through anything in thier way.

    • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      8·
      21 days ago

      Yep, I sometimes really feel that that kind of people (you know what I mean) never progressed their morality past Disney cartoons that have it all dumbed down so that toddlers can grasp the concept of right and wrong.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        21 days ago

        I clicked that link before the comment was deleted, and wow that is an offensive song

        +1, takes me back to the good old days

    • cliffracerflyyy@lemm.ee
      35·
      21 days ago

      The evil ones die in tons of Disney movies. That’s where mostly the US of A got their brains washed and consequently celebrate a public execution without due process.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        1·
        20 days ago

        I think they’re talking about Cruella, a movie where the “heroine” would eventually go on to want to kill and skin puppies. There’s also Maleficent, but I don’t know enough about that one to comment.

        I also think there’s a lot of Hollywood heroes that are really villains and the movie is just reflecting the author’s fucked up world view. The Kingsman is a good example. Can we stop writing environmentalists as villains?

        In a lot of stories, due process isn’t something that comes up because of time constants and scope of the villain’s ambitions, but there’s something wrong in the writer’s room for The Flash TV series. Agents of Shield would eventually deal with super nazis and alien invaders, but Flash was dealing with bank robbers and locking them up in their secret prison.

          • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
            501·
            21 days ago

            Hahaha “innocent”. Ever had life saving medicine or treatment for you or a loved one denied by the insurance company? You will, one day. And that’s not me wishing you ill, that’s just how wide spread and devastating this issue is. Inevitably it will happen to you. Maybe you won’t think these people are so innocent then.

          • Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml
            171·
            21 days ago

            i think I see where the confusion is coming from. Brian the Billionaire was not innocent, and in fact as CEO had an active hand in implementing company policies to deny people healthcare and leech money from the sick and infirm. he absolutely, 100%, without a doubt deserved to die, and in my opinion, he got off relatively lightly, all things considered. two or three bullets is incredibly merciful compared to rotting in a hospital while your insurance denies your coverage and drains your bank account.

          • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
            13·
            21 days ago

            Lmfao stop trolling dawg, theres literally no way you actually believe this. Are you a paid shill, from a different country, or just seeking to rile people up?

              • Venia Silente@lemm.eeEnglish
                21·
                20 days ago

                So if I mug three people, scam other five, misplace three livers to be transplanted to children, and share my Netflix password, I’m innocent.

                Excellent! I’ll let the judge know your opinion on those matters when I’m asked.

        • mke_geek@lemm.ee
          247·
          21 days ago

          Believing people aren’t human just because they have money is evil.

          • wheeldawg@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            101·
            21 days ago

            Assuming calling them evil means that they’re not human is presumptive.

            Humans can be evil.

              • Venia Silente@lemm.eeEnglish
                1·
                20 days ago

                Escusé moi, nothing says all of humanity has to be on a contiguous spectrum when it comes to respect.

                For one, farm animals do you no evil, and you don’t owe them any authority, so they “start” with a higher default respect than what some humans can ever earn with their actions.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
            101·
            21 days ago

            It ain’t because of the money, it’s because their greed is killing everybody and everything. And I never said anything about them being not human.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            81·
            21 days ago

            Those poor rich people have to deal with so much hatred and discrimination😢

            That’s why I’m personally volunteering to take their money so they can no longer be rich and subject to such hate. I may be hated instead, but I’m willing to bear that cross and take up the Rich Man’s Burden. Some may call me a hero, but I ask for nothing in return, no praise, no monuments in my honor. The only thing I ask for is to take over the burden of owning a mountain of unearned wealth.

        • mke_geek@lemm.ee
          118·
          21 days ago

          There’s lots of people on this thread (and in the Internet) who are showing how evil they are by condoning this murder.

          • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
            111·
            21 days ago

            Whats your stance on state sanctioned murder? Overseas murder? Illegal, out of season murder of animals?

            Yet murder of the poor is ok with you 🤦

            • mke_geek@lemm.ee
              115·
              21 days ago

              No one is murdering the poor.

              (Except other poor people with guns and drugs. Or themselves.)

              • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
                71·
                20 days ago

                What we know about Jordan Neely’s chokehold death on the New York subway

                Toronto Police Service reported that eight teenagers allegedly swarmed Lee over a three-minute period, repeatedly stabbing him.

                Deaths put spotlight on growing US homeless population

                “The recent murders of people experiencing homelessness - many who were sleeping at the time - is a cruel reminder that this is a life-and-death issue that must be met with urgency,” Jeff Olivet, director of the US Interagency Council on Homelessness, said.

                Those interviewed said that a political climate that stigmatises homelessness, inadequate housing, and gang and drug violence all help create a dangerous world for some of America’s most vulnerable people.

                I could almost applaud you for some kind of “holier than thou” morality you seem to be trying to project about the UHC CEO murder. Unfortunately your comments expose that you’re just a middle-upper class cheerleader who stigmatizes the poor (as proclaimed from above, “No one is murdering the poor. - Except other poor people with guns and drugs. Or themselves” jesus I can’t believe you actually commented that).

                Poverty is a major public health crisis. Let’s treat it like one.

                the key question is what it means to “die from poverty.” As a social determinant of health, the government already recognizes a direct line between economic conditions and health outcomes.

                Why the Poor Die Young

                Why are America’s poor dying young? According to the paper, the causes are internal. Most of the variation in life expectancy doesn’t come from “external factors,” like murder, but rather from medical causes, like heart disease and diabetes. The poor die early because they get sicker faster.

                5 Ways Being Poor is a Crime

                1. Fining the homeless for being homeless. If you are homeless in America and have nowhere to go and are down on your luck, it is increasingly difficult to find a safe space in which to exist without being fined for loitering. According to the report, an estimated 600,000 people are homeless on any given night. Though nearly 13 percent of the nation’s low-income housing has been lost since 2001, and many people simply cannot afford housing, 34 percent of cities ban public camping, 18 percent prohibit sleeping in public and 43 percent prevent people from sleeping in vehicles

                Poverty Is Deadly

                the discovery that the death rate for middle-aged white Americans began rising around 1999 is alarming. The increase is accounted for entirely by those with a high school degree or less. The 2013 mortality rates for midlife whites with that level of educational attainment was 736 per 100,000; for those with some college education it was 288 per 100,000; for whites with a B.A. or higher their death rate stood at 178 per 100,000. In other words, whites who have only a high school degree or less are four times more likely to die between ages 45 and 54 than are college-educated whites.

                The Cost of Being Poor: Why It Costs So Much to Be Poor in America

                Poverty creates more poverty. – financial decisions forced by poverty often end up keeping poor people stuck in poverty.

                Poor people spend more of their income on necessities. Lower-income Americans spend more of their income on housing, food and groceries, and transportation, compared to mid and high-income individuals.

                Less expensive goods are often less economical. Poor people often buy low-quality goods in small quantities, leading to constant replacement and higher costs over time.

                Financial exclusion exacerbates poverty. People with poor access to credit often pay exorbitant interest rates and high fees for basic financial services.

                Are you completely unaware of the financial and economical situation going on in America? The rising cost of Healthcare, Education, and housing/life expenses? You’re honestly coming off as a shill to everyone, maybe planning on a future political run so have to keep your comments “politically moral” (i.e. make sure the higher up’s approve of your message)? Don’t want to turn into another Mark Robinson I suppose.

                If you have some coherent messaging or reasoning I would love to hear it. So far I’m assuming you hate the poor and blame everyone for their life situations, there are no outside factors that determines someones struggles in life but themselves? The poor die by their own hands or those close to them, no one in a position of power has done anything to cause them problems?

                • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
                  1·
                  19 days ago

                  Holy shit this is the greatest comment I have ever seen on a public forum. Does lemmy have a bestof community?

                • mke_geek@lemm.ee
                  18·
                  20 days ago

                  There’s a lot of people in this world who make bad choices like using drugs, alcohol, smoking, eating food that’s bad for them, etc. Someone doesn’t have to be poor to make those decisions. But those who don’t have a lot of money, choosing alcohol over food – then complain about not having enough food – that’s on them.

                  They don’t deserve to be gunned down in cold blood and neither does someone with money.

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        18·
        21 days ago

        Of course not. We’re condemning the evil and praising a hero. Heroes kill monsters, ya know.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
        11·
        20 days ago

        All of Lemmy: “Of course I would commit murder, why do you ask?”

        Admittedly god works in mysterious ways and it seems god had enough of this guy

        • mke_geek@lemm.ee
          14·
          19 days ago

          It’s not ALL of Lemmy. There’s still moral people on here like myself.

          God doesn’t exist so that’s not an argument.

          So what’s next? Little Billy doesn’t like the kid in his class who’s stealing people’s lunch money, so he guns him down and now that’s okay?

  • Sanctus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    602·
    21 days ago

    Dude murdered countless with the stroke of a pen. What was that one song they sing in Chicago?

    🎶 He had it comin’ 🎶

  • thawed_caveman@lemmy.world
    39·
    20 days ago

    I don’t think it’s funny, more like it feels good to see an atom of justice done for once. One murder changes nothing, it has no value as far as changing the system, but the symbolic value is through the roof.

    Here’s the thing: even if we change the healthcare system tomorrow, they get to keep their billions. We can change the system, but there will be no justice because one of the principles of our legal system is that justice isn’t retroactive. So seeing one of the guilty parties killed is an example of retribution that is very rare and exhilarating.

    Just not funny per se

    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
      13·
      20 days ago

      one of the principles of our legal system is that justice isn’t retroactive

      There have been plenty of cases in history where this didn’t hold.

      King Charles I of England. King Louis XVI of France (not to mention the rest of his far-less-culpable family). Many prominent Nazis post-WWII. When society collectively decides that someone’s actions were heinous enough and caused enough harm, at a certain point a law can be created and applied retroactively, often on the grounds that there was a clear violation of some greater principle that should be self-evident.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        41·
        20 days ago

        I like how you missed the “our legal system” when giving examples entirely outside the legal system in which this killing took place.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
          41·
          20 days ago

          Umm, no, not really? King Louis maybe, but the Common Law system used across most former UK colonies traces a line back to before King Charles’ execution, and the Nuremberg Trials were set up by the Allies (which prominently includes the US and UK) and form an important basis of 21st century international law.

  • TooManyGames@sopuli.xyz
    37·
    21 days ago

    Just as a comment, not a suggestion: a society that squeezes its people has to either repress them hard, or at some point expect it to start boiling over. The mob lynching the leaders is what happens once the mob gets desperate enough and are not heard.

  • systemglitch@lemmy.world
    281·
    21 days ago

    Is anyone, not virtue signalling, truly upset by this? It looks like a good, but small beginning of a purge long overdue.

    • Enkrod@feddit.org
      192·
      21 days ago

      Upset? No. More like a little uncomfortable. Partly because I’m an idealist who always hopes for the best and most moral and peaceful solutions. Partly because it makes me uncomfortable how little I am angered by this. Sure I absolutely do not want proles to go and kill the bourgeoisie… but I guess it’s not… I don’t feel the need to condemn this. Sometimes things are just… shrug

      But it’s really just a little uncomfortable, like a sock not quite fitting my foot.

      I am far FAR more uncomfortable with someone calling this the good but small beginning of an overdue purge.

    • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
      6·
      21 days ago

      Upset? Maybe his wife or kids. If someone that disgustingly anti-social is even capable of faking a marriage and being a “father”.

        • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
          4·
          21 days ago

          I can just assume it was about money. Who else would marry such a disgusting human being? …if she was not as equally disgusting though. I really don’t know and not sure I do want to.

          • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            21 days ago

            I mean how ya gonna marry someone when you know every time you have to go to the hospital theres a 32% chance your husband allows you to just die so he can save 1000$

            • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
              1·
              21 days ago

              You probably could if you’d see this as a great buisiness-idea. Save thousand moneyz for only givimg up one life you don’t even know. To many this obviously seems great.

      • positiveWHAT@lemmy.world
        1·
        20 days ago

        Pointless? Nah, the bourgeois probably needed a reminder of what can happen if they keep shafting people. Recon it won’t be long until the greens starts to remind them too that the climate clock still ticks.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    26·
    21 days ago

    Call every crime tipline and report the person responsible for this death and many others - That person’s name was Brian Thompson.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.netOP
      36·
      21 days ago

      Still reminds me of the time they sent out a sketch of the uni bomber and musician/professional jokester Weird Al did this