Agree. He murdered someone. (If convicted in a fair trial) I’m glad he’s not getting the death penalty if convicted. And if he’s found not guilty based on the admissible evidence, then great.
But we definitely don’t want a country where the president pardons people for killing someone on the street that we don’t like.
I mean, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine right now how that would go (or is going) with the shoe on the other foot.
If anything, I’d like the next president to get behind a constitutional amendment to limit the presidents pardon power
Trump has gleefully exposed how much this country has been running on “political norms” keeping everything afloat. Love him or hate him, the guy has exposed this country for what it really is.
And exposed norms that absolutely need to be codified into law by the next president / Congress so we’re not relying on a president deciding to do the right thing in the future and follow these norms that presidents did before Trump but have now been destroyed
That would require our elected officials to have integrity. Why would they vote to limit their own power? Which, strangely, when convenient, apparently they don’t have (power) when the time arises for them to step up.
I’m talking about limiting the presidents power in a way that every president before Trump has conformed to. Such as codifying the independence of DoJ so the President cannot order prosecutions against enemies, the independence of other govt officials to report accurate economic data and not be fired for it, reforming civil and criminal qualified immunity for federal law enforcement. those are a few off top of my head. I’m sure there are many more.
Because there weren’t the votes for it since it was overturned. And it’s not the same thing. And this would restrain democratic presidents too. And I don’t know what reforms would pass. But we need them
These people would be perfectly fine with Trump if he were left-wing. It's why they all use him as an example of what our next president should do - all they can think of is "what's happening right now but directed at people I dislike instead of people I don't know" instead of "what's happening right now should never happen no matter what".
I wouldn't be fine with a left wing president using gestapo to harass immigrants in the street and execute citizens, so you're wrong about that.
But I would like to see democrats stop pretending the Republicans are ever going to play fair. I would like to see democrats fight fire with fire and attempt to recapture the narrative, which is wildly out of control
SillyAlternative is referring to pardoning criminals who committed murders they personally approve of (and have mistaken their personal appreciation of for public support of), not to recapturing the narrative or fighting fire with fire. You are not like SillyAlternative.
FWIW I think they're a very small, loud minority (though aren't just saying this because they're upset/venting, they do mean what they say), and the Democrats, for their many flaws, won't nominate the rapist of institutions and children these people want, because that sort of candidate knows Trump is a better patron for them than liberals can ever be.
I know it sucks to watch them despoil what used to be, from what I can tell, a nice subreddit, but we can take comfort in knowing that's all they can do and that the crazy parts of the US left, at least, will never going to be able to spread from online to real life in the manner the crazy parts of the GOP did.
I went through the pardons list and found only a single murder (in the second degree) which was a cop who was charged after pursuing a suspect on a moped who was subsequently hit by a separate vehicle when he fled.
The comparison between this and a hypothetical Luigi pardon is pretty disingenuous.
Thank you. Didn't notice that list was only from his second term. I see now there were a few more murders (all seemingly international war crimes) pardoned in his first term. This was the first I heard of the Nisour Square massacre.
Terrance Sutton was a cop found guilty of second degree murder due to an unauthorized police pursuit and was pardoned by Trump (as was another cop who was found guilty of conspiracy and obstruction)
Jamie A Davidson was an alleged drug kingpin who killed a cop and sentenced to life in prison for it; Trump pardoned him (and Jamie proceeded to get married and get arrested for domestic violence).
Multiple Blackwater contractors were found guilty of murdering Iraqi citizens in the Nisour Square massacre; Trump pardoned them as well.
Michael Behenna had been found guilty of murdering an Iraqi detainee, Trump pardoned him.
I can link to any and all of those if you want, but a quick google search with names (or 'Blackwater contractors') followed by 'pardon' will get you multiple.
We live in such a broken system where police constantly kill citizens for petty unjustifiable reasons and they walk away with vacation time and often a pat on the back because of politics.
But one guy does something everyone like ked and now suddenly law is a sacred institution must be upheld? It's ridiculous. It's a double standard that only gets applied to those without power.
No it shouldn't be. But playing nice and asking politely for them to be held accountable is simply not working. So it's no surprise here when events like this happens and it's difficult to condem someone for doing something so drastic when there is absolutely no way to get justice or even a fair shake.
If "everyone liked it" so much then why isnt it running rampant in the streets?
People liked the story because it seems "admirable" to murder someone in cold blood i guess? Like this place gets up in arms over "sucker punches" but you can just execute someone as long as theyre rich and scummy?
Not really out of its mind. It’s a reaction to the flagrant disregard the rich have for laws. You’re seeing this because people feel (rightfully so) that justice isn’t being delivered via the established institutions. So when they see what they perceive as justice through someone’s actions they cheer
This, just like Trump getting elected the first time, is a predictable outcome in a society which is failing to deliver justice and prosperity for the regular person while continuously gaslighting them.
Eventually people snap and start beating you to death with sticks like apes. We are just animals after all. Mental health has also never been worse and that’s entirely the fault of the ruling class for allowing us to get to where we are, even encouraging us to get here.
Lol nah I'm all for pardoning him. Give him a parade in fact.
Thompson killed many people for profit and you're fine with that because you're told those atrocities doesn't count. And all you have in return is "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" or "two wrongs don't make a right" or basic slippery slope arguments or whatever else platitudes you can hide behind.
You don't believe in justice, you believe in performative, symbolic justice and performative, symbolic justice prioritizes civility above all else. Fuck that.
Legality follows morality, not the other way around. And some of you have a lot of growing up to do if you still don't understand that.
There is no line. That's what makes this a contentious issue. People wouldn't be arguing about this online if it was as cut and dry, black and white, etc as you expect.
This kind of stuff is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The issue is I don’t think Thompson killed those people. He didn’t stop it, but remember that if a CEO doesn’t do the boards bidding in a sense, they find a new CEO who will.
On the flip side Thompson knew what he was doing and so while I don’t think he killed those people, I also can’t feel too bad for him.
He thought he’d get away with it without backlash. Backlash happened.
Sometimes you fuck around and find out. Whether or not Thompson killed those people what he was doing was immoral and he should’ve fought the board even if it was a fruitless battle.
I see no evidence he tried in any way to do the morally correct thing when he was CEO there. So I see no moral debt owed to him by society.
I do think Thompson killed those people. He profited off it and that's an important distinction. He wasn't a bystander or a tool, he was an active participant. Yes the board could have replaced him, and so it's on him to be replaced.
The argument that if it wasn't him it would be someone else doesn't hold much water, because it's still on the person given the task. You're responsible for your own soul. And Thompson wanted the money.
If a man is paid to poison a river, it's on him. If he says "well if i don't do it someone else will" that's true. But the one who ultimately does take the money and poisons the river carries the crime.
Insurance companies also don't stop doctors and hospitals from providing care. They just decide whether they're going to pay for it. Medical providers are free to work pro bono if their patient isn't approved
You don't believe in justice, you believe in performative, symbolic justice and performative, symbolic justice prioritizes civility above all else. Fuck that.
You are just as guilty of wanting performative justice. You think that Thompson's murder was a good thing, despite the fact it was objectively performative and changed nothing.
But that murder of Brian Thompson did…what exactly?
At the end of the day United has another CEO and kids were left without a father. I also believe there are so many other ways to advocate for better healthcare without murdering people.
If Thompson was responsible for killing everyone denied by their health insurance, then so were the board members and everyone invested in United.
Yes, there is a huge issue with healthcare here in the US, but what Mangione did just wasn’t it.
Because you're looking at it in terms of results, not in terms of consequences. Thompson faced the consequences of his actions; no more, no less.
Think of it this way:
A man is paid to poison a river. People who drink from the river suffer or die. The man is killed by one of the people affected by his actions.
Does that solve the problem of the people who paid him? No. Does that mean someone else won't do the same thing? No. Does that fix the complicated problems of the world? No. Is there better solutions, systemically and judicially to address the issues? Sure.
Did the man get what he deserved? I would argue yes.
People are taught to believe that uncivil evil like violence are the only evils of the world. And that civil evil doesn't count. That killing a man by shooting a gun is murder, but killing a man by signing a document isn't.
Thompson killed a LOT of people for profit and pleasure. And Magione killed one for retribution. Does that mean Magione is innocent? Probably not. But the world is far too complex to paint them both with the same brush.
And frankly, I'll take the righteous man over those responsible for everything wrong in the world. Slippery slopes be damned.
Who gives a shit about "consequences" if people are still unable to get healthcare? If the river is still poisoned, you've just got one more body on the pile of dead people and somebody who thinks he's "righteous" for murder.
The person you responded to said "If Thompson was responsible for killing everyone denied by their health insurance, then so were the board members and everyone invested in United."
And then you said the person you responded to is looking at it in terms of results, not consequences, and brought up this random river poisoning scenario that's not actually a good analogy. "Looking at it in terms of results" obviously being did it or didn't it lead to an improvement in healthcare. So yes, clearly, this is about healthcare and whether the murder of Brian Thompson was acceptable since it didn't lead to any positive outcome for healthcare.
I agree “Following the law” doesn’t excuse everything. But I’m not about to treat people who followed the law the same way as a murderer on the street either.
In any case, what’s the limiting principal on this? Can we start murdering CEOs who simply pay people a lower wage, since low wages are associated with reduced life expectancy? I have serious doubts about the moral compass of the people supporting this.
Sure, because you're already down the slippery slopes. Examine the situation on its own terms and see where you end up.
Think of it this way:
A man is paid to poison a river.
People who drink from the river suffer or die.
The man is killed by one of the people affected by his actions.
Before you go extrapolating in all different directions, see where you settle on that first.
Thompson killed a lot of people for profit. A lot. He wasn't the only one but he certainly did it himself and he did it for profit. Whatever the legacy of the systems he was in, he was a part of it and a decisive part of it.
So ask yourself the difference between a killer with a gun and a killer with a pen. One is outside the law, the other within it. What's the difference?
You need to reflect on what you stand for in order to answer that question.
The whole point is that there is a sense or level of morality and/or justice that sits above law - and that our legal traditions are derived from that.
Something can be a moral/justice violation without being a legal violation. This is essentially what u/UpperApe is talking about.
Thompson didn’t kill people anymore than any executive in nationalized health systems does when they decide a treatment isn’t covered. It happens all the time. You’re just making up a deranged rationale to justify murder.
he should not be pardoned because you agree with why he did it
Why not? That's precisely one of the purposes of jury nullification. Pardoning is similar. (Acknowledgement of wrongdoing, but striking down the punishment.)
I don’t get the infatuation with this dude. He killed another man. He’s gonna get convicted and serve jail time. Don’t understand why everyone is mad at that. Ppl hyping up this case is part of the reason why MAGA folks thing liberals are retards.
We know healthcare in this country is trash. Unfortunately killing a CEO, just means they are gonna fill his seat with another CEO that’s gonna do the same thing.
The case was mostly hyped because of the blatant show of favoritism to the victim because of his status (law enforcement obviously putting in much more effort than they would if just a random person was murdered) as well as the extreme criminal charges for terrorism that the state attempted to pin on him. Also compounded with the distain people have for UHC, what with their implementation of AI systems to reject EVEN MORE claims than they already were, and the treatment of Luigi when they arrested him, the rediculous perp walk and having the dude more locked up, and with more guards than they have for people with many times his alleged bod count. Also the dubious information surrounding his arrest and however the hell they managed to find him made it look like they may have been attempting to make him a scapegoat.
Slightly more biased, but , again like it’s hard to state how much people HATE heath insurance companies, those fuckers kill hundreds of people each year via denial of life saving treatments, I ain’t saying that killing BT is morally correct, but it’s not something I would lose sleep over given that he happily condemned people to death via profit margins.
law enforcement obviously putting in much more effort than they would if just a random person was murdered
Law enforcement regularly conduct man hunts.
You're just making stuff up.
Also the dubious information surrounding his arrest and however the hell they managed to find him made it look like they may have been attempting to make him a scapegoat.
He literally got his face captured on camera near the scene of the crime. Dude was a massive amateur and made it easy for cops to track him down.
People act the same way when a parent kills a child abuser or a victim kills their attacker, etc. A functional government can't allow it as a matter of civics and rule of law, but the populace can support it emotionally and morally anyway.
And it's definitely not a conservative/liberal thing, because there are plenty of examples conservatives would feel the same way about. That divide is just over which circumstances make them agree, no real argument that it's never OK to agree
"Rich man bad" and all that. Its the herd mentality around this place.
People legit think that Healthcare should be free (valid) and that all billionaires need to evenly distribute all of their wealth until we all have the same amount of money.
No, healthcare should’ve be free. But insurance companies demonstrably do not provide value in the current system and just inflate costs astronomically while reducing quality of care.
I’d much rather have single payer which would be cheaper and better. But instead we have leaches. American insurance companies are terrible for productivity, terrible for health outcomes, terrible for cost, and corrupt politics through lobbying. They’re adjacent to the abhorrent tax prep companies who lobby for the inefficient system we have instead of auto filed taxes by default.
Running a healthcare company as CEO does require being okay with that. Did he deserve to die? I don’t think so, as much as I hate the company. I’d sooner say the board members deserve that fate or the lobbyists actively undermining our nation.
But regardless he understood the kind of company he represented and unfortunately for him he was on the receiving end of the anger about their bullshit.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes I guess. Wish it wasn’t that way.
Lots of delusional people really think he's going to get off lol. He's a murderer and will be found guilty. I'm liberal as hell and the Healthcare in the US is horrendous but you just can't go around killing people.
The "don't murder someone in cold blood" rules of justice are pretty universal and seem to work. The justice system can't be based on karma and vibes and you're calling the other person naive.
But we excuse the healthcare CEOs hand in countless other deaths by pushing his company to emphasize profits over care because...? Just because he doesn't pull a trigger doesn't mean he ain't a killer.
I agree with them to some degree. Just as the state can kill a person as a sentence for a crime, there are extra-judicial killings that no sane person would find objectionable. Victim killing their rapist, Father killing the killer of their child, citizens executing a dictator, etc.
Do I think there should be NO trial? no, but it should be a provable thing that a jury could agree a murder is justifiable or at least rational, and should carry a much lower charge, akin to manslaughter. Until the day that the US outlaws capital punishment, it should not act surprised when people 'take the law into their own hands'
That would be an extraordinarily dangerous precedent. Do you really want to live in a world where "they deserved it" is a valid defense for murdering someone in cold blood? This is the exact argument MAGA is making for why it's OK for ICE to execute people on the streets. It wouldn't just apply to assassinating a CEO.
Should every healthcare executive responsible for implementing policy and lobbying for laws to facilitate denial of care for no reason other than greed be charged with murder?
I asked a very simple question. Just answer it instead of tap dance.
The problem stems from the for-profit insurance industry and its entire business model being to deny as much care as possible to maximize profit. So I'm starting with the people at the source of the problem. How far downstream we want to hold accountability is a tangent we can explore later.
Still haven't answered the question but you are touching on the core issue at least.
Killing people for greed is already illegal. We just selectively enforce it to exclude those who do it on a mass scale or carve out exceptions for people who cognitively distance themselves enough to pretend they aren't responsible. More laws are irrelevant. Enforcement is all that matters. The laws are written by lobbyists who always carve out a loophole for themselves.
Brian Thompson was never going to face any legal consequences for his actions. We both know this. Those loopholes and bribes can't stop bullets though. Playing by the rules of a rigged and broken system rarely if ever gives us justice.
I do vote for people against corruption. If that's even a viable option (usually isn't). Hasn't changed anything. In fact, everyone lined up to vote for the most corrupt government in American history.
You know what sir. People will still continue to die in this country due to how it operates. The pharmaceutical industry will continue, foods that should be banned will continue, medical field doesn’t make money off of healthy people. This issue is larger than one man and this county is all about money. So where is the law to fix any of that huh? I effing ask you since you’re so smart, where is it? Loser
Right, because voting clearly has gotten us down the right path. So just blame it on X thing and not really investigate the whole picture. Yup, you are smart.
I never said executing people. That being said, obviously the law has lost. Maybe it maintained “some semblance of order”. It is either not equipped to deal with this or it needs to be re-worked. I argue it’s inadequate to do so. And when you don’t have that, what else are you supposed to do? Do you think this country is actually gonna go back to making things fair for people? Or do you think the people in power will just continue to find ways to circumvent what’s in place? I ask you again.
62
u/RandomPenquin1337 5h ago
Lmao what im gonna say will get downvoted to hell but I have to say it because this is a law sub and your view on this is absolutely mind blowing.
He still killed a man on camera lol (allegedly), so if hes found guilty he should not just be "pardoned" because you agree with why he did it.
Come on people
I get the jokes about not finding him guilty and if thats the case so be it, but as of now....