You fools

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Early 1970s I killed people for $8.27/day, no taxes. Never lost sleep over it. They were trying to kill me or they wouldn't have been there. I always tried to spot the VC equivalent of NCOs, I'd been taught to cut the head off the snake.

Thinking about those days a lot recently.

 

[parmalee]

I'm reminded of something MLK Jr once said, that is worth considering here:

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Nothing to add here, just think this is worth repeating.

 

[parmalee]

You think homeless people don't have cellphones?

Here in San Diego we have a huge homeless population. Most of them have cellphones. When you drive down by Mission Bay you see all the crappy PV panels they use to charge them.

I think most homeless use those plans wherein you pay for minutes--they're not gonna throw away what little money/time they've got on a stupid poll.

But this is getting rather far from the topic. Assassination of billionaires/political figures/civil rights leaders etc is not OK, or excusable, or "sorta understandable" no matter how angry the assassin is.

Not sure about the relevance of the "anger" bit, but I generally agree. Just not invariably.

 

[parmalee]

Early 1970s I killed people for $8.27/day, no taxes. Never lost sleep over it. They were trying to kill me or they wouldn't have been there. I always tried to spot the VC equivalent of NCOs, I'd been taught to cut the head off the snake.

Thinking about those days a lot recently.

Yeah, we kill people sometimes. We have to kill people sometimes--that is to say, it's in most peoples' best interests. Not something to celebrate*, but it's silly to act as thought it is not sometimes necessary.

* Unless it's the cop who curbstomped me.

 

[parmalee]

South of Indianapolis, in the wrinkly part of Indiana, the fall foliage is spectacular when conditions are right. Roads wind through valley decorated with a million shades of red, orange and gold.

Yeah, same for much of central/southern Ohio.

How ever, I tell people that Indiana has three problems. You have to go north to get to South Bend, there's no fort in Fort Wayne, and French Lick is badly, sadly, misnamed.

I've performed in South Bend many times. Very weird place.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Too close to Touchdown Jesus for this Purdue alum.

 

[wegs]

Not sure how Luigi got involved in this, but I don't think he was the actual shooter, and the 'radicalization' narrative is made up to pin this on him. That said, it has brought into the limelight, how deplorable our healthcare 'system' is in the US, and not just with insurance companies. But, as far as Luigi goes, I think the fact that Thompson was getting ready to speak in front of Congress last month about UHC's and his involvement with insider trading, could have had something to do with his death. Not sure, but maybe?

If Luigi was in fact the shooter, I'm wondering if he did this to give a middle finger to his 'prominent' family who from the sounds of it, were part of the problem, with bad reviews about a chain of nursing homes they ran. His 'manifesto' doesn't sound like a highly educated person like himself, authored it. There are too many plot holes in my opinion, to believe that this guy acted alone, as some grand avenger of the everyday Joe.

I think we might find out that space aliens exist before ever concluding who actually killed Brian Thompson. My guess, the shooter is long gone, and this guy is taking the fall.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not sure how Luigi got involved in this, but I don't think he was the actual shooter,

What?? He was.

But, as far as Luigi goes, I think the fact that Thompson was getting ready to speak in front of Congress last month about UHC's and his involvement with insider trading, could have had something to do with his death. Not sure, but maybe?

He left a manifesto, as you know. He also carved messages into the bullets.

If Luigi was in fact the shooter, I'm wondering if he did this to give a middle finger to his 'prominent' family who from the sounds of it, were part of the problem, with bad reviews about a chain of nursing homes they ran. His 'manifesto' doesn't sound like a highly educated person like himself, authored it. There are too many plot holes in my opinion, to believe that this guy acted alone, as some grand avenger of the everyday Joe.

Plot holes? Multiple agents? What??

I think we might find out that space aliens exist before ever concluding who actually killed Brian Thompson.

What???

Beyond your personal "smell test" do you have any evidence that supports the idea that Luigi is not the shooter? Or that he didn't act alone? Or that his motive wasn't related to the denial of a claim for a family member? Is this more than just wild speculation?

 

[wegs]

What?? He was.


He left a manifesto, as you know. He also carved messages into the bullets.


Plot holes? Multiple agents? What??


What???

Beyond your personal "smell test" do you have any evidence that supports the idea that Luigi is not the shooter? Or that he didn't act alone? Or that his motive wasn't related to the denial of a claim for a family member? Is this more than just wild speculation?

I don't believe it's the same guy in all the various surveillance pics they've shared in the media. That's my opinion, but I'm far from alone in that. I could be wrong, but until we see all the evidence presented during a trial, he's innocent until proven guilty. Where are you getting the info that he allegedly did this over the denial of coverage for a family member? I haven't read or heard that. I've read that it's been suggested, but I don't think that's been confirmed.

Why is he pleading not guilty, if there is strong evidence pointing to his guilt, as the shooter? By now, he must know, that he's become a folk hero of sorts in the media, why wouldn't he want to 'take credit' for being the shooter?

I know that motive doesn't need to be proven in a court of law, but it doesn't make sense why he'd go through all of that trouble, to be caught at a McDonald's in PA, holding onto most of the 'evidence.' And how did he know exactly where Brian Thompson would be that morning? Thompson wasn't staying at the hotel with other colleagues and investors, and how did he know Thompson wouldn't have security with him? I'm sorry, but it doesn't add up.

What's your evidence that he's definitely the shooter and that he acted alone? There is a claim in the manifesto that he acted alone, but I don't believe he authored that manifesto. Again, until the trial comes out, and the prosecution can connect the dots better than the media has been able to, we have little to go on. Supposedly, there is footage of him walking down a city sidewalk in one of the surveillance videos, shortly before the murder, talking on his cell phone. Who was he talking to? That would be important to know.

I don't know if Luigi is ''innocent,'' per se, but it seems like there is way more to this story than perhaps we know, yet.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't believe it's the same guy in all the various surveillance pics they've shared in the media. That's my opinion, but I'm far from alone in that. I could be wrong, but until we see all the evidence presented during a trial, he's innocent until proven guilty.

Sure, we're all just theorizing here. I'm not about the throw away the key on him, but AFAIK, there are no other suspects being investigated.

Where are you getting the info that he allegedly did this over the denial of coverage for a family member? I haven't read or heard that. I've read that it's been suggested, but I don't think that's been confirmed.

Right. There's some grey area there.

Why is he pleading not guilty, if there is strong evidence pointing to his guilt, as the shooter?

You'll have to ask him. I don't think his plea is sound basis for looking elsewhere.

By now, he must know, that he's become a folk hero of sorts in the media, why wouldn't he want to 'take credit' for being the shooter?

Well we don't know what his defense is. For all we know, he's simply pleading not-guilty to 2nd-degree murder and terrorism. Maybe he doesn't deny doing the deed, but wants to plead to manslaughter or some such. Again. I don't see that rising to the level of "let's keep looking of the real killer"

I know that motive doesn't need to be proven in a court of law, but it doesn't make sense why he'd go through all of that trouble, to be caught at a McDonald's in PA, holding onto most of the 'evidence.'

Why not? I mean, that is what happened, so it's no use asking whether it makes sense.

And how did he know exactly where Brian Thompson would be that morning? Thompson wasn't staying at the hotel with other colleagues and investors, and how did he know Thompson wouldn't have security with him? I'm sorry, but it doesn't add up.

While those are interesting questions, I don't see how they lead to 'another agent' - they simply move the question to someone else. How did that other agent know where Thompson would be? How did that other agent know there wouldn't be security?, etc.

What's your evidence that he's definitely the shooter

He was identified mug; they've tracked his movements for the preceding week, he was caught with the weapon and DNA, etc. The police have a bunch of damning evidence against him.

and that he acted alone?

He acted alone unless there's reason to think he didn't.

There is a claim in the manifesto that he acted alone, but I don't believe he authored that manifesto.

Based on what?

Again, until the trial comes out, and the prosecution can connect the dots better than the media has been able to, we have little to go on.

Well, we go on what is available.

If all that is available is the police statement then who are we to doubt it? Unless you have good reason to doubt it. Do you?

Supposedly, there is footage of him walking down a city sidewalk in one of the surveillance videos, shortly before the murder, talking on his cell phone. Who was he talking to? That would be important to know.

Holding a phone and talking on it (or pretending to) is not exactly cause for suspicion.

I don't know if Luigi is ''innocent,'' per se, but it seems like there is way more to this story than perhaps we know, yet.

Maybe. I am content to go with the official report unless there is more to go on than a smell test. Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen. And they're fun. But they can be irresponsible too.


BTW, I have suggested this be split off into its own thread, so it doens;t get lost a the bottom of my 'you fools' rant. In case anyone else wants to debate the merits of Luigi's plight.

 

[wegs]

We don't know if the authorities are 'looking elsewhere,' only that he's the prime suspect. But, I'm not all that intrigued to be honest. Because I feel like we're being spoon-fed this particular narrative by the media when it's seems super coincidental that Thompson (and his boss) were being investigated for insider trading. Just one week prior to when Thompson was to testify, he's assassinated as he walks out of his hotel in NYC, heading to a conference of investors. Hmm...

Time will tell, I guess.

 

[billvon]

Because I feel like we're being spoon-fed this particular narrative by the media when it's seems super coincidental that Thompson (and his boss) were being investigated for insider trading.

A great many executives have been investigated for insider trading, including several people at my old company. Thompson is by no means unique in that respect, and it isn't even uncommon.

 

[wegs]

A great many executives have been investigated for insider trading, including several people at my old company. Thompson is by no means unique in that respect, and it isn't even uncommon.

Of course, I’m not suggesting otherwise. But what makes this murder suspicious is this particular CEO was scheduled to go before Congress related to the allegations of his/UHC’s insider trading, a week after his assassination. That’s pretty uncommon.

 

[billvon]

Of course, I’m not suggesting otherwise. But what makes this murder suspicious is this particular CEO was scheduled to go before Congress related to the allegations of his/UHC’s insider trading, a week after his assassination. That’s pretty uncommon.

But again, hundreds of CEOs have testified before Congress on everything from healthcare to cybersecurity to energy policy to airline safety. That doesn't make him very unique.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't believe it's the same guy in all the various surveillance pics they've shared in the media. That's my opinion, but I'm far from alone in that. I could be wrong, but until we see all the evidence presented during a trial, he's innocent until proven guilty.

Sure, innocent until proven guilty, and he is pleading not guilty, but apparently the evidence is overwhelming. For example, it seems that bullet casings from the scene match the gun that he was later found with. Ballistics dept will obviously test to prove whether they were from that actual gun, of course.
But I wouldn't pre-judge, and anyone who is already saying "he's guilty!" is helping his team build the argument that he won't find a fair trial due to media coverage. Although that may also work both ways, in jurors being more sympathetic to his "cause".

Why is he pleading not guilty, if there is strong evidence pointing to his guilt, as the shooter? By now, he must know, that he's become a folk hero of sorts in the media, why wouldn't he want to 'take credit' for being the shooter?

Think of it this way:
He's looking at a life in jail, if not the death-penalty, whether he pleads guilty or not. It's unlikely the DA will offer any significant plea deal due to their apparent confidence, and they'd be looking to make an example. So what does he have to lose for pleading "not guilty"? His sentence would likely be no worse if he loses, but he keeps open the possibility that he finds a sympathetic juror or two, and the possibility that the prosecution team f**k up somewhere and he gets off on a technicality.
Secondly, pleading "not guilty" means that he will get to tell his story, and the media will lap it up. He will be asked about his history, any grievance he might have had against the CEO/insurance company - heck, the prosecution will raise that as motive. It may make more sense when details of what the defence team are going to go with. Are they going to plead mitigating circumstances? Maybe that he might have thought about it, and even planned it, but there's no evidence he actually did it? Or full-on denial?
Either way, playing this out for as long as he can in court, even if he did it, might be his best chance at achieving the focus on the issues he's trying to raise (if that's what he's trying to do).

I don't know if Luigi is ''innocent,'' per se, but it seems like there is way more to this story than perhaps we know, yet.

Sure. And it will undoubtedly all come out in the trial. Not only do we have the question of evidence and guilt/innocence, we also have the underlying attention that this is giving to the failings of the US healthcare system, which may well be the most significant and long-lasting outcome of this trial. More and more stories will come out about how poor it is, and maybe a national movement will arise as a result to overhaul it all. Maybe. Maybe. Yeah, I know, unlikely.

 

[C C]

Not sure how Luigi got involved in this, but I don't think he was the actual shooter, and the 'radicalization' narrative is made up to pin this on him. [...] My guess, the shooter is long gone, and this guy is taking the fall.

Yah, given Mangione's educational background, many seem to feel that the informed and well-planned execution of the killing is incoherent with the careless and sloppy aftermath.

But the personal lives of rational or fastidious thinkers don't always conform to the kind of consistency that they seek in their job professions. Some famous examples were more emotionally reckless, uncontrolled, and scatterbrained in their domestic environments than the most drunken redneck.

Thus, there might be a similar opposite and glaring contrast between how Mangione prepares for and conducts his "work" (even something like assassination) and how he unwinds, celebrates, or seeks recreation afterwards.

Not that conspiracies don't happen. Sooner or later probability will deliver an actual one amidst the countless bogus ones. But it's head-scratching as to what Thompson could have been tangled-up in that was of such magnitude that it demanded his removal by higher agencies, and setting-up a fall guy.

Instead, the repeated criticism revolving around UnitedHealthcare's approach to handling claims seems less encroaching on film noir or spy novels. Albeit that still means settling for a Kaczynski revolutionary becoming attracted to UH, as a target. <frowning emoji>

• “Fall guy?” — Lawyer thinks there’s something off about Luigi Mangione’s arrest
  https://www.distractify.com/p/lawyer-luigi-mangione-arrest-conspiracy-theory
  
  If the current state of political affairs has proved anything, it’s that “conspiracy theories” don't feel like the half-baked ramblings of jobless basement dwellers anymore...

 

[parmalee]

Thus, there might be a similar opposite and glaring contrast between how Mangione prepares for and conducts his "work" (even something like assassination) and how he unwinds, celebrates, or seeks recreation afterwards.

This makes sense to me--I would add that he was likely quite stressed, post-assassination, being as he just killed a guy. Not something one does every day.

Instead, the repeated criticism revolving around UnitedHealthcare's approach to handling claims seems less encroaching on film noir or spy novels. Albeit that still means settling for a Kaczynski revolutionary becoming attracted to UH, as a target. <frowning emoji>

I'll repeat what I said in post #82:

Anyway, I think they got the wrong guy. I think it was this guy:

That poor maligned rando in a parking lot, who wasn't Ted Kaczinski, finally had enough and decided to do something about it.

 

[C C]

[...] I'll repeat what I said in post #82: <1987 Unabomber sketch>

Yep, the immediate next level of the Matryoshka doll. And many if not most of the modern-day "But his worldview seems all over the place!" conclusions about _X_ type suspects can eventually find convergence in Rousseau, if the labyrinth of twisting roads is followed far enough back in time.
_

 

[TheVat]

I appreciate the thread's getting a bit into the weeds on this. I don't give much credence to the argument-from-weirdness, because neophyte murderers (i.e. the vast majority of murderers) usually experience trauma from their actions and whatever "cool" and calculation they had prior to the act falls apart in the face of the reality of having actually killed someone. Many highly trained soldiers and law enforcement officers will come unglued after their first shooting, even while being assured by their cohort of the legitimacy of their action. A lone killer, committing a criminal offense, has none of those social props. As Parmalee noted, not something one does every day. That said, keeping a murder weapon and carrying it with you, suggests either a remarkably determined self-sabotage or a level of confidence at odds with reality. I'd bet a roomful of people who follow news, if I asked who thought of Clemenza's famous line in The Godfather, a lot of hands would go up. Leave the gun, take the cannoli.

 

[wegs]

I appreciate the thread's getting a bit into the weeds on this. I don't give much credence to the argument-from-weirdness, because neophyte murderers (i.e. the vast majority of murderers) usually experience trauma from their actions and whatever "cool" and calculation they had prior to the act falls apart in the face of the reality of having actually killed someone. Many highly trained soldiers and law enforcement officers will come unglued after their first shooting, even while being assured by their cohort of the legitimacy of their action. A lone killer, committing a criminal offense, has none of those social props. As Parmalee noted, not something one does every day. That said, keeping a murder weapon and carrying it with you, suggests either a remarkably determined self-sabotage or a level of confidence at odds with reality. I'd bet a roomful of people who follow news, if I asked who thought of Clemenza's famous line in The Godfather, a lot of hands would go up. Leave the gun, take the cannoli.

I appreciate this analysis. Serial killers may be a different breed, in that they continue to fly just enough under the radar, to continue on doing what they do. I'm not sure if Luigi had planned to take down more execs, but I hadn't considered that he could have been so confident, that it overshadowed logic (in the moment).