UnitedHealth CEO Assassinated
The murder of UnitedHealthcare's CEO is a strange story. On the one hand, the killer obviously was taking steps to avoid getting caught. He was wearing a hoodie. He used a silencer. He clearly had an escape plan.
On the other hand, he was wearing a distinctive backpack. He may have left a food wrapper and a water bottle at the scene. And there was writing on each of the three shell casings (the words "deny," "defend," and "depose").
If I remember correctly if a "decent person" is unwilling to ever give the death penalty to anyone then he is discarded as a juror on that basis if the crime contested carries the death penalty.
So the "decent person" would need to lie in court (perjury), as afaik the question of being willing to give the death penalty is asked to all prospective jurors in a death penalty case, to be there to acquit because of the death penalty.
Btw NYS doesn't have the death penalty
'Unwilling to ever' is a step way beyond my point.
I wouldn't have any need to lie if asked that. So not an issue even in a world so perverse that lying is considered as bad as state killing.
I don't understand why in the world he still had the gun on him. There are a million dumpsters and storm drains on the way to PA.
Souvenirs
Correct. If you were charged with murder but you believe you obviously acted in self defense, you would plead not guilty, even if you were conceding that you had killed someone.
But isn't there some kind of designation when someone pleads self-defense? Like not guilty by way of self-defense or insanity. Or you hear talking head lawyers say "the defense is mounting a self defense case" and obviously are trying to tie their case to well known precedents. Is there any parallel here? Not guilty by way of what? protecting the public interest?
I'd feel better about the chances of someone killing the directors of a company poisoning a specific community with a specific substance. You could say you were directly saving lives by preventing criminal actions. But you can't, analogously, put the entire healthcare system on trial.
There are cases, like the Simpson case, where the odds are against you but you still have a theoretical defense which, were it supported by truth, should win. But what is the theoretical defense here?
his case was self defense which is crazy in a sense since he chooped the guy up into bags but because it was self defense, hes good. also the **** ton of money that he had to pay for the best lawyer in Texas i presume
I don't understand why in the world he still had the gun on him. There are a million dumpsters and storm drains on the way to PA.
this is another reason why im curious to see what the defense will o with
36 pages and not one of you offered thoughts and prayers
I thought that was the norm when a psychopath shoots up a kindergarten or murders a ceo
36 pages and not one of you offered thoughts and prayers
I thought that was the norm when a psychopath shoots up a kindergarten or murders a ceo
That’s in the past. America is now officially Trumpistan after the people spoke in the most recent election. It’s all about being a selfish ******* and not only not giving a **** about anyone else, but actively being a ****ing dick. See MattGaetz, total bag of **** garbage human being and Trump’s nominee for top law enforcement official in the land. Assholishness is now the norm. BuckleUp.
It's 9 you heathens
18
I cannot imagine a person who finds the option to add more posts to the page and doesn't select the largest number possible. Yet, one of them has been allowed to govern the rest of us.
Do you also cut half the lawn? Blow half the driveway? Buy 1% milk?
That doesn't follow at all. He could be mentally ill or he could have assessed the likely outcomes to be weighed towards the positive.
That doesn't follow at all. He could be mentally ill or he could have assessed the likely outcomes to be weighed towards the positive.
He didn’t consider that he is morally blind and rightfully conclude in the affirmative. Now, he goes to prison and the world remains fundamentally unchanged.
That doesn't follow at all. He could be mentally ill or he could have assessed the likely outcomes to be weighed towards the positive.
It follows. He’s mentally ill. (If he wasn’t, he’d have ditched the gun.). Or are you suggesting that the outcome of him getting caught “weighed toward the positive” and so he was ok with being caught?
He shot someone in midtown Manhattan in broad daylight. Getting away with it obviously wasn't that high on his list of priorities.
He used a suppressed gun and had some sort of plan with the city bike so I don't think he was trying or wanting to get caught which makes the gun and confession note a bit strange.
