This looks like a case of "suicide by revolution". Various media reports (including this one) suggest that he had a back injury in 2023, has not worked since 2023, started losing touch with friends in 2023, has been reading books about back injuries and chronic pain, etc. If you've ever known someone dealing with chronic pain, it can easily make you decide that you're better off dead than continuing to live. Likely he's been seeking medical treatment for his injury, his insurer is United Health, they've done nothing but "delay, deny, defend", he's already decided that he's better off dead, and he might as well take the CEO of the health insurer with him.

It wouldn't be the first time the police/three letters agencies lie about how they identified/located a suspect to not leak potentially illegal surveillance processes

Neither of your theories answer the question -- how did he know that the CEO was staying in a hotel other than Hilton (conference venue) and would arrive by foot 1 hour and 15 minutes before conference opens at 8am (CEOs do not typically arrive so early in advance). The shooter was caught on camera talking on a burner phone 15 minutes before shooting. Who did he talk to? Was he acting alone or received some help? The shooter only had to wait for 15 minutes or so before his target arrives. Pure "luck" or help from inside?

>media really over-estimated this persons competence

It is a bit of psychological blindness where we convince ourselves that random murders aren't as easy as they really are. The truth is that almost anyone -- including people with lots of security theater -- can be nullified by random people. This is quadruply true in the era of drones.

> Or the internet, media really over-estimated this persons competence.

definitely this one. there was a lot of projection of competency onto him, wanting him to be some kind of superhero assassin that would disappear. when in reality, he wasn't using that welrod pistol clone, and his gun was jamming with every shot.

but also he was self-destructive and definitely wasn't trying hard enough to not get caught. and that comes with the territory because you're not going to be well-adjusted and decide to assassinate someone in broad daylight. and i would pick self-destructive over arrogant. and he may just have not realized how distinct his facial features were.

It never made sense to me why he was wandering around the city in the same exact clothes he used during the murder. If he had simply worn another jacket, he may never have been identified. How could he not have realized he'd be on camera or described by witnesses?

Now he gets caught with all the incriminating evidence you could ask for? I'd say Occam's Razor points to your second theory: He's not playing some sort of 4D chess. He just decided to go kill this guy for some reason and went and did it. Dumb luck and a dense population easily explains how he was able to escape the city.

If you wanted to get caught then why not just stay at the crime scene or surrender a few days later?

But maybe he knew it was inevitable so he spent his last few days living life normally.

If he wanted to get caught, he didn't need to wear a disguise all the way from Georgia or wherever he came from. He didn't need to use a fake ID. He didn't need to flee the scene - at least, flee outside the city.

Why would he do all that if he wanted to get caught?

Educated people tend to overestimate their abilities outside their domain. We've all known someone with an "I can do anything" complex. Anyone can do anything... poorly. He likely deluded himself into believing he already outsmarted the cops so why even bother. Having two degrees doesn't make one a competent plumber, electrician, or in this case, criminal.

It seems implausible that he was competent enough to locate his target and escape the day of yet so incompetent as to hold onto the gun. I think he definitely wanted to get caught.

I’m curious about what exactly prompted whoever called him in to become suspicious - was the profile released from photos good enough? Or was he acting suspiciously with his backpack?

Plus, the release of all these unofficial pictures, and his capture being paraded by the media. They're trying to set an example.

I don’t think people are over-estimating his competence. He set himself a goal and achieved it… getting away with it simply wasn’t important so it wasn’t the thing he obsessed over.

Although, if the evidence is damning and you don't want it found, keeping it on your person is not the worst idea. That way you know the only way they find any evidence is if they find you.

Even if you try to destroy the evidence, evidence of you destroying the evidence works just as well for a lot of cases.

The most likely scenario is that he was planning on not getting caught, saw the massive amount of support he had, then decided to attach his name to his actions.

Well his manifesto seems to imply that he is sacraficing himself and expects to suffer but that he beleives its the honorable thing to do.

Here's another option, combining the two.

- The intelligent individual is also self-absorbed and believed that they would be able to continue to kill CEOs without getting caught. A narcissistic streak that allowed them to make no attempt at concealing their identity in public. They kept the weapon in order to move to a new target (or they 3D printed an identical if the reports of a 3D printed gun are correct). They believed they would either not get caught or that the public would not turn them in. They may have envisioned themselves the Ted of Healthcare.

He was also probably watching the news.

At some point you know you’ve already been caught.

> Probably fail to do so, then eventually get convicted on all charges and end up in a supermax penitentiary for life.

Where he will finally get decent health care for free.

[flagged]

Disposing of evidence can sometimes be more incriminating than not.

Let's say he shuts up and gets a lawyer. His lawyer can say that maybe the real gunman noticed he looked similar, then switched bags on a bus. It's weak, but it's something.

If he tossed it in NYC, he leaves possible DNA at the scene. If he tosses it at home, the cops will likely find it and take his disposal as an admission of guilt.

IANAL but while I guess it's not good to have your lawyer run the Shaggy defence ("it wasn't me!") if the police have made an effort in the investigation then there's a surprising chance they'll find the evidence anyway.

At the very least that could be his rationale.

He didn't know if they had a van watching his house, and if his bins were being collected by the police. He might have been too scared and paranoid to do anything.

> It seems he wanted to be found.

I talked to someone personally who at some point had committed a series of crimes, and at some point they started doing things that were more and more likely to get them caught; they told me they thought to themselves, "What am I doing?" But they didn't stop, and eventually got caught.

In a different story, a few years ago I dropped my wallet on the sidewalk outside my house, and someone picked it up and tried to use one of the credit cards in it. Then they got in a fight which got them arrested; and the police found my wallet (with my ID and everything) in their possession. Why get in a fight that's going to get you arrested just at the moment when you have stolen property in your pocket?

My take is this: We present to others, and even ourselves, the illusion that there's just one unified "self"; but really inside there are a number of independent motivations within us. In both cases above, I think there was a part of those people who felt guilty and actually did want to be caught and punished.

It's possible there was something similar going on with the guy who shot the CEO: one part of him had managed to plan everything perfectly so that he could get away; but there was a saboteur. It couldn't ahead of time prevent him from doing the shooting, but it could afterwards prevent him from disposing of the evidence and ensure that he got caught.

Exactly my thoughts as well. Every piece of evidence law enforcement has was basically intentionally provided by him. If he just stuffed his trash in one of his 7 pockets, or wore a pair of sunglasses, or didn't actually stare straight at the camera in the taxi like he was getting his school picture taken? I mean pretty much the only thing he failed to do was leave his business card at the crime scene.

It’s all very convenient and airtight, very nicely packaged.

I’m not saying it’s not exactly what it looks like, just kinda makes me think huh. Either the perp really wanted to be caught, or someone really wants to close this case. I’m going with he wanted to be caught, since he’s apparently not an actual idiot.

So just a relatively smart privileged dude swept away by dark ideology? It wouldn’t be the first time. If there’s any more to it, we won’t likely know.

I don’t think so, per article:

He "became quiet and started to shake" when asked if he had recently been to New York, according to the criminal complaint filed in Pennsylvania.

Being smart can lead to arrogance, which leads to stumbles. like carrying evidence, dining in public, etc.

My guess is that he assumed he'd be caught early, wasn't, and then got a bit overwhelmed with the reality of staying on the loose. That would've been overwhelming: finding places to sleep, transport, eating, etc. A gun and ID might've felt like tools that still had use, so he was yet to discard them.

Why you'd eat-in at a fast food place rather than just go via some low level Chinese takeaway though!

If that's the case, you make a call to a reporter — and then walk into a police station to surrender to authorities.

A lot of people who commit crimes are suffering from a range of untreated mental illnesses. They are not always firing on all cylinders all of the time, leading to weirdness like this.

1. This guy has a tight alibi and the shooter is elsewhere.

2. This guy has a terminal illness.

3. This guy is bankrupt after healthcare debt + buying backpacks.

Or the most obvious case of setup ever.

He could be taking lots of medication for his back pain which could cause him to think not so rationally

> including the fake ID he used at the hostel

I've stayed at that place multiple times, though years ago.

They did check ID, but never copied it.

I wonder how they knew it was fake.

The only part I don't get now is the cell phone

I assumed he had some help with the timing via the burner phone

But this all looks very lone wolfish now

If this is a vendetta, the goal was achieved and there was nothing more to do. He had to give himself two goals, the vendetta and not get caught, which is more difficult than one goal. A hired killer would pursue both goals routinely as a mean to stay in business but not an amateur and anyway not as effectively.

Agreed. He seems to be smart enough to never be caught. Could just be the need to be liked/famous/known. On the other hand, he might not have expected to be noticed by someone who knew him. That's a real 0.01% you can't predict in your perfect planning.

> seems he wanted to be found

He was presumably en route somewhere. Disposing of a fake ID such that forensics can’t get anything useful off it isn’t easily done on the run / incognito. (And if his inspiration is the Unabomber, he presumably had more targets.)

Maybe he saw how the world basically thought he was an amazing hero and he wanted to let people know who he really is.

What about those eye brows though?

Could as well have walked into a police station or uploaded the manifesto on his GitHub.

Maybe he was planning to do another.

He didn't want to be found but thought it was a non-zero possibility is being ruled out why?

Yup, looks like a CIA glowop.

or, he didn't think he would get caught and his plan to was move on to victim #2.

[flagged]

Jury nullification!

And he really could have gotten away with it if he wanted to. Im sure he noticed online the vast population of people willing to hide him or provide an alibi.

> who actually lead pretty decent lives.

It's because the whole image is fake. In theory everything is fine but you know there is something very bad about the healthcare system, and the power of an institution to decide about someone else's life or death is just one aspect of it; prices inflated beyond imagination is another one (these two are related). So we pretend to live normal lives but in the back of our head we pray we don't ever need to become a victim of this system. But on the outside yes, it looks like everything is fine and we have decent lives.

It’s funny how we treat these things. Kill a bunch of people by putting lead in their drinking water and it’s a shrug. Occasionally you might lose your job over it. In extremely rare and egregious cases you might end up with a minor criminal conviction.

Kill one person by putting lead in their heart at high speed and now it’s a serious crime. If the victim is Important then you get a massive manhunt and national news coverage.

I'm not sure people are actually leading pretty decent lives. The people I know are working stressful dead end jobs and living with roommates in order to barely make ends meet. They don't have much prospect of improving their lot because doing so requires capital that they don't have (e.g. to start a business or go to college). Even though they have health insurance, they avoid going to the doctor unless absolutely necessary because they can't afford the co-pay. In some cases the states that they live in actively seek to discriminate against them.

It seems that people are increasingly convinced that “in this country it is necessary, now and then, to put one health insurance exec to death in order to inspire the others to pay”.

That is a sign that people believe they can't obtain redress through widely available legal means.

Everyone is walking a tightrope.

I, and probably a lot of people reading this on HN, are outwardly very comfortable.

I have cash/assets that would be life changing for most people (especially when I read comments on reddit where people say that $10k would be life changing for them) - and a "good" white-collar job.

I'm also lucky enough to be old enough to have not been 100% screwed like our even younger generation has (I only got 90% screwed).

I've been very lucky in life, but when I see the level of wealth inequality and how corporations have completely captured our government, and our two-tiered justice system, it makes me feel sick and angry.

I still feel like I'm being held hostage by the 0.1%, under pressure to keep working to line other's pockets for much longer than I would otherwise have to, and like the whole thing could all come crashing down in a week's time given some improbable but far-from-impossible set of circumstances.

I also don't feel like I would be supported by my government, corporations, or society in general if those circumstances actually occurred.

So I definitely sympathize with the frustration of people who feel unsupported by society and unrepresented by government - especially those who happened to be unluckier in life than I.

And with the current state of affairs, there must be a LOT of them around.

I sympathize with that frustration a hell of a lot more than I sympathize for a dead CEO who made a career out of systematically denying treatment to people who paid him for coverage.

In fact, I'm happy he died as a reminder that nobody is untouchable, no matter how much lobbying your corporation has done to make social murder legal, and no matter how much you've tried to isolate yourself from the consequences of your terrible actions.

I read a reddit comment about the alleged shooter's arrest before:

"murder is such a strong word, can't we just call it removing a cancer?"

> how far off the deep end the internet went over the last few days.

Side note - the "internet" is very likely a mix of bots and real humans nowadays. What might seem initially like a real person saying "hunt the snitch down" could very likely be a bot that is meant to sow and influence discord. That bot's followers could very likely be real people who then say "ya i agree with this account! get your pitchfork!"

Unfortunately, sometimes the law allows for the legal murder of people by pen. More people are killed by keyboards and pens, and I don't mean like John Wick, than are killed by guns because we have "for-profit healthcare". That means that the motive of the company is not determined by whether their decisions will kill people by the policies they create, but whether the decisions they make will be profitable. As long as those decisions don't run afoul of the law, they can kill at will. If that sounds fucked up, it is because it is fucked up.

Back in the 19th century a lot of Russian Revolutionaries came from families of well being, or are even aristocrats.

> so much pent up anger

And one reason it's pent-up, as opposed to released, is due to corporations taking over our society and ruining human lives. All within the confines of the law and democracy. That's what this is about. There is no recourse or effective vehicle to be heard.

> ...so much pent up anger amongst people who actually lead pretty decent lives.

This is the part of the story that must be discussed more, lest there will be more killings like this one.

Yeah was wild to see that.

I take it as a reaction to the wider public feeling that the US medical system is broken and the appropriate channel to fix it (voting & politics) being broken too thanks to lobbying.

Under circumstances like this people’s perception shifts to a more relativistic perspective. A bit like perception of a rioter throwing a stone at riot police depends on whether the viewer agrees with the movements goals even if in isolation they wouldn’t normally approve of throwing rocks at people faces.

I imagine that's what the start of the French revolution felt like too - one day you could walk down the streets of Paris as a noble minding your own business, the next day you had your head chopped off because people got fed up. Not saying that this is what's happening in the US right now, but I imagine the societal feelings of anger against "the elite" are similar.

I thought it was a joke when I saw the posts on the Reddit homepage celebrating the murder and even the murderer. Partly because I thought Redditors were above that type of thing, but also because I thought it was against their TOS.

It's a real reminder of how little sympathy people can have about people who they consider the enemy or the "other". I'm almost certain nearly all of the people celebrating the murder believe that they're good people and believe in justice too. Humans are so flawed. And I'm not suggesting for a moment I'm above it. I've often noticed how I don't care as much as I should when someone I dislike is harmed or suffers injustice.

On the one side you have a mass murderer that’s part of the politically untouchable class, and on the other, one of his permanently injured victims managed to survive and deal out frontier-style justice.

It makes for a good story. We’ve all seen that movie 100 times.

I wonder if the shooter will survive long enough to make it to jury trial. That’s when the real circus will begin.

(All I know about this story is that United Health has one of the highest incorrect claim rejection rates in the industry. I know nothing about the CEO, but we’re way past 140 characters at this point, so these things don’t matter to social media.)

> melting pot

Did you mean tipping point?

It's not surprising. Most people don't comment. The tiny minority that comment likely have extreme views. Sorting algorithms that drive engagement makes this worse.

https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...

It's kind of sad. But I think that most people are fundamentally good -- they're just reactive and understand our broken healthcare system so little that they actually consider the victim to have actually earned a death sentence. When really, he was still a cog in the machine, not much closer to harming people than a software developer whose code ends up being used in military drones.

The problems with US healthcare boil down to there being more demand for healthcare than supply, and a fat bureaucracy sprouting up to partition that limited healthcare, often screwing over people who need exceptionally special care or who can't afford insurance in the first place. Who is to blame? You could reasonably apply some blame to the shortage of doctors created by the AMA, the FDA's guidance and the sugar industry's lobbying resulting in people being less healthy, lack of consumer protection laws around opaque medical pricing/gouging, and private insurance.

Would changing any one of these alone fix healthcare in the US? Maybe the first 2, if given a long time to materialize. But do any of these people deserve to die? It says a lot about you if you automatically dehumanize these people and say yes.

> Things really feel like a melting pot at the moment, with so much pent up anger amongst people who actually lead pretty decent lives.

One of the reasons that many people voted for Trump, is nihilism. The real belief that Trump is the one most likely to burn the ‘system’ to the ground. That is the brightest hope some voters have.

i think its because the accused dude is just as online as the average social media user who has latched on to this.

Given the number of people who think that Oswald did not shoot three people, that James Earl Ray did not shoot anyone, that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot anyone, the mental gymnastics are not surprising. It's always been like this; the internet just allows us to know about it in real time. There are still people to this day who will tell you that the Yippies really DID levitate the Pentagon.

Imagine modern Russia. You can't have much of an opinion on pressing subjects of today unless that opinion is sanctioned by Russia's authorities - otherwise you're dead, or incarcerated or at best left the country. The propaganda machine is working 24/7. Now, Russia is a young country - counting from the last big turmoil in 1991, it's only 30+ years old - but some of the people there lived through USSR times. And some 100- years ago USSR was going through grim times itself, with millions suffering in purges, and even more millions and tens of millions learning to conform. And, as some prized artists and writers said there, the country killed a lot of progressive and inspired and very many of who're left are those who did purges, participated in them or from their families. So now the Russia's population - many involuntarily - support the war which was started for, frankly, really wrong reasons. And the future the Russia is perhaps looking towards is grim, hard and thankless no matter how things will progress. Can you imagine the scale of the task of getting back from the proverbial pit towards what we'd see as a more normal way of a country, what's going on in the heads of those people trying to live a normal life there?

Now, you might be surprised but America also has problems under the surface. America likes to project the good impression, but certain problems exist, aren't addressed enough for some time, got accumulated and it's harder to gloss them over. And since those problems are decades old, you have some parts of generations quite familiar with them. And we have Trump - first winning in 2016 and then even more triumphantly winning in 2024 - and those "normal", "good" sort of decidedly lost this November to those who's combined message might well be "things aren't well". Maybe we need to look at what's normal, as in if we have that state? Should we consider normal something only 40% think? 50%? 70%? That is, if 30% have long running reasons to think things aren't normal - is it enough for you to pause?

To the melting pot. What would you think if, looking into the pot, at the extreme you'd see the whole pot is full of that pent up anger, and nothing - or almost nothing - of what's "normal" here? Do numbers matter here? And, if they are suddenly too large, what you're going to do with lots and lots of those who'd think, figuratively, that lynching is still a good idea? Or in other somewhat known words, what would you do the good from, if the only thing you can do that is from evil?

[flagged]

[flagged]

I am not sure this is a fair comparison. Wouldn't this be true if we compare any pre-industrial society with any post-industrial society?

How does a rich person existing affect me? Is it just because I'm jealous that I don't have a yacht and so I should try to overthrow the system that doesn't let me have a yacht? Even though I'll never get a yacht in any system?

Can we look at the graph of wealth disparity of America versus other nations?

There's plenty of countries that are higher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_in...

Most of those countries aren't exactly paragons of political stability, but they're probably not going to undergo a french revolution any time soon.

Viva la revolution.

[flagged]

What you're missing here (and all the media copy-pasting the review) is that the review is a quote from reddit.com/r/climate https://old.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/has_anyone...

For anyone reading stuff like this, read Ellul’s Technological Society instead. Optionally followed by “The Meaning of the City.” I haven’t read the manifesto and don’t plan to; it apparently cited Ellul a fair amount and Ellul seems like a saner guide.

Good-looking Unabomber with terrible opsec is pretty spot on for this guy.

The unabomber made some good points though. First quote is solid analysis of him

I don't see the point. The Unabomber manifesto had nothing to do with bombs. It is a commentary on the state of technology in society and a commentary on leftism.

My takeaway from this is that what would have saved this man is a proper liberal arts degree. I can't deny that there are reasons for engineering degrees being as focused as they are, but he clearly didn't get the chance to work out his philosophical ideas in an appropriately challenging environment.

What’s your point? I haven’t read the manifesto, but I have read that many consider it uncomfortably correct

[dead]

[flagged]

The basic premise, as I understand it, is that there is nothing illegal about coming to the wrong conclusion as a juror. I have also read that it can be contempt of court to try to convince jurors to intentionally come to a conclusion not based on the law and evidence.

So what would happen if a single juror just remained steadfast that the defendant was innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Can a judge remove that juror if they believe they are not being forthright?

Pinning your hopes to this is setting yourself up for disappointment

[flagged]

A quick look at United Health's P/L shows a 6% profit margin. This does not quite support the popular rhetoric of a corporation in search of relentless margin (unless the argument is they are bad at it despite all efforts).

Only the CEO or everyone that works there?

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

How much do you think people should pay for some random person to be afforded one more hour of life free of pain? $1000? $1000000? $100000000? More?

To your point, there is a concept called "social murder" [1]:

> When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live – forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence – knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains.

We can compare this to, say, all the people involved in the death camps in Nazi Germany. Who exactly is culpable for murder? Ther person dropping the Zyklon B? Or were they just following orders? The camp commandant who gave the orders? Or were they just following orders? What about the camp guards? What about the train operators? Those who maintained the trains? Those who built and maintained the camps? Those who loaded the trains? Those who detained Jews and other "undesirables"?

In the case of death-by-denail of health coverage, there are many hands involved (hence "social murder"). Personally, I don't blame the people who man the phones, for example. They are coerced into a job. But someone is responsible and you can make a reasonable claim that the CEO fits that bill. Where you draw the line between those two is another question. There are no doubt people working at United whose job it is to come up with creative ways of denying claims. Their bonuses are probably tied to it. You can make a reasonable case that they're aware of the consequences of their action. Are they culpable too?

Additionallly, people tend to view violence as violence or not depending on who does it. Like tossing tear gas cannisters at protestors is not violence but throwing the cannister back is [2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder

[2]: https://fox11online.com/news/local/charges-filed-against-man...

This statement is so far outside of the bounds of reality it's laughable.

What about those people that are using United Health Care and getting the support they need? They account for nothing?

[flagged]

How far does this carry? Is the charge of the insurance company to keep you alive at all costs?

Refusing to pay for medical care is hardly murder. It’s a standard monetary dispute, and we have a due process for these. If you think that so many claims are being unreasonably denied, why not start a company offering bridge loans, and funding legal challenges?

Maybe the courts are too inefficient to handle these disputes, but that’s an argument for reforming the courts, not for shooting executives.

- He wasn't thinking clearly and didn't really have much of a post shooting plan outside of getting out of NYC

Seems pretty likely that this was the case. Getting away from the site of the crime is challenging enough!

You're missing one of the most obvious reasons: he might not be as smart or as clever as the internet's romanticized version of the assassin.

Crime and Punishment (Dostoyevski) illustrates this. It's probably wasn't a conscious process or well thought out plan, and it's difficult to imagine and prepare for the pressures of a life-and-death situation in advance.

Any sane person would discard the evidence by scattering it. Any homeless will take anyone of the items.

He was smart enough to carry away the feat without getting caught. He is not smart socially, his demise doesn't serve his purpose. Sounds like fit to be an engineer. And kind of suicidal.

Most likely he realized once the authorities have his name - he can't run forever.

That being said - some obvious stuff he could have done like grow a beard and shave it after and fly out of the country to somewhere cheap like Thailand with $10k

> (including, it seems, the jacket)

Just 2 days ago, the police reported they found his backpack with jacket inside and a veterinary gun nearby... now he had the same jacket, backpack and another unlicenced gun with him. His eyebrows and nose are different, can clearly see it from the few released pictures.

[flagged]

Yeah, he worked on Civ VI as a software intern.

[flagged]

Lol this has an extra badge it didn't have when i seen it an hour ago.

His followers count keeps going up every time I refresh. It’s not like he’ll be pushing commits for a while haha.

The glazing in the issues of this repo - https://github.com/lnmangione/Halite-III/issues

And it's not even a divisive story. Most of the left and right seem to agree on this one. Specially younger people.

Ignore the media stories, their paychecks are written with corporate ad money. On the Internet people of all kinds seem to like the guy.

I think you mean the appetite for political violence of people who are chronically online and lacking connection with reality

Final sentence is telling (among others):

  "Violence never solved anything" is a statement uttered by cowards and predators.

More or less lays out his motive right there.

I disagree with his thoughts on violence. When you try to solve a problem by inviting violence to dinner you'll find you have a guest you are unable to excuse.

Personally, I don't put a lot of weight on that. Particularly for people who are terminally online, the Unabomber manifesto is kinda "edgy content". A lot of these people want to come off as "edgy". He had Mein Kampf in his Goodreads profile too. Without other evidence, I don't think that really says anything either.

Good example: his Goodreads had "Introduction to Algorithms" in it. This is the de facto textbook at MIT, Stanford, etc and likely UPenn (where he got his undergrad and Masters). Does that mean he read it? Not necessarily.

Put it this way: the number of people who have read Knuth's volumes is a lot smaller than those who own them as essentially expensive bookends or paperweights. But it's a nice way to signal your technical chops.

All of these things need to be taken in a broader context.

The take he mention in that is an old reddit comment:

https://old.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/has_anyone...

Only four stars though...

I understand the fear of living near such a heinous crime, but you have to see the difference between the two situations. Random crime is scary, but is random. All signs point to this being an assassination. Brian Thompson wasn't the victim of a random criminal, nor was he murdered by some person he has a connection with. He was assassinated. So the right question is why do we investigate assassinations differently than murders? And to me, the answer is clear - an assassination has far larger societal implications than a murder.

TBH, this feels like some kind of psychotic break. He just kind of stops posting out of nowhere. On twitter there are some attempts from others to reach him that seem concerned for his wellbeing: https://x.com/DanielleFong/status/1866211089660477490

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/55354261-luigi-mangione

Gave a 4 star review to the Unabomber manifesto!

quote from his review:

"Violence never solved anything" is a statement uttered by cowards and predators.""

His IG was https://www.instagram.com/luigi.from.fiji/ but they obviously took it down

that tim urban book is so bad. dude wrote an entire adult graphic novel dismantling marxist theory without ever reading the source text!

So he meticulously planned the rest of the murder, disappeared for almost a year before now, and we are to believe that everything he did in the last year was NOT also staged?

Come on.

The three possibilities I see:

1. He wanted to get caught

2. This isn't him, and they're framing this guy

3. He figured the safest place to have that stuff was on his person, but then why go and get arrested at McDonald's? To be fair I don't know about that interaction.

I don't buy 3 because there were so, so many places to ditch shit between Altoona and Manhattan. The Susquehanna for starters.

My guess is that initially he intended to avoid being caught, but at some point changed his mind and embraced it.

Maybe he was suffering from a mental illness and so he simply wasn't thinking clearly and carefully from the beginning.

Subconsciously, he wanted to be caught.

Just to put the hypothesis out there: because he's a fall guy to placate the people afraid of being killed like the UHC CEO, which the authorities desperately need.

(Although a brief perusal of the photos in the article doesn't show anything obviously different between them.)

With is face pretty much being captured on camera in the hostel and in an Uber I'm not sure there was much point hiding it. He was going to get caught shortly whatever he did.

Does it matter?

The point is, the NYPD was compiling evidence for the media to release. Part of that evidence nobody had included:

- the original surveillance video of the murder

- the video capture of him at the hostel (with his mask down)

- the video capture of him inside the cab after the murder with his mask

Without a decent photo, he probably would still be on the run. Had it not been for the NYPD releasing the images of him, the patron or employee would not have recognized him and called the cops.

The cops were closing in on him regardless. The photos being so widely circulated were a primary reason he got caught. He was probably forced to try and wear a mask to conceal his identity, but at the same time, doing so made me stick out enough that they called the cops.

That seems quite unfair. The NYPD was the one that located multiple pictures of the suspect, and I'm assuming did a good bit of detective work to ensure the pictures they released actually were of the suspect in question. Of course at some point after releasing photos of the suspect one would anticipate that someone who recognized them would turn them in.

It was actually a patron at McDonalds.

Basically the same thing that happened with the rapist in June who kidnapped and raped two random middle schoolers in broad daylight. Prints & and DNA were in the system, he was living in an apartment NYC was paying for and people called into the tip line with his name. It wasn't NYPD, it was a guy working at a bodega who apprehended him 5 days later.

If you're more conspiratorial, nobody called from McDonalds. That was just a cover for whatever creepy spy tech they used.

Judging by the mugshot, he might have been wearing the same clothes as well.

A young guy wearing a mask in Altoona would stand out. He probably would have been better off not wearing the mask in that case.

Conspiracy theory below, so beware, I warned you.

What are the odds that since case is high profile they probably used some grey area or illegal surveillance tool from their 3 letter agency friends and made up some story how a patron recognized him.

Convinently guy also had a copy of all the incriminatint stuff with him. (In russia he would also have sims3).

Since he talked on phone, they used some voice recognition software. They probably record all the calls and the system recognized him when he made a new one (or even worse - from someone elses' phone).

Then they used this whole doctrine of not revealing the real source.

I think police only released half-face photo to media. They had more angles and pictures of the person. Could also be that they got additional photos from a car ride that has been mentioned in many reports.

What if they first noticed a gun bulging in a pocket, and then made the connection?

It was specifically Eric Adams who sort of implied that - but it was a bit of a cagey response, and NYPD later stated that day they had no ID:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5028239-mayor-adams-sa...

Given Adam’s past year, there was never a reason to take what he says at face value.

Eric Adams doesn't have a strong reality filter, and it's usually good to cross-check things he says, especially if he's the only person saying them. I don't think he consciously makes things up, he just tends to gravitate towards saying things that sound good in the moment.

Or, if we're being really charitable, they were chasing the wrong guy.

That's a common tactic to try and get a suspect to turn themselves in.

Sometimes it works. (Most suspects turn themselves in for crimes they've committed. It's actually the exception when police need to go out to arrest a criminal suspect.)

RE "....when they said they knew who he was yesterday it was a lie....."

Was an obvious lie ...was my first reaction.

If they did know the name - it could have been used to retrieve numerous photos - and other evidence. That said the accused person left several of their online profiles online . even a facebook profile !!!

It's hard to believe that this is true. There seems to be enough people who knew him, from friends and family who were worried about him, to people who went to school or worked with him. Do you want to tell me that not even a single person identified him in the pictures and notified the police? Not to mention that his friends and family didn't know where he is, so it fit the narrative perfectly.

Yes, they do that. Lying is how they operate, especially when questioning or trying to mess with suspects. You can never trust anything a cop says.

They weren't lying, but it was the wrong thing to say. They had a list of suspects and they may have had high confidence that one of them was their guy. But they couldn't know that at least until they took someone into custody.

...and? Do you think police should be bound to be truthful at all times, even if hinders their investigation?

[dead]

i don't know how it is on adderall but he posted like, once a week, and they often are just retweets.

Have you, perhaps, had an adderall problem before? I have, and I used to say things like this a lot, but really I think its projection. How could you possibly know?

Sorry we're talking about the alleged United Healthcare CEO shooter. Not Elon Musk.

Everything is a ghost gun if you're a journalist. Just like how everything is an ar15.

I wonder if the McDonald's employee really recognized him from those couple of off-angle photos or if Mr. Mangione himself initiated the action in order to let someone "deserving" collect the reward. It seems to me that he wanted to be caught, and the amount of evidence that he was carrying on him is obviously meant to establish his identity beyond any doubt. The amount of meticulous planning he undertook for the actual shooting contrasts with the trail of evidence that he kept dropping along the way. He would've basically never been found if he had just worn a pair of sunglasses.

"We dragged our feet as hard as we could, but some idiot decided to call us"

Wow, I got tricked by the inventor of Scheme. He looks a lot like Son of Sam.

nice! i got 8/10. got tripped up by a russian programmer that was also a serial killer, but didn't design a language (that we know of)

9/10 dang it

If he planned to go after others he'd still need that gun, and he might have needed the IDs to get to his next target.

Well, I know the one person will die if I pull the lever. But I don’t have any reason to think that pulling it will save the other ten thousand. In fact, it probably won’t—it’s a big train that will find its way to that track eventually, and the only way people have been saved in other countries is legislation to move everybody off the tracks, but that’s too much work for me. What pulling the lever will do is make me feel important. I can convince everybody to read my manifesto that’s equal parts Unabomber and the Joker; if I don’t pull the lever nobody will care what I have to say. What’s a human life in comparison to that?

There are 10,000 people waiting to take the place of the now unfortunate after the train runs over him.

So, more trains with hundreds of thousands will topple over until the tracks are fixed.

Your healthcare system principles are the problem. Healthcare can't function the same way Automotive industry or Oil Wells work. Heck, it can't even work the same as Auto insurance. For moral reasons only, because profitability is great.

This is less a trolley problem and more of a fat villain problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#The_Fat_Villai...

How exactly does killing a CEO save 10k people?

Hint: it doesn't. In fact, the only result I can imagine from this is the opposite. After all, UHC will probably need to pay their CEO (if anyone takes the job) more for a while, to overcome the risk of being murdered. So if CEO pay meant fewer claims being paid out, after this they'll probably pay out even fewer.

Technically two people on it, one of them being yourself. Changes the rationale quite a bit.

Allgedely!

https://x.com/SyeClops/status/1866353712148685002/photo/4

This CEO is just an employee of a company that makes a 4% profit margin, killing him achieves nothing and is sociopathic.

[flagged]

Supposedly this is the real one: https://t.co/fbjBtDDIkS

It will not be published unless it makes it into evidence at the trial. The prosecutor may try to block it as prejudicing the jury.

This guy is going to end up in his hero Uncle Ted's old supermax cell where barely anything can go in or out.

Having the narrative set by a CEO murderer with double digit % cheering support in the entire US is not something the authorities will permit.

The phrase 'mental illness' has expanded as a category a thousand-fold this millennium. I see no evidence he has any mental illness, other than a particular kind that is fully voluntarily and reversible.

He seems pretty rational.

No but here is the github

https://github.com/lnmangione

> Civilization VI Team

> Fixed over 300 UI bugs (25% of UI bug count) using Lua language, Jira software, and Perforce version-control system

> I'm looking for different paths than murder to accomplish this.

It seems like our entire system has been intentionally designed and refined over centuries specifically to ensure that nothing short of radical, even violent, acts will have any meaningful impact on those in power.

Corporations in particular have insulated themselves from any accountability whatsoever and there are literal serial killers who knowingly sold products and took actions that they knew would kill people who have never and will never see a single day behind bars.

I sure hope that programmers, hackers, computer scientists, or systems designers/engineers find some means to improve the situation, and I'd certainly support the effort but I'm far from optimistic.

If you want better healthcare you don't need to invent anything new or "disrupt systems of oppression". Just pick another country where it's working and do what they do.

Largely, they have a lot more doctors, hospitals and MRI machines per capita than we do, and they pay their doctors less and require less education from them.

This is particularly safer in America because the #1 thing voters hate is anyone doing anything new. If you ever try doing anything new you'll immediately get voted out. That's what happened after the ACA passed.

Not as a direct response to the call to action, but this comment reminded me of the entire plot of the 2014 videogame Watch Dogs[0]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Dogs_(video_game)

This is the main reason I built https://chitchatter.im/. I hope to see it be used as a tool to safely organize around building a better world.

Oddly a talk from emacsconf a few days ago comes to mind:

https://emacsconf.org/2024/talks/blee/

civic tech! https://civictech.guide/

I have some ideas. randyselimi on Discord

You’re on the right path my friend, hang on to the feeling that drove you to write this. Not everyone has it, and you may even find yourself having woken up with it missing one day. So use it while you have it

The only parts that really need to be metal are the barrel and bolt to contain the burning of the powder, and springs. Although, you can get by with plastic barrel and bolt if your design is sufficiently strong, and you don't have to have non-manual reloading, obviating the need for springs. The silencer's important parts are simply pressure baffles that don't need to be metal (although it helps significantly).

In this case, the design was replicating that of a Glock 43 IIRC, which is already mostly plastic. Guns are modular of course, and so there's a part that's legally designated the firearm to avoid ship-of-Theseus problems. For the Glock that's the frame, which includes the handle. That part's made out of plastic (except for a metal plate that has the serial number and can be detected by metal detectors). Since the frame on the original gun is plastic, it's designed not to have much force put on it, so it's not a technically difficult 3d print either. In the US (federally; states may have further restrictions) it's not illegal to manufacture your own firearm as long as it's for your own use. All the other parts, like the barrel, trigger, etc (not the silencer though), are unregulated, so it's perfectly legal to 3d print your own or just buy them and have them shipped to your house. (There's also the concept of an "80% lower": at what point does a piece of metal become a gun? Generally it's held to be that before the gun's than 80% complete then it's just a piece of metal, so you can buy <80% complete guns with no regulation that include a jig and instructions for completing the last 20% work yourself to make a ghost gun at home. Selling any unregistered firearm is very legally fraught.) Silencers (aka suppressors) are heavily regulated and it's not legal for just anyone to make one, but if you're not concerned with longevity or legality you can make one out of plastic easily with a minimum of design work.

The Glock uses a tilting barrel system: the barrel and slide are joined by a set of lugs on the barrel that fit into recesses in the slide, and after the bullet is fired are pushed back together by the force of recoil. The slide slides on linear rails, but the barrel has a pivot, so eventually as the barrel and slide travel back together, the barrel will tilt out of the recesses in the slide and allow the slide to continue backwards, opening space between the barrel and slide for the previous round to be extracted and a new round to be loaded automatically. You can imagine that hanging a big heavy tube off the barrel in the form of a silencer can be detrimental to the working of this system. In fact, you're supposed to use a recoil booster to increase recoil while using a silencer on tilting-barrel pistols to ensure more reliable operation. It's unlikely that malfunctions were because any parts were 3d printed in this case.

whether or not it would ruin your life largely depends on your skin color

I don't get it. Why would an American need to make the gun himself? Just go to Walmart. Was he on psychopharmaca maybe.

Confirmed as fake. CNN reports: "YouTube on Monday removed three channels belonging to Luigi Mangione, the suspect in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, as well as a channel that was altered Monday to look as if it belonged to him..."

"... channel was removed for violating YouTube’s impersonation policies, after the channel name and handle were updated on Monday following news of Mangione’s arrest to appear as if it belonged to the suspect. That channel on Monday posted a cryptic countdown video that said, “If you see this, I’m already under arrest.”

Apparently his other social media doesn't link to this YT account. Also there's an active "live premiere" which I don't think you can automate.

random comment on said live premiere:

> the account is fake. the video wouldve been made public instantly. there would be no premire time. you can change your youtube handle. this account isnt linked to his x account

YouTube account was terminated at 4:11PM MST, I was watching it live as it switched to this message:

“This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.”

It flashes "Dec 11th" at the 1:20 mark. I thought for sure this must be a prank, but the account says "Joined Jan 20, 2024". It seems it's possible to change your YouTube username, though. Could it be that it was a different account and someone just changed the username as a troll?

It ends with "All is scheduled, be patient". Presumably it means more videos are coming, explaining his motivation.

Deadman’s switch crypto token launch?

look at his youtube profile pic

We've reverted it now. (Submitted title was "Software developer arrested in connection with murder of healthcare executive")

https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/9/24317259/unitedhealthcare...

Perhaps should have submitted this article instead.

Kind of a silly take in my opinion. While it's may be true that the majority of money in a medical transaction (which is inflated) doesn't go to the insurer, it goes to the provider, it doesn't change the fact that "insurers" absolutely add a layer of uncertainty to the process. In times of uncertainty (ie: getting sick) anything that adds uncertainty will rightfully be hated.

In Canada, their system has a number of major shortcomings. But in college when my girlfriend got appendicitis, I just took her to the hospital without worry about in/out of network, and without worrying about if we'd get a claim rejected after the fact and have our small college student bank accounts drained. That is huge, and should not be underestimated. Here I do not have that luxury. Even though I have plenty of money saved up, it doesn't ever feel like enough. If one of us has a major illness, it can get wiped out due to a claim denial. And who makes the approve/deny choice?

The author of that post does some bad thinking here by completely missing the source of the vitriol directed at insurers. While providers do charge out the ass, at least they are doing something useful, while in these times of great uncertainty and pain, insurers only rent seek, blood suck, and do not offer anything of value.

This reminds me of two excellent back-to-back episodes of This American Life in 2009, when the debate leading up to the Affordable Care Act was at its peak: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/391/more-is-less and https://www.thisamericanlife.org/392/someone-elses-money

It has been a while since I listened to these episodes, but my main recollection is the argument that insurers are the only entities in the system actually fighting to reduce costs (and, of course, high costs are what underlie most of the other problems with the US healthcare system).

To be clear, I don't think insurers (and United Healthcare in particular) and their owners (all of us with index funds in our retirement accounts?) and boards and executives are blameless, but I do think this idea should be more central to the discussion and less contrarian.

Additional perspective: https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-i...

The health insurance industry is effectively a maximally hostile middleman. It's hostile to service providers, and it's hostile to service users. (The most charitable thing you can say about it is that it creates enormous amounts of paperwork, thereby creating jobs and boosting GDP.) It's not difficult to see how it has become so widely hated.

The guy was charged with fraud and insider trading, his company denied 2x claims than industry average - in this case it wasn't the providers..

It's the healthcare industrial complex. Just like the military. You get back some percentage of what you charge. They're incentivized to charge more because they'll get more, and sometimes it's an all-or-nothing.

I have doctor friends who quote they spend over 60% of their time dealing with insurance and it's intricacies. It's the fault of the system, with large foundations on insurance and perverse government policy to enrich the leaders therein, and the providers are simply making do with the system they must operate in.

I'll never forget the story I heard about a military squadron that needed like one bolt to fix a relatively important piece of equipment, and it cost like $10 itself.

But the only way they could get it was through a package deal of a million dollars of other insane amounts of equipment that was entirely superfluous and they ended up getting shitloads too many guns and threw away thousands of hardware bits just to get that one screw.

Similar systems at play here.

Imo, spherical cow economist take on a field they know little about. The graphic lumps all "Inpatient & outpatient care" together, which is insane. Is it saying all that money is going to physicians, nurses, etc? It seems to imply that, but my guess is much of it ends up in hospital administration costs. Also in this way the cost of UHC etc isn't just their own admin overhead; it also add the hospital's admin and billing costs of dealing with them.

As for the author's claim that the doctor/nurse/admin assistant should know how much your treatment costs beforehand, lol. Yes, in an ideal world they absolutely would tell you. No, in reality they do not know. There's a whole apparatus of administrators and software spanning the hospital and insurance companies with bajillions of codes and negotiated rates. Noah Smith instead thinks doctors/nurses/admin assistants know ahead of time what each treatment costs but decline to inform consumers? A slightly dated but still relevant book is O'Reilly Hacking Healthcare. Iirc there are whole chapters on billing. It's just very complicated to figure out costs before treatment, and that's the fault of insurance/administration, not doctors/nurses/admin assistants.

It at least implies 2 anti medical worker claims. 1) excess healthcare costs are driven by medical worker salaries 2) medical workers could clarify prices but do not in order to mislead patients. Both totally miss the real problems of healthcare cost: the complexity of admin/billing leads to not just increased costs in insurance companies but also in hospital administration, and obscures costs for patients.

This is a bit ridiculous, because part of the reason that providers are overcharging you is that they need huge finance departments to get their cash back from you or your insurer, which wouldn't be necessary if you had a single government insurer.

Also, the quote from the Courtney Barnett song about Australian healthcare only applies if you somehow end up in a private emergency department, which is extraordinary unlikely since they're often underprepared for critical emergencies and for non-critical stuff you can ask to be taken to a public hospital in the ambulance. You're likely to get charged a couple of thousand dollars for the ambulance ride (depends on state; in mine, membership of the ambulance org is $53 a year and automatically covers you for any ambulance trip Australia-wide, no denials; others are free), plus a few hundred for the consultation. I believe Medicare will pay for some private care in an emergency department.

She's talking about calling 000 because of an asthma attack but also alludes to a panic attack, which means she's not rationally discussing how much it will cost. It's not a scenario where she will have actual crippling debt like it would be in the US. A non-artistic non-panic-attack analysis of the situation is that she'd pay literally nothing as a public patient in a public hospital, and would pay a few thousand in the unlikely possibility she got admitted to a private hospital. Which, yes, would suck, but her worst case is an order of magnitude or two away from the expected cost in the US.

As a counterpoint to many of the other commenters, it is 100% true that providers way overcharge for healthcare in the US. Specialized nurses and doctors have salaries that exceed nearly every other profession in the US. But they are not even the main employees! The healthcare industry in the US employs a substantial chunk of all of America, largely in bloated administrative jobs that aren't really necessary for patients.

I'd say, it's also true that this specific company UHG, specifically had policies in place that led to people dying over denied claims. The author of this piece himself said 10-20% of claims are outright, flatly denied by health insurance. That leads to a world where people die unable to afford healthcare they already paid for. I think both parties are at fault here, and yeah insurance is easier to be mad at, that's an idea that makes sense to me.

> [United Healhcare] net profit margin is just 6.11%

Is this before or after their CEO's 23.5 million compensation?

What a garbage milketoast read.

"I'm a Substack Author and Lemme Tell You How I'm Going to Make It About Me This Time."

BS diatribe trying to tell that since asshole X does not do as much damage as asshole Y is not an asshole.

Well they both are

Unlikely. Here’s what will happen instead:

Corporations will beef up security and keep doing what they were doing before. Police and government will increase surveillance budgets, citing this event as reasoning. And no one will interpret this act of violence as anything other than a random event to prevent.

You don’t get structural change by extreme singular events. That’s not how it works.

>The US hasn't even had a period of high taxes intended to impoverish the rich, as the UK did after WWII.

Effective US Corporation tax was as high as 50% post WWII. Effective income taxes were between 70% and 90%.

> There's never been anything like the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, or the Maoist revolution.

US culture has long actively reviled and denied power to aristocracy.

The story that the rich are in physical danger is used by Trump's supporters to create a paranoid victim mentality among the wealthiest and most powerful. (America - anyone can be a victim!)

The significance is that this has been posted on HN if you hadn't noticed.

Yeah, there are screenshots of his LinkedIn floating around that show he apparently did Bugfixes on CIV 6. (The profile has since been scrubbed of course)

Sounds like drug abuse hurt him.

No, most normal people are not psychos who can rationalize murder

Glassdoor shows:

Medical PPO (All states) and HMO (CA only) Aetna PPO Aetna HMO (CA only) Kaiser HMO (CA only

He is 26. He likely was on his parent's insurance until very recently.

Whatever his motivation, it has seemed to me that if you put enough people in a certain kind of pressure cooker, with no way up, no way out, and a clear target, you've created a pretty volatile situation where rational people start acting rationally.

Granted, you'd need to be in a very dark place, but it doesn't take the greatest stretch of the imagination to create a hypothetical scenario in which someone just thinks to themselves "Well shit, I guess I don't have too many options here, and the only thing stopping me is the tacit acceptance that I shouldn't use violence". People do have addresses after all, and perhaps should be more afraid than they are of screwing people at a large scale.

There's a lot of comments coming out now that both he and his mother suffered from some kind of terrible chronic back pain, and he himself had some kind of surgery on his back and that he and his mother both had big problems with UHC in this regard. It might still be a bit early to say if these stories are correct or not, but if they are, it would provide ample motive for the crime. It's a very small step from seeing your mother suffer greatly (and you too) because of insurance company malfeasance to wanting to kill the guy in charge.

Also, this is a quibble, but I don't think he saw the CEO "die in agony": he fired his 3 shots (with some difficulty because of the particular way the gun and suppressor worked), and then took off to get his bicycle. The CEO later died in the hospital.

I wonder how many denied claims both pumped up his yearly bonus and resulted in an innocent person dying in agony?

This CEO may as well have pulled the trigger.

This seems like the 20-something version of a school shooter. Some people just lose it and go after their current list of enemies in their mind with lethal force.

Disclaimer: I don't know shit about this guy. I can't speak about his particular case or personal motivations and circumstances. With this in mind, let me instead answer the more generic aspect of your question.

---

Some illnesses are hard. But even so, they are temporarily bad. You suffer some time, get some treatment or procedure and then it's -mostly- over. You may lose something in the process, but generally you can go on with your life after it.

Sometimes there are permanent effects. Like maybe you lose an eye, or maybe you have to be medicated for the rest of your life, or have to keep a special diet or something. Or you may get some permanent discomfort. But again, even with this, you can generally continue otherwise "well enough".

Some other illnesses are hard, and lethal. You may suffer, go through some process -or not- and then die. These are hard to endure because, well, you know you're dying. But then again, it happens fairly quickly.

Some other illnesses can be hard and recurring. Like a cancer or lymphoma. The treatment is hard and exhausting. But you go through it and it either works and you get some additional years to live fairly ok, or it doesn't work and you rapidly go away. Then they return and you repeat the loop. But again, you mostly live mostly ok some years and then get hit again, go through treatment and then the fork of either having some years more or dying "quickly".

Some are constantly hard. In the sense that they don't kill you but make you live with constant and relentless suffering. The psychological impact this has is hard to overestimate and while you don't die, it can be said that they take you life because they change it so completely that you have almost nothing else but fighting constantly against the pain and suffering.

When you are the subject yourself of such a situation, the effect can be devastating. Different people react differently, of course, but there's always some psychological damage. This can sometimes produce its own neurological illnesses that pile on top of it all.

But you may not be the subject of such an illness and still suffer the psychological impact. If you're a person that cares and someone close to you falls into that situation it's very easy to be affected. You won't experience it first-hand but you will see a person you love suffering every single day. It's worse when it also happens at night. Because then they will suffer and they will be significantly impacting their own health through sleeping badly or not sleeping at all. And if you're close enough to be there, chances are you will also sleep badly and affect your own health too.

Sometimes the situation means that you really can't do shit about it. Sure, you can be there, give them support, your love, your care, etc. And that is indeed a lot. But it has no particular effect on the illness itself so it can easily feel worthless, pointless, useless. The psychological effect of all this is both subtle, in the sense that you may not even be aware of it, and fairly impactful, producing changes in your personality and mental health.

Sometimes, other circumstances work together with the illness for the caring person to have to make big sacrifices. Like maybe quitting their job or career, or their own family or friends, or whatever. Sometimes they end up developing their own maladies because of this situation -or sometimes apparently because of it-.

And so, a person who is generally healthy gets to see someone they care for suffer continuously every moment of their life, and they are forced to renounce big parts of their own life to care for them, and then they are impacted with subtle but deep psychological problems. The description of "it breaks your heart" is quite appropriate because you may be giving all your love and effort while simultaneously feeling completely useless, and end up inflicting hard damage on yourself.

Different people will react differently to all this. But it's hard to predict how any of us would react until you've actually gone through it. Sure, you can say "I'd seek help" or "I'd try to stay positive" or even "I'd certainly go crazy", but the truth is you don't actually know.

For some people it's not uncommon to react by looking for an "ultimate cause", something they can attribute all the problems to. It can be a generic cause like "life sucks" and they may end up bitter against life in general. Some turn religious. Some do the opposite. Or it may be that they find fault on something they did or didn't and so they end up blaming themselves, with various outcomes. It may also be that they blame another close person, a parent, a sibling, and it's not uncommon to see families split over such illnesses. Sometimes they may find a cause in "the system", in a negligent doctor, in an "uncaring" administration, in causes with different degrees of distance and specificity.

The problem has many aspects contributing to it and each person, again, will react differently. But sometimes it just happens that this one person under the accumulated effects of suffering, of seeing someone not die but live in agony every moment, finds this "ultimate cause" personified on some organization or some one specific person who can maybe -in reality or in their reality- have caused that pain or have profited from it or whatever, through their actions or inactions. With enough persistence, it's not hard for all of that to transform into rage or hate and, sometimes, produce the effect you see here.

I'm not saying this reaction is inevitable, or logical, or forgivable, or anything. That's up to you to think. Just that it's not impossible to understand and that there may be circumstances that push people... that crush people and them push them into tragic actions.

Finally, yes, I agree with the conclusion that it's terribly sad. In a lot of ways.

> It’s one thing to be upset and angry about capitalism and businesses.

Right, we should all continue grumbling about it for the rest of our lives as law and government intended. Nothing will change and the meat grinder will continue churning. Imo, this line of thinking of "they're angry and upset in a way that upsets me!" is easily exploitable towards complete inaction.

Also I'm so sorry but having sympathy for effective oligarchs? Come on. Wishing their death might be a bridge too far but at best these people deserve ambivalence, not pity.

Are you sensitized by the death of thousands of people due to automated coverage deny systems he put in place?

Was this linked from any of his existing social medias? Do we have any way of knowing it's actually him? I'd be just a tad cautious at this stage, given that the Substack page says it was 'Launched an hour ago' as of writing. The article, sure, dead man's switch, but the Substack publication itself was only created after his arrest?

Edit: also worth noting that whatever this is, it's not the document he had with him when he was arrested, since that apparently contained[0] the following excerpt, while this doesn't

> “These parasites had it coming,” one line from the document reads, according to a police official who has seen it. Another reads, “I do apologize for any strife and trauma, but it had to be done.”

[0]https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian...

This is an extremely obvious fake.

Here’s a description of the actual manifesto from the NYT:

> The 262-word handwritten manifesto that the police found on Luigi Mangione begins with the writer appearing to take responsibility for the murder, according to a senior law enforcement official who saw the document. It notes that as UnitedHealthcare’s market capitalization has grown, American life expectancy has not. “To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone,” he wrote. The note condemns companies that “continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allowed them to get away with it.”

> The handwritten manifesto found on Mangione contained the passages “These parasites had it coming” and “I do apologize for any strife and trauma, but it had to be done,” according to a senior law enforcement official who saw the document.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/12/09/nyregion/unitedhealt...

I doubt this is real. The New York Times mentions that he comes from a prosperous family - seems incongruous with his mother lacking healthcare desperately.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/09/nyregion/who-is-luigi-man...

There is a front page reddit post showing bushy eyebrows vs none. So more likely not the guy

Some say it’s fake, some say it’s real. I think it’s very well written and raw and therefore if it is fake, it’s very convincing.

He could have help on the outside to post things also.

And I was right. This is fake and his real manifesto is here: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto

I was suspicious from the link and “last words” BS and even moreso with the cringe gladiator references. Typical weirdo fan fan material.

No idea if this is real or not but neuropathy is horrible. I had a mild case of it after hurting my back which caused spinal inflammation.

Sensations of tiny zaps all over my body 24/7, most noticeable when falling asleep. Ibuprofen helped a bit, fortunately it went away after a few months.

Hopefully this is the catalyst to major reform. Insurance companies have a deal with us, yet constantly find ways to deny claims. Even pregnancy I had a claim denied, from a procedure the INSURANCE demanded I get.

He would be awaken in the night to his mother screaming in pain while United healthcare denied claims and refused new treatment. She had severe neuropathy.

Holy shit this would leave a scar on anyone. I couldn't even imagine the emotional pain this causes.

Not saying this justifies murder but what would you do if a close loved one was screaming in agony daily and there's nothing you can do about it because the insurance company is blocking treatments?

That is an intense read.

Why is this comment so similar to this tweet: https://x.com/peruvian_bull/status/1866213955687022656

Are you a bot?

I've banned this account for reasons explained in the sibling subthread.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you won't do this in the future.

Putting on my tinfoil hat for this: It sounds like parallel construction to me. I wonder if the FBI doesn't want it to get out what kind of technology the US government can use to track citizens in real time. Something like 24/7 facial recognition running in major chains like McDonalds.

The police showing up for a random tip in the boonies in PA fast enough to actually catch the guy at McDonalds and he just happens to have method and motive on him 5 days later seems too convenient. I think they ultimately got the right guy, but I don't think the 'tip' was a phone call from a McDonald's employee.

He took his mask off at the hostel, the kind of place that often requires its employees to verify that a photo ID matches the holder’s face. “Let me see you smile” is a common thing that service employees learn to say to get strangers to take off their masks without angering them

Where’d you get that IQ? His GitHub isn’t active either.

Sometimes people do crime to be famous, this pattern would fit that.

Since when did making small talk become "flirting"?

This post is dumb in many ways not worth listing. And because of that, I realized I just read something nearly word-for-word on twitter (@peruvian_bull). Is that you or is this just copy pasta?

https://x.com/peruvian_bull/status/1866213955687022656

Some criminals want to get caught.

The Unabomber case was more complex to track [1]. I'm not suggesting it was because he had a higher IQ, as someone with an average IQ could have executed similar actions successfully.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

If you were a murderer on the run and there was a manhunt for you, wouldn't you still be carrying a gun?

A smart person like that would now it would have been a matter of days until they were caught.

It's just too high profile, everybody would be on the case, all the experts in everything.

He actually flirted with an employee at the hostel he stayed at, probably days before the murder. But yeah, the rest seems about right.

Nit

https://github.com/lnmangione

...."Active" GitHub?

..And he was smart enough to ditch the burner phone, clothes, and the backpack but he kept the untraceable weapon and the fake ID? Seriously what..? I hope we'll learn something that brings this all to a sensible narrative but here and now it seems like completely incoherent behavior.

sounds like bs. it's parallel construction

Yes, he's not acting rationally because he's having a mental health crisis.

If you look at his Twitter account, he disappeared a few months ago and all the replies were friends asking where he went.

(Also, he's a tpot poster, which is a kind of tech bro that likes tweeting about how great it is to do psychedelic drugs. This is bad for your mental health!)

Ever seen white lotus season 2? Stanford grad falls for a prostitute. Italians cannot resist.

>Inactive GitHub profile

>how did you decide his iq was >130?

he threw his life in the dumpster and will spend the next 30 years in a 2x2 cell. smart guy indeed.

Careful. That solve rate is overall. When planning your life in crime you probably want to use the solve rate for the particular type of people you plan to murder.

The solve rate for murders of white people is generally in the 80+% range, which is probably what you'd want to use if going after CEOs.

More importantly, engineers are for some reason especially likely to be terrorists.

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29836/1/Why_are_there_so_many_Engi...

I think it's related to old physicist brain where you decide you know everything about everyone else's field.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21

I think that, more generally, intelligent people don't get arrested for crimes for several reasons. First, because they are smarter, they just don't get themselves into jams where murdering someone seems like the best way to get out of the jam. Second, because they are more successful they have more to lose in terms of wealth, happiness, good living situation, so they risk more when choosing crime, so they're less likely to choose it. Only thirdly is actual proficiency in the planning and execution of the crime.

Software developers are also more likely to have weird eccentric beliefs, and to take them to extreme endpoints.

Given enough resources dedicated to hunting you, it doesn't seem that easy to be sure, considering how many cameras there are, how easy it becomes to narrow down DNA considering services like 23andme etc.

Most murders wouldn't have this much resources dedicated to it though.

Hans Reiser was far too smart to ever get caught.

> Those who get caught doing one crime or another either were dumb to begin or eventually got lazy and made a dumb mistake in hindsight.

>Besides that though, the ethos that we have lends itself well to acquiring advanced knowledge in more-or-less all domains, crime and forensics included.

I wouldn't give too much credit to law enforcement. Perpetrators need to get it (opsec/disposal of evidence/etc.) right every single time, sometimes for decades. Law enforcement only needs to get it right once. And yet, clearance rates for murder are still pretty low.

Location seems to be a factor. NYC has better statistics. Overall it is 54% since 2020. Washington DC had 1,088 murders, 559 clearances (51%) from 2020-2023. Baltimore is 1,042 and 315 (30%). NYC is notably better: 1,740 and 1,190, (68%). https://www.murderdata.org/p/blog-page.html

Murder is a really interesting crime. There are really two kinds of murder: those where the perpetrator and victim are known to each other and those where they are not. The first category is way more common [1]:

> Among homicides in which the relationship could be determined, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims

Another data point is that the recidivism rate for murder is incredibly low, roughly 2% [2], among the lowest of any crime.

The point is that the vast majority of murders are personal in nature. Police will tell you that when someone dies, it's always the spouse or boyfriend or girlfriend as the prime suspect until it isn't. Murders with no personal relationship (eg serial killings) are quite rare.

So if you, as a software developer, want to get away with murder you first have to be irrational and/or insane enough to murder people for pretty much no reason, which will get you pretty far to not getting caught, but still want to murder people you really have no reason to.

You can further increase your odds of not getting caught by not leaving a crime scene or a body but also picking a victim who won't necessarily be missed. It's why serial killers end up preying on runaways and prostitutes. There's also the MMIW phenomenon [3]. Lastly, going outside your geographical area would further help your odds.

This suspect allegedly had no relationship to the victim but they still had a reason (it seems). Now it so happens that being upset about private health insurance quite literally would leave police with millions of suspects. But the point is, they weren't necessarily acting rationally even if it was premeditated and planned.

I still find it insane that the suspect didn't rid himself of every identifiable possession. Had they done that, I think they'd have a shot at acquittal (depending on DNA evidence from the water bottle and/or coffee cup). Now? Almost impossible.

As much as we talk about jury nullification, people like there to be something to hang their hat on in terms of doubt. If a blurry partial photo was the only evidence I could see that as being way more likely. Having the ID used in the hostel and the mask, bag and clothes as well as the gun makes that harder to justify.

[1]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

[2]: https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/a-new-lease-on-lif...

[3]: https://www.nativehope.org/missing-and-murdered-indigenous-w...

"due to this belief I have that software developers would make effective criminals. A lot of this boils down to a belief I have that not getting caught in the first place is easy."

Ummm.... You understand that the software developer was just caught by a McDonald's cashier?

[dead]

According to his LinkedIn he worked on Civilization VI

Poking through some more conservative news outlet, they are using some loosely tied together facts to insinuate he's left leaning.

It’s relevant to this forum.

Well, it's not really luck. It's exactly because there's cctv in enough places that they were able to get his photo from the one moment he lowered his mask at the hostel, but even more significantly that they were able to piece together his movements enough to be able to suspect that the guy at the hostel was the same one that carried out the shooting. Then it was a matter of distributing the photo and hope someone recognizes him. And offering the reward ofc. Very simple but not luck.

The surveillance state is good at deterring people who don't want to get caught. If you're ready to lay down your life or freedom for an assassination, it's really pretty hard to stop such a person with the patience to prepare for it - multiple cops have told me this.

No, because he was sloppy and lowered his mask...

Maybe not the _only_ reason he got caught, but a major reason is exactly what OP mentioned: the victim was a member of the 1%.

Waaay back in the late-80s, I was at an underground dance party. Some dude shot and killed another dude in the parking lot. At least a dozen witnesses saw it (I only heard it). Everyone knew the identities of both people involved. No arrests were ever made. I saw the dude on the street a few years later, walking around like he never shot and killed someone - thanks to the fine work of the Modesto PD.

I think people assume a lot about the system, based more in movies than real information.

[flagged]

Targeted assassinations should get more attention and resources. The ramifications of allowing an assassin to go free are much worse than a random killing. There is a small subset of the population that is both smart enough and crazy enough to successfully plan an assassination, that group of people needs to know that they won't have a chance of escaping and that they'll be hunted down.

Think of it this way: do you want your political enemies to start thinking, "Hey, I bet I could get away with assassinating that activist/politician"? Personally, my disdain of the American Healthcare complex is overruled by my opposition to normalizing political assassinations.

You are not 100% wrong, but I think it is the media that makes the cops put extra resources on certain cases.

Now the media did bring it to international attention partially because he was rich and had some power. But the main thing really was because he worked on healthcare which everyone is pissed off about in the US.

I don’t know why people bring this up as if it’s some sort of revelation. That’s literally what status is. People care more because you are actually a more meaningful individual in a real sense. The gunman is hardly a nobody either.

There might be an issue if murders in general were going uninvestigated. Realistically it’s more that you just don’t see it happen.

NYPD has abundant resources with $11 billion budget/36,000 sworn officers and has a high murder clearance compared to other large urban cities in the US. 2023 346/257 cleared (74%). LA was 683/395 (58%). This guy wanted to be caught and didn't make much of an effort.

Eh. Midtown murders are pretty rare. They get solved.

Would they have burned millions in overtime? No.

[dead]

[flagged]

>if you are white

Huh, what does this have to do with it? Of course, discriminatory comments like these that segregate people on race are never flagged on HN as long as it's against "the usual suspects".

Do things that don't scale

Alternatively:

  [...]
  You may look like we do, talk like we do
  But you know how it is

  [Chorus]
  You're not one of us, not one of us
  No, you're not one of us
  Not one of us, not one of us
  No, you're not one of us

https://genius.com/Peter-gabriel-not-one-of-us-lyrics

Brown tried to free slaves, this guy murdered an innocent man in cold blood while leaving his children traumatized in order to make a (confusing) political statement

Rule of law also allows for banality of evil and bureaucratized, monopolized violence. I've seen some other arguments against sympathy in this thread (the murderer was wealthy himself, insurance companies aren't actually the archvillains of healthcare). Those other arguments haven't convinced me, but they certainly complicate the narrative.

A blind appeal to "rule of law" is the one argument that I think is stupid on its face. Law as the sole moral barometer will always result in marginalization and injustice. It is the function of protest, civil disobedience, and yes, sometimes violence, to shape law as a function of morality.

This is a frustratingly incomplete analysis of the moral circumstances. It can be true that one finds this person (and the victim) sympathetic, and wants rule of law to be upheld.

If that principle was upheld that CEO and people like him and the investors he was a willing tool for would not even begin to exist. This coming from the privileged classes is pretty much "do as I say, not as I do", preaching wine while drinking water.

> It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.

-- Voltaire

And in some countries, there are laws that say apostates should be executed. If I lived in such a nation and my brother was killed for being an atheist, I hope I would have the guts to avenge him.

"Rule of law" is great, but when it fails, vigilance is still an option for justice.

> Rule of law is the foundation for society and murdering someone is not the answer.

on the other hand, the US government seems to have no problem murdering people in other countries who it perceives to be a threat to its geopolitical aspirations, either directly, or indirectly ("acceptable collateral damage")

"Society" also sends millions of innocent young men to the trenches to brutally murder and be brutally murdered by other innocent young men. With shells, machine guns, flame throwers, land mines, bayonets, drones, nerve gas, sniper rifles, and even nuclear bombs.

Not that I find him a sympathetic character. But the concept of "society" is one of the most evil demons to have ever spawned.

Oh please, stop with that. The people who make the laws and enforce them in this country break their own laws constantly and get rewarded for it. I’m happy you think the world is like that, it must be nice.

Trust is the foundation for society. Law can only establish trust under certain conditions, e.g. if blatantly immoral acts that cause suffering to hundreds of thousands of people are made illegal.

> And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

+10 FICO credit score

My take is that this is on a separate Ruby Ridge/anarchist axis. Hostile toward authority, they believe government (i.e. both political parties) and power structures are inherently corrupt. These beliefs have little to do with Democrat or Republican politics, but happen to align more with the right on a few issues (like gun control).

I read his Twitter before it was taken down, and his political takes seem kind of all over the place. I would not classify him as either leftist or center / alt right.

I don't think left-wing or right-wing makes sense here, it's small-l liberalism versus authoritarianism. In particular a lot of authoritarians are ideologically shallow and happy to adopt leftist/rightist beliefs opportunistically.

> Because of this, just like the first Trump shooter, the media will quickly completely forget about the suspect's politics.

I don't really see this bias existing to the extent you seem to be implying. The first Trump shooter didn't have many apparent political motives, and the second was completely crazy. The media definitely stops talking about things soon after they happen, but I don't have the impression that they're turning the a blind eye to right wing extremism. I mean, just look up "right wing extremism US" on Google news.

I expect that in this case, the shooter's motivations will defy the standard left/right split as more information is released, much like his apparent influence Ted Kaczynski. You mention Rogan, but Rogan supported Bernie Sanders in 2016. I would say liking Rogan shows an anti-authority streak more than anything.

As for why right wing politically motivated attacks seem to be more common than left wing ones, I'd suggest a few causes.

- People who have access to guns, grew up around guns, are willing to buy guns are more likely to be right wing, and are more likely to be identified as right wing for obvious reasons.

- People with low agreeableness and high neuroticism are more likely to be right wing, and those traits perhaps make politically motivated attacks more likely.

- Extremist right wing thought has perhaps been more effective in recruiting followers than extremist left wing thought since the fall of the Soviet Union.

> I guarantee you that if this suspect was a leftist in any way, even if he simply liked anything by Marx or Lenin on Goodreads, you would never hear the end of it.

> But it's worth asking: when someone resorts to violence in this way, why are their politics nearly always right-wing?

while i'm convinced you sincerely believe that, you do realize there are a roughly equal number of people equally sincerely convinced that the media/establishment/"they" are out to get them and their group instead. and that when someone resorts to violence it's (almost) always actually the other group, not them.

replace white with black and right with left. ann rand with marx. fox with msnbc. same "argument", often almost word-for-word.

don't stoop to tribalism as an excuse or explanation.

Is this left versus right? Or megacorps and elite donor class versus everyone else? I think this is mostly a story of someone committing genocide level injustices through their job as CEO, which virtually the entirety of the left right spectrum dislikes. Except the hyper rich or politically powerful. Not surprising to see VCs decrying the attack on podcasts and their LinkedIn profiles while saying absolutely nothing about the much larger crimes of the United Health group.

[dead]

I don't think that was the protagonist.

[Spoiler below if anyone hasn't seen it]

There was guy setup in a room who was pretending to be a pedo so that the protagonist would kill him and his family would get paid by the antagonist.

The protagonist chooses not to kill him which also proves that it wasn't certain anyone else convicted by their psychic tech would have killed.

I’m not cheering this guy on but you’re not paying attention if you think people’s complaints about health insurance in general and UHG in particular amount to “unhappy customers.”

The entire system is an ineffective accountability sink that is highly vulnerable to vertical mergers that capture incredible amounts of money from our society while providing empirically subpar results — results on a dimension that matter quite a lot to people (the health and wellbeing of their loved ones)

Go do some Googling on the antitrust suits against the different combinations of UnitedHealthcare, Optum, and OptumRx.

What level of cognitive dissonance is required to refer to patients denied critical care as "unhappy customers"?

To argue in good faith, I have to assume that you believe what you've written. How should one interpret it? Be explicit.

>How would you feel if one of those unhappy customers showed up at your home and shot you dead?

If I were the face of a company using junk AI and other obstruction methods to achieve industry leading denial rates to potentially life saving healthcare, all to build up my company's coffers, I would feel pretty unsurprised.

Maybe he was surprised though. In a possibly apocryphal story, Alfred Nobel was so shocked on reading the way he was described in his (mistaken) obituary that he felt compelled to turn around his legacy.

>... some of those customers are unhappy...

That's a tremendously generous way of saying, "Many of their customers are dead because the company opted for profit over treatment".

RE ... that some of those customers are unhappy....

Articales show they had lots of unhappy customers.... Also when employes get income of several million a year seems excessive. The CEOS income was around $50,000 a business DAY , probably more that lots people earn in a year. Its reported these customers died/ went bankrupt as a result of insurance company refusals . ( Ive always thought needs to be much stronger government laws around documentation so people aware of what is covered and what is not, could have reduced the number of unhappy customers )

[flagged]

> Have you ever decided that some of those unhappy customers were unreasonable, or even totally wrong, given all the facts?

Yes. Happens all the time.

AND ... you seem to be implying that all companies are [ethically, morally, practically] the same.

Without taking a position on the shooting, I will tell you this: all companies are not the same. And this particular company seems to be one of the worst, and that too in an arena that directly impacts people's literal lives.

OK, but none of my customers die because I said no to a liver transplant.

The countless needlessly dead "customers" aren't really happy or unhappy anymore. They're dead.

Wanting to not be dead or miserable in exchange for a company fulfilling their obligations and maybe having billions in profit instead of billions in profit +1 is far from 'unreasonable'.

This CEO was not some faceless cog with no agency. He was someone with real power and control that willingly made decisions that actively severely and often fatally harmed his customers.

The company that did the worst thing I ever worked for did… drum roll… cold calls to random people trying to sell them beds, mattresses, pillows and blankets.

So I do feel morally in the clear to cheer over the death of someone whose bonus hinged on him increasing the suffering and reducing the life span of completely random, innocent people, that, as a group, only had in common „not being rich“.

If I was the CEO of a company and I made repeated conscious choices to deliberately deny people a life-saving service they paid for so I could get a slightly higher obscenely large bonus, I'd expect people to try and extract revenge.

UHC deliberately denied coverage to millions of people, at least hundreds of whom died as a result. Right now experts are saying that 7 out of 10 juries wouldn't vote to convict Luigi, and based on conversations I've had with people across the political spectrum I'd say the only jury that would convict Luigi is one made up entirely of healthcare executives.

I'm just surprised that this didn't happen sooner.

RE "...ever learned that some of those customers are unhappy...." There are even books about health care insurance industry practice of denying customers claims. Even research papers .... So is not just "...some unhappy customers ..." that is definite

>unhappy customers

This is hideous.

I've never been CEO of a company that directly profited off of human misery.