this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
132 points (95.2% liked)
Just Post
1009 readers
21 users here now
Just post something ๐
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Supposing he is a 'murderer', is there some reason he should be handled any different than any other murderer? Why the death penalty, tv coverage, nationwide man hunt, etc? Why don't all murderers get federal charges and the death penalty by default?
The point is, if he's going to be treated special by the prosecution then it's fair to treat him differently on the defense side, and that meant in the court of public opinion as well. Why villainize him while letting someone else off with a public defenders and a half asleep state prosecutor?
While I don't approve of unethical health insurance companies, in general I think it makes sense to treat attempts at societal change through assassination of high profile figures differently than other murders. Consider that guy targeting democrat state congresspeople, or the unabomber. If there's an expectation that this is just a normal part of how things work and the government isn't able to catch or convict the assassins, that's destabilizing for the whole country and brings us closer to something like a state of civil war.
Did he do that? Was there a threat that would make anytime think that's what happened? Was that known before he was treated 'differently'? Or was he treated differently just because the person that was murdered was rich? If the guy that has been killed had been a homeless person or a drug dealer do you think we'd have seen his face on national news?
Wasn't "delay deny defend" written on the bullet casings? The healthcare CEO was seemingly killed for how his company does business, a business that plays a central role in the lives of Americans and affects millions, the story here is not just about his bank account. You can argue that company affects people negatively. You could argue that politically motivated assassination in this case was good or justified. But I don't think it's a good argument to try to say that there is no reason to give such assassinations special attention, because there obviously is; preventing vigilante acts of assassination from being the determining factor in how the country is run.